|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
Let Zimmerman free. He isnt guilty =/
User was warned for this post
|
On April 27 2012 04:06 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 03:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 27 2012 03:30 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:On April 27 2012 03:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 27 2012 02:55 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:On April 26 2012 23:30 Felnarion wrote:On April 26 2012 23:14 Miyoshino wrote:
Dershowitz is an academic fraud. And on top of that he is a nasty narcissistic person.
Of course Zimmerman will get off. The law is fucked and allows for first degree murder. Can't wait until more people 'murder by stand your ground' until those idiots are forced to change their laws. After police left Bertalan, George Zimmerman arrived at the front door in a shirt and tie, she said. He gave her his contact numbers on an index card and invited her to visit his wife if she ever felt unsafe. He returned later and gave her a stronger lock to bolster the sliding door that had been forced open.
"He was so mellow and calm, very helpful and very, very sweet," she said last week. "We didn't really know George at first, but after the break-in we talked to him on a daily basis. People were freaked out. It wasn't just George calling police ... we were calling police at least once a week." The prosecution is going to try to convince the court that Zimmerman is a racist, and that this is enough to warrant a depraved mind...But given his background, given his actions, given how many people in his community, black and white and hispanic...Have stories where he's helped them, I don't see them getting very far with that at all. Since there's basically no way of knowing who confronted who or started the fight, I think the prosecution is going to argue that Z pursuing M in the first place was reckless behaviour and that this makes him forfeit his right to SYG. I'm sure Zs past of reporting blacks will be brought up, but that will not be what their case hinges on imo. you don't just get to bring in evidence of past acts willy-nilly. so-called character evidence is regularly excluded especially if used (like you are suggesting) to support some racist motive. 90.404 Character evidence; when admissible.
(1) CHARACTER EVIDENCE GENERALLY.--Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is inadmissible to prove action in conformity with it on a particular occasion, except:
(a) Character of accused.--Evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait.
(b) Character of victim.--
1. Except as provided in s. 794.022, evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait; or
2. Evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the aggressor.
(c) Character of witness.--Evidence of the character of a witness, as provided in ss. 90.608-90.610.
(2) OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS, OR ACTS.--
(a) Similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue, including, but not limited to, proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity.
(b)1. In a criminal case in which the defendant is charged with a crime involving child molestation, evidence of the defendant's commission of other crimes, wrongs, or acts of child molestation is admissible, and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.
2. For the purposes of this paragraph, the term "child molestation" means conduct proscribed by s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5) when committed against a person 16 years of age or younger.
(c)1. When the state in a criminal action intends to offer evidence of other criminal offenses under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b), no fewer than 10 days before trial, the state shall furnish to the defendant or to the defendant's counsel a written statement of the acts or offenses it intends to offer, describing them with the particularity required of an indictment or information. No notice is required for evidence of offenses used for impeachment or on rebuttal.
2. When the evidence is admitted, the court shall, if requested, charge the jury on the limited purpose for which the evidence is received and is to be considered. After the close of the evidence, the jury shall be instructed on the limited purpose for which the evidence was received and that the defendant cannot be convicted for a charge not included in the indictment or information.
(3) Nothing in this section affects the admissibility of evidence under s. 90.610. http://law.onecle.com/florida/evidence/90.404.html Alright, thanks for pointing that out, I'm just a hobby investigator :p What about the other part of my post. That's not something I've made up myself, but I'm not 100% sure it's correct. It made some sense when I was looking at the conditions for SYG though. From the OP. I think that will answer any questions on SYG's applicability. Yeah, I read that. I guess what I have trouble understanding is how one can argue for scenario M without being able to prove Z initiated the aggression. What I meant in my post was that since they can't prove who initiated physical aggression, they need to argue that Z was reckless/aggressive in the act of following M, and thus SYG can't apply.
i think the premise of the blog (and what i believe) is that SYG--which is basically a modification of standard self defense law stating that you have no duty to retreat even if able--does not apply to this case as under any scenario at no point was there an option to retreat. either trayvon attacked zimmerman, which would have prevented retreat since he was allegedly on top of him, or zimmerman attacked trayvon, which obviously wasn't self defense anyways. so, SYG's retreat rule is inapplicable to this case; its just standard self defense law. when i originally read the blog, i thought up a third scenario (completely speculating) that trayvon attacked zimmerman, somehow zimmerman got away and had the opportunity to retreat, but didn't. in that case SYG's retreat rule would apply, but that was just me making up stuff to test the rule and doesnt seem to fit with the facts that we "know."
i would argue that whether Z was reckless/aggressive in the alleged act of following M will have bearing on whether self defense law applies generally, but it doesn't really change the analysis for SYG's retreat rule.
|
My opinion of the matter is Zimmerman was just a vigilante who acted on assumptions and emotion rather than concrete evidence. He honestly wanted a safe neighborhood for his family and everybody in the community, and while his actions were over the top, I feel he was trying to live a life of virtue. It was a tragic moment of anxious ignorance, and all of this could have been avoided if he had listened to the police's instructions. His heart was in the right place, but damn it, these parents had to bury their child because of his actions. For that alone he deserves to be punished.
|
Russian Federation396 Posts
On April 27 2012 05:06 Sabin010 wrote:
My opinion of the matter is Zimmerman was just a vigilante who acted on assumptions and emotion rather than concrete evidence. He honestly wanted a safe neighborhood for his family and everybody in the community, and while his actions were over the top, I feel he was trying to live a life of virtue. It was a tragic moment of anxious ignorance, and all of this could have been avoided if he had listened to the police's instructions. His heart was in the right place, but damn it, these parents had to bury their child because of his actions. For that alone he deserves to be punished.
I agree with you completely, he obviously made a huge mistake and its taking a great toll on his life ever since. Honestly, after reading everything there is here and trying to stay active with the case day to day, I believe that Zimmerman should at most get a manslaughter charge. He had pure intentions and his background has empirical evidence which backs him up for this. I mean he's a top of the line man and honestly needs more support for him rather than against.
A mistake was made, a reasonable punishment should be put on him. From there on, move on, move away, and learn from this.
|
Trayvon Martin's killer raises more than $200,000 for defense
George Zimmerman, the former neighborhood watch volunteer who is accused of murder in the death of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin, has raised at least $200,000 through a website set up to fund his defense, his lawyer said on Thursday.
Donors contributed "just over $200,000," said Mark O'Mara, Zimmerman's defense lawyer.
The site set up to solicit funds for Zimmerman's defense, therealgeorgezimmerman.com, has since been shut down.
Zimmerman was released this week on $150,000 bail and has been moved to an undisclosed location. He had surrendered to police earlier this month after prosecutors charged him with second-degree murder in the February shooting death of Martin in a gated community in the central Florida town of Sanford.
Zimmerman has pleaded not guilty and says he killed Martin in self defense.
The incident has prompted civil rights protests and a national debate over guns, self-defense laws and race in America.
O'Mara told CNN that he would inform the judge in the case of the funds on Friday.
http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martins-killer-raises-more-200-000-defense-021028644.html
|
This gets more mixed up every time i read this im stil sure trayvon didnt deserved to die but also zimmerman seems to have some reasons to first carry a gun and secondly to be suspicious.
Only solution i see here is to get the neighbour watch some serious training
And the training would have to be better than the training police in US recieve becouse they messed up alot as well.
No real solution will be found here only thing wich could have prevented this is that no one carrys a gun and so after i thought guns are not problem here im back to the conclusion american gun laws are the reason for this :/
I know thats a bit off topic and i apologise but thats the conclusion i can make out of this...
Zimmerman is not a raging racist and trayvon is not a armed criminal still this seems to not be preventable at all...
And i agree a punishment needs to be put on Zimmerman but jailtime wont help this case and everything else seems to be a joke compared to the burial of a child.
if he needs to pay 200.000$ to the family still no one will be happy :/
|
On April 27 2012 17:00 dAPhREAk wrote:Trayvon Martin's killer raises more than $200,000 for defense Show nested quote +George Zimmerman, the former neighborhood watch volunteer who is accused of murder in the death of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin, has raised at least $200,000 through a website set up to fund his defense, his lawyer said on Thursday.
Donors contributed "just over $200,000," said Mark O'Mara, Zimmerman's defense lawyer.
The site set up to solicit funds for Zimmerman's defense, therealgeorgezimmerman.com, has since been shut down.
Zimmerman was released this week on $150,000 bail and has been moved to an undisclosed location. He had surrendered to police earlier this month after prosecutors charged him with second-degree murder in the February shooting death of Martin in a gated community in the central Florida town of Sanford.
Zimmerman has pleaded not guilty and says he killed Martin in self defense.
The incident has prompted civil rights protests and a national debate over guns, self-defense laws and race in America.
O'Mara told CNN that he would inform the judge in the case of the funds on Friday. http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martins-killer-raises-more-200-000-defense-021028644.html
FYI, under US law, you are not allowed to profit off a crime. But i'm not sure if this includes donations.
|
On April 27 2012 05:06 Sabin010 wrote:
these parents had to bury their child because of his actions. For that alone he deserves to be punished.
No... that really isn't enough to punish someone, unless you want to make self defense illegal because it causes your actions to kill people who have parents who will bury them.
|
On April 27 2012 18:02 woody60707 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 17:00 dAPhREAk wrote:Trayvon Martin's killer raises more than $200,000 for defense George Zimmerman, the former neighborhood watch volunteer who is accused of murder in the death of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin, has raised at least $200,000 through a website set up to fund his defense, his lawyer said on Thursday.
Donors contributed "just over $200,000," said Mark O'Mara, Zimmerman's defense lawyer.
The site set up to solicit funds for Zimmerman's defense, therealgeorgezimmerman.com, has since been shut down.
Zimmerman was released this week on $150,000 bail and has been moved to an undisclosed location. He had surrendered to police earlier this month after prosecutors charged him with second-degree murder in the February shooting death of Martin in a gated community in the central Florida town of Sanford.
Zimmerman has pleaded not guilty and says he killed Martin in self defense.
The incident has prompted civil rights protests and a national debate over guns, self-defense laws and race in America.
O'Mara told CNN that he would inform the judge in the case of the funds on Friday. http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martins-killer-raises-more-200-000-defense-021028644.html FYI, under US law, you are not allowed to profit off a crime. But i'm not sure if this includes donations.
Well its not a crime yet, until he is proven guilty he is innocent.
|
On April 27 2012 05:06 Sabin010 wrote:
My opinion of the matter is Zimmerman was just a vigilante who acted on assumptions and emotion rather than concrete evidence. He honestly wanted a safe neighborhood for his family and everybody in the community, and while his actions were over the top, I feel he was trying to live a life of virtue. It was a tragic moment of anxious ignorance, and all of this could have been avoided if he had listened to the police's instructions. His heart was in the right place, but damn it, these parents had to bury their child because of his actions. For that alone he deserves to be punished.
This seems about right, except I'm not quite as convinced as you about the specifics of how the story unfolded and whether Z should be punished.
|
Let me address a difficult issue:
What if Zimmerman is found innocent?
|
@Friedrich I don't think he's going to be found "innocent", because the state can go for lesser charges still, but the charges may be dropped, or he will be acquitted, if there's a difference between the 2. We can all pray that America has come forward since the days of Rodney King, but when his assaulters (the police officers that beat him) were acquitted, rioters tried to burn LA to the ground.
This is a lose-lose situation in it's entirety. Trayvon's family lost a young child, and Zimmerman lost his life, figuratively. Whether he gets sentenced for a crime, or gets acquitted and has to relocate like Casey Anthony, nobody is coming out of this ahead.
|
On April 27 2012 04:22 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 04:06 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:On April 27 2012 03:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 27 2012 03:30 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:On April 27 2012 03:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 27 2012 02:55 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:On April 26 2012 23:30 Felnarion wrote:On April 26 2012 23:14 Miyoshino wrote:
Dershowitz is an academic fraud. And on top of that he is a nasty narcissistic person.
Of course Zimmerman will get off. The law is fucked and allows for first degree murder. Can't wait until more people 'murder by stand your ground' until those idiots are forced to change their laws. After police left Bertalan, George Zimmerman arrived at the front door in a shirt and tie, she said. He gave her his contact numbers on an index card and invited her to visit his wife if she ever felt unsafe. He returned later and gave her a stronger lock to bolster the sliding door that had been forced open.
"He was so mellow and calm, very helpful and very, very sweet," she said last week. "We didn't really know George at first, but after the break-in we talked to him on a daily basis. People were freaked out. It wasn't just George calling police ... we were calling police at least once a week." The prosecution is going to try to convince the court that Zimmerman is a racist, and that this is enough to warrant a depraved mind...But given his background, given his actions, given how many people in his community, black and white and hispanic...Have stories where he's helped them, I don't see them getting very far with that at all. Since there's basically no way of knowing who confronted who or started the fight, I think the prosecution is going to argue that Z pursuing M in the first place was reckless behaviour and that this makes him forfeit his right to SYG. I'm sure Zs past of reporting blacks will be brought up, but that will not be what their case hinges on imo. you don't just get to bring in evidence of past acts willy-nilly. so-called character evidence is regularly excluded especially if used (like you are suggesting) to support some racist motive. 90.404 Character evidence; when admissible.
(1) CHARACTER EVIDENCE GENERALLY.--Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is inadmissible to prove action in conformity with it on a particular occasion, except:
(a) Character of accused.--Evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait.
(b) Character of victim.--
1. Except as provided in s. 794.022, evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait; or
2. Evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the aggressor.
(c) Character of witness.--Evidence of the character of a witness, as provided in ss. 90.608-90.610.
(2) OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS, OR ACTS.--
(a) Similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue, including, but not limited to, proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity.
(b)1. In a criminal case in which the defendant is charged with a crime involving child molestation, evidence of the defendant's commission of other crimes, wrongs, or acts of child molestation is admissible, and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.
2. For the purposes of this paragraph, the term "child molestation" means conduct proscribed by s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5) when committed against a person 16 years of age or younger.
(c)1. When the state in a criminal action intends to offer evidence of other criminal offenses under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b), no fewer than 10 days before trial, the state shall furnish to the defendant or to the defendant's counsel a written statement of the acts or offenses it intends to offer, describing them with the particularity required of an indictment or information. No notice is required for evidence of offenses used for impeachment or on rebuttal.
2. When the evidence is admitted, the court shall, if requested, charge the jury on the limited purpose for which the evidence is received and is to be considered. After the close of the evidence, the jury shall be instructed on the limited purpose for which the evidence was received and that the defendant cannot be convicted for a charge not included in the indictment or information.
(3) Nothing in this section affects the admissibility of evidence under s. 90.610. http://law.onecle.com/florida/evidence/90.404.html Alright, thanks for pointing that out, I'm just a hobby investigator :p What about the other part of my post. That's not something I've made up myself, but I'm not 100% sure it's correct. It made some sense when I was looking at the conditions for SYG though. From the OP. I think that will answer any questions on SYG's applicability. Yeah, I read that. I guess what I have trouble understanding is how one can argue for scenario M without being able to prove Z initiated the aggression. What I meant in my post was that since they can't prove who initiated physical aggression, they need to argue that Z was reckless/aggressive in the act of following M, and thus SYG can't apply. i think the premise of the blog (and what i believe) is that SYG--which is basically a modification of standard self defense law stating that you have no duty to retreat even if able--does not apply to this case as under any scenario at no point was there an option to retreat. either trayvon attacked zimmerman, which would have prevented retreat since he was allegedly on top of him, or zimmerman attacked trayvon, which obviously wasn't self defense anyways. so, SYG's retreat rule is inapplicable to this case; its just standard self defense law. when i originally read the blog, i thought up a third scenario (completely speculating) that trayvon attacked zimmerman, somehow zimmerman got away and had the opportunity to retreat, but didn't. in that case SYG's retreat rule would apply, but that was just me making up stuff to test the rule and doesnt seem to fit with the facts that we "know." i would argue that whether Z was reckless/aggressive in the alleged act of following M will have bearing on whether self defense law applies generally, but it doesn't really change the analysis for SYG's retreat rule.
Ahh, I see what you're saying now.
But about the bolded part. Even if the State argues that the self sefense law doesn't apply because Z "initially provokes the use of force against himself" by following M, the defense of Z can still claim that Z "reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm" and thus it applies again. Of course such a claim could be dismissed, but it seems like a tough case to win for the State.
|
On April 27 2012 22:44 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
Let me address a difficult issue:
What if Zimmerman is found innocent?
Is this a philosophical question? :p
|
On April 27 2012 04:22 NaEjeOn88 wrote:
Let Zimmerman free. He isnt guilty =/
you're right he didn't shoot an innocent kid at all.
User was warned for this post
|
On April 13 2012 12:36 Ownos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 08:23 sevencck wrote:On April 13 2012 06:41 meadbert wrote:
Following someone is not confronting them. According to both Zimmerman and Martin's girlfriend it was Martin who confronted Zimmerman. I understand what you guys are saying now and I apologize for any confusion. You're not denying that Zimmerman armed himself and followed Trayvon, you're merely denying that that constitutes a confrontation, saying that the ensuing confrontation may not have been Zimmerman's intent and arguing my points on that basis. I should clarify. This is a reasonable point to make, but I disagree with it. First of all, in my opinion this is highly confrontational behavior. Yes, you're right to argue that following someone is not a crime, but it's contextual isn't it? I'll remind you that the definition of assault is a crime which involves causing a victim to apprehend violence. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know all ramifications and limitations of that definition though, but it's worth mention. Perhaps dAPhREAk can clarify. You can say I wasn't there to witness what happened, but the fact is there is a record of Trayvon's phonecall with his girlfriend describing the situation, worried about being followed, and basically apprehending violence. Whatever Zimmerman was doing, it was making Trayvon afraid. In other words, it wasn't just simple "following." If your behavior is obviously causing someone distress and making them fearful for their safety, then you can't write this off as non aggressive or non confrontational behavior and that Zimmerman was merely "following" Treyvon and it was no problem. Treyvon turned and asked Zimmerman why he was following him moments before being shot. If you're behaving in a way that is making someone afraid for their life, and likely to respond defensively then your behavior is inappropriate, particularly when that person hasn't been caught doing anything wrong. It is also not appropriate to subsequently blame the "confrontation" on the other person. Further, you can't play the deer in headlights when said behavior prompts the other person to defend themselves. Stupidity is not a defense. The fact that Zimmerman was armed and ready to shoot makes his behavior even more irresponsible. Yeah, I think Zimmerman did shoot to defend himself. But only after provoking an altercation in the first place. I bet Trayvon felt threatened, I would be if this guy was following me. And if he pulled anything I sure as hell would be kicking and flailing away. I don't think murder conviction will happen, I don't it's even appropriate to label this murder anything. Likely manslaughter. I know in law, they don't allow using a person's character as "evidence", but Z keeps sounding scummier, anger prone, and power hungry the more I read things. And so what if T got suspended from school and possessed marijuana? Wow, just like most other boys in school. Big deal. It will be interesting to see how the actual trial goes, so we don't have to deal with all this media sensationalizing making people make up their minds before everything is accounted for.
I agree with this. It might have been a case of provoking something that has gone way beyond his control and he only acted in an irrational manner. But there are aggravating points against him, specifically, the gun.
|
For me after reading all the evidence, this is the result of Police failing to protect the taxpaying citizens and nothing more. Both Martin and Zimmerman are victims here. On top of the police failing to protect the citizens, the citizens also failed at protecting themselves. The right to self-defense in your own home is important. While many people will argue that GUNS are bad, I can guarantee you arm the neighborhood and give them the proper training that there wouldn't be any break ins. You have the right to protect yourself and its your fault if you don't. People complain about crime and whine to their government to take care of it. Taxes go up then to pay for the police, new security measures and to enact to laws that usually cause more harm then good.
I personally do not see how this is a civil rights case at all. If Zimmerman was black would this have gotten the same attention? No instead the media has turned a country against itself because people are that dumb to not make decisions for themselves.
|
On April 27 2012 23:08 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 22:44 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
Let me address a difficult issue:
What if Zimmerman is found innocent? Is this a philosophical question? :p
It's serious. With all the media coverage and with people seeming having made up their minds on this one already, how would a contrary decision be accepted by the public.
|
On April 27 2012 23:26 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2012 12:36 Ownos wrote:On April 13 2012 08:23 sevencck wrote:On April 13 2012 06:41 meadbert wrote:
Following someone is not confronting them. According to both Zimmerman and Martin's girlfriend it was Martin who confronted Zimmerman. I understand what you guys are saying now and I apologize for any confusion. You're not denying that Zimmerman armed himself and followed Trayvon, you're merely denying that that constitutes a confrontation, saying that the ensuing confrontation may not have been Zimmerman's intent and arguing my points on that basis. I should clarify. This is a reasonable point to make, but I disagree with it. First of all, in my opinion this is highly confrontational behavior. Yes, you're right to argue that following someone is not a crime, but it's contextual isn't it? I'll remind you that the definition of assault is a crime which involves causing a victim to apprehend violence. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know all ramifications and limitations of that definition though, but it's worth mention. Perhaps dAPhREAk can clarify. You can say I wasn't there to witness what happened, but the fact is there is a record of Trayvon's phonecall with his girlfriend describing the situation, worried about being followed, and basically apprehending violence. Whatever Zimmerman was doing, it was making Trayvon afraid. In other words, it wasn't just simple "following." If your behavior is obviously causing someone distress and making them fearful for their safety, then you can't write this off as non aggressive or non confrontational behavior and that Zimmerman was merely "following" Treyvon and it was no problem. Treyvon turned and asked Zimmerman why he was following him moments before being shot. If you're behaving in a way that is making someone afraid for their life, and likely to respond defensively then your behavior is inappropriate, particularly when that person hasn't been caught doing anything wrong. It is also not appropriate to subsequently blame the "confrontation" on the other person. Further, you can't play the deer in headlights when said behavior prompts the other person to defend themselves. Stupidity is not a defense. The fact that Zimmerman was armed and ready to shoot makes his behavior even more irresponsible. Yeah, I think Zimmerman did shoot to defend himself. But only after provoking an altercation in the first place. I bet Trayvon felt threatened, I would be if this guy was following me. And if he pulled anything I sure as hell would be kicking and flailing away. I don't think murder conviction will happen, I don't it's even appropriate to label this murder anything. Likely manslaughter. I know in law, they don't allow using a person's character as "evidence", but Z keeps sounding scummier, anger prone, and power hungry the more I read things. And so what if T got suspended from school and possessed marijuana? Wow, just like most other boys in school. Big deal. It will be interesting to see how the actual trial goes, so we don't have to deal with all this media sensationalizing making people make up their minds before everything is accounted for. I agree with this. It might have been a case of provoking something that has gone way beyond his control and he only acted in an irrational manner. But there are aggravating points against him, specifically, the gun.
Could you clarify what you mean by this?
I disagree with a lot of his post. Particularly, I think Z comes off better looking the more I read as a lot of the media are beginning to report a more nuanced view rather than the initial sensationalism.
|
On April 27 2012 23:35 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2012 23:08 Sonic Death Monkey wrote:On April 27 2012 22:44 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
Let me address a difficult issue:
What if Zimmerman is found innocent? Is this a philosophical question? :p It's serious. With all the media coverage and with people seeming having made up their minds on this one already, how would a contrary decision be accepted by the public.
Yeah, I figured it was. I just thought it was a vague question and considering it was authored by Friedrich Nietzsche himself...
Anyway, since I'm not American, it's hard for me to give a good comment. What I do think, however, is that the issue of racism mainly need to be about how the case has been handled by the authorities. I think it's becoming increasingly clear that Zimmerman is not a racist nut-job. It's likely he was a bit more suspicious of unknown black young males because of the recent history of crimes in his neighbourhood. On a spectrum of racism, this puts him very far from the extreme end. I think the main focus should be giving a fair trial and that this process is what should be the main object of criticism, not Zimmerman.
PS. I'm not saying Zimmerman doesn't deserve criticism for his actions, but that is a secondary issue which has been way overplayed already.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
