Everything I read from those who are upset with the verdict glosses over a key point. I see posts like "Any of my students could be Trayvon" or the mother on the news last night who said "My kids walk home all the time they could be Trayvon. I'd tell them to do the same thing he did." "My son would be Trayvon" "This sets a precedent that it's ok to kill a kid for walking home." All these things totally ignore the FACT that Trayvon was NOT killed for walking home. He was shot because he was beating someone up. The evidence backed up the theory that he was the aggressor in the confrontation. So if you want your kids, students, neighbors, etc. to avoid getting shot by a "wannabe cop," teach them about not jumping to violence. Zimmerman was dumb to follow Trayvon but he was not criminal. The reason he was dumb is not because it is wrong to check to make sure someone isn't a criminal, he was dumb because most of the time it's going to end up being the Zimmerman in the story that gets hurt or killed in the situation. Trayvon probably had a combination of anger and fear when he was being followed and knowing it wasn't a cop he decided to teach the guy a lesson and he paid with his life. Here's a newsflash for everyone in case they didn't know this. Even if you think someone is following you, the laws that say you can't attack someone don't go out the window. If a woman thinks a man is following her she doesn't have the right to jump him and start beating on him with a baseball bat or something.
As usual, the only people who are educated or have worthwhile opinions about race relations are those who have the same thoughts as you.
Damn fine post, sad to say. I still think dude should have had a manslaughter charge stick -- if you beat someone to death in a bar fight, that's what happens (or worse), so I don't see how this is different. My take home point of this whole sad mess is this: it is ridiculous that the nation gets riled up by one case instead of the big awful picture. Like it's a surprise that Florida has weird-ass laws? We need to be upset in Houston and California about that? CNN, Fox and the 24-hour news gang just love crap like this. The only thing they love more than a trial that involves race and gun rights, is a trial that might result in RIOTS! Oh boy! How can we get people so mad that they'll tear **** up?! Spent a lot of last night listening to helicopters circling our city here (SF) while cop cars raced here and there following random smatterings of gunfire. THANKS, CNN! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! I've tuned out from all of them, and I mean ALL of them. Think about it this way. When Cronkite and those guys worked for your viewership, they wanted you once, maybe twice a day. How did they try to earn that? By being professional, informative and reliable. Sure, they would go for the sexy, gripping story sometime, but nothing like what was to come. Fast forward. How do you get some chump (or a retired couple like my poor parents) to watch 24-7? You get them emotionally involved. You create a narrative with good guys and bad guys, with "teams" to root for. You make it an emotional addiction. There's ZERO overlap with what news should actually be for the good of the population. Sorry for my repetitive rants. Peace all.
You're missing a key point. There is a large group of people out there who do not know the details of this trial. They actually believe Zimmerman gunned him down in cold blood. The media accomplished exactly what they want, to misinform the public, create an outcry and watch their ratings shoot through roof.
Actually what you just did is the real disgrace. You ASSUMED that GZ profiled TM. You just lazily assumed GZ did this, without all the facts. The real issue exposed by this case are the number of people who can be SO EASILY biased by the media's incomplete and biased reporting on this case, and those same people's laziness in mentally connecting the dots rather than actually getting the facts. THAT is the real problem -- I hope this opens your eyes to the need to think more critically about issues, rather than continue your intellectual laziness.
I think a more accurate statement would be the evidence could not prove either was the aggressor, therefore, acquittal.
If you followed the case, you'll know that the majority of the outcry came from the way the incident was handled by local law enforcement, thus resulting in no charges being filed, and therefore no trial. Up until the trial, and even during most of it, the chatter was relatively tame compared to the weeks following the shooting. Of course the verdict will cause a big stink either way, but that's a no brainer.
from my twitter feed "How cool would it be to live in a world where George Zimmerman offered Trayvon Martin a ride home to get him out of the rain that night."
you are playing on sympathies rather than facts. You're still trying to blame GZ even after he was found not guilty. just admit that you were a victim of lazy thinking on this case and were too biased to actually see the real facts
The evidence doesn't back up that theory. It just failed to back up (apparently) the theory that Zimmerman was beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn't remove the concerns those people you are talking about have.
So did the evidence show that Martin did not attack Zimmerman because he felt his life was threatened (he was being stalked by an armed man, after all)? If not, then we can't draw the conclusion that Martin was the "aggressor". Both people may have been acting in self-defense.
Not self defence if you attack someone who is just following you. What if a person is walking to their house and TM just happened to walk in the same direction then lashes out at said person for being "stalked"?
The person initiating the confrontation was not acting in self defense. Prosecution could not prove GZ initiated it. Following a person and asking them questions does not justify a legal use of self defense by that person. This is speaking hypothetically, not what actually could be proven in the case.
That's because you're too intellectually lazy to follow the facts. You see controversy and immediately jump to what you perceive as a "compromise" without actually taking the time to understand what manslaughter really entails. I largely agree with the rest of your rant on the media
