Zimmerman needs to learn how to fight. He got his a$$ handed to him. It was proven that he can't even throw a punch. Pathetic.
And Trayvon got shot. Now you tell me; who got the last laugh?
I'm pretty sure dead people can't laugh.
Zimmerman needs to learn how to fight. He got his a$$ handed to him. It was proven that he can't even throw a punch. Pathetic.
And Trayvon got shot. Now you tell me; who got the last laugh?
I'm pretty sure dead people can't laugh.
Zimmerman needs to learn how to fight. He got his a$$ handed to him. It was proven that he can't even throw a punch. Pathetic.
And Trayvon got shot. Now you tell me; who got the last laugh?
Comments like this makes me seriously ashamed of being a human being.
@kuonphobos said:
Any relevant links at hand?
Wouldn't it be very difficult to prove that a police officer was "racially" profiling?
Nobody said that a police officer was racially profiling. You asked if it was illegal, what you should have got out of what lykopis just said is that for George Zimmerman it's not illegal to racially profile because he has no authority. For the Police it is. Your question was answered.
I appreciate your reply (condescension notwithstanding) but my question was not answered. I asked to see evidence that it is illegal for police to racially profile.
There are at least two nations represented by individuals in this conversation and I am not at all certain that it is illegal in the United States as a whole or in certain States for police officers to racially profile. I can do the research myself of course but I thought with such confident statements someone might have evidence/facts readily at hand in the form of links.
And it still remains that it seems to me that it would be very difficult to demonstrate that a police officer was racially profiling if said police officer was able to refrain from making verbal statements which were captured on some video or some such.
_____________________
EDIT - did some digging and it wasn't easy to find any ACTUAL discussion of the legal underpinnings that demonstrate why racial profiling (or "biased based profiling") is illegal in the USA. But I finally found this link
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31130.pdf
As I suspected, demonstrating that racial profiling has occurred is extremely difficult and currently requires demonstrable evidence that others acting in the same fashion but of a different race were overlooked.
@kuonphobos said:
I appreciate your reply (condescension notwithstanding) but my question was not answered. I asked to see evidence that it is illegal for police to racially profile.
There are at least two nations represented by individuals in this conversation and I am not at all certain that it is illegal in the United States as a whole or in certain States for police officers to racially profile. I can do the research myself of course but I thought with such confident statements someone might have evidence/facts readily at hand in the form of links.
And it still remains that it seems to me that it would be very difficult to demonstrate that a police officer was racially profiling if said police officer was able to refrain from making verbal statements which were captured on some video or some such.
Your original question was answered. The question I responded to which was "is racial profiling illegal". I didn't even attempt to answer your second question about links in such, I read it wrong. I thought you were asking something else. I apologize if my response came off as condescending. I don't personally have any links that state that racial profiling is illegal, because I don't get my information about what the law is from the internet. I get it from the news and from people I know that are officers or work in the legal field. Maybe lykopis has some links.
Regardless of my feelings on the situation, our criminal justice system is based on the principal of a defendant being "innocent until proven guilty". Despite the emotional tangents of this situation the prosecution had a poor case and the jury did what it was supposed to. The prosecution needed to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Zimmerman was guilty, and they failed to do so. It is not racism, it is the way the system is designed to work. If the crime was white on white with the same facts it would have turned out the same.
I did some digging and it wasn't easy to find any ACTUAL discussion of the legal underpinnings that demonstrate why racial profiling (or "biased based profiling") is illegal in the USA. But I finally found this link
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31130.pdf
As I suspected, demonstrating that racial profiling has occurred is extremely difficult and currently requires demonstrable evidence that others acting in the same fashion but of a different race were overlooked.
It is illegal for Federal Agents but there remain loopholes regarding national security.
(I reposted this edit to my previous post so it wouldn't be missed in the flow of conversation)
I case anyone cares.
@lunacyde said:
Regardless of my feelings on the situation, our criminal justice system is based on the principal of a defendant being "innocent until proven guilty". Despite the emotional tangents of this situation the prosecution had a poor case and the jury did what it was supposed to. The prosecution needed to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Zimmerman was guilty, and they failed to do so. It is not racism, it is the way the system is designed to work. If the crime was white on white with the same facts it would have turned out the same.
I think the reason people see something racist in the verdict because they feel like if the shoe was on the other foot and they switched skin tones, regardless of the lack of evidence George Zimmerman would be in jail, and or even if that wasn't the case..they at the very least wouldn't have had to think about whether they were going to even try him or not.
@lunacyde said:
Regardless of my feelings on the situation, our criminal justice system is based on the principal of a defendant being "innocent until proven guilty". Despite the emotional tangents of this situation the prosecution had a poor case and the jury did what it was supposed to. The prosecution needed to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Zimmerman was guilty, and they failed to do so. It is not racism, it is the way the system is designed to work. If the crime was white on white with the same facts it would have turned out the same.
I think the reason people see something racist in the verdict because they feel like if the shoe was on the other foot and they switched skin tones, regardless of the lack of evidence George Zimmerman would be in jail, and or even if that wasn't the case..they at the very least wouldn't have had to think about whether they were going to even try him or not.
I understand how people feel, I'm not happy about it either, but Zimmerman is Hispanic, not white. This isn't a black /white things, and most people bigoted enough to be racist against blacks are no less racist against Hispanics. I equate this to the Casey Anthony Trial...I sure as heck don't like it, but I don't think they had enough evidence to satisfy the legal requirements.
Maybe getting out of your car when you see something going on isnt always such a bad thing?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/22/us/florida-zimmerman-vehicle/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
(CNN) -- Four days after he was acquitted of murder, George Zimmerman stepped out of seclusion to help a family get out of an overturned vehicle in Florida, authorities said Monday.
Zimmerman and another man helped four people get out of an SUV that had overturned Wednesday evening in Sanford -- the same community where the former neighborhood watch volunteer fatally shot unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin in 2012 -- Seminole County Sheriff's Office spokeswoman Heather Smith said.
Authorities were called after the SUV went off the road and rolled over in the area of Interstate 4 and State Road 46. By the time a deputy arrived, Zimmerman and another man already had helped the two adults and two children out of the vehicle, Smith said.
Zimmerman did not witness the crash, and he left after making contact with the deputy, Smith said. No injuries were reported.
Zimmerman has been out of the public eye since a jury found him not guilty of second degree murder on July 13. His parents told ABC News last week that their family has received an "enormous amount of death threats."
He fatally shot Martin in the Sanford neighborhood where Zimmerman and Martin's father lived in February 2012. Zimmerman, a Hispanic man, had a confrontation with the African-American teen after calling police to report a suspicious person, and he said he shot Martin in self-defense.
The case became a flashpoint in debates over racial profiling, and thousands attended vigils across the country over the weekend, decrying the verdict.
I understand how people feel, I'm not happy about it either, but Zimmerman is Hispanic, not white. This isn't a black /white things, and most people bigoted enough to be racist against blacks are no less racist against Hispanics.
I don't know if everyone believes that just based on their own experiences with the law and their treatment of different races.
Right, I don't disagree that the trial went the way it did based on what little they had to go on but, I understand why people would find racist undertones in not only the incident itself but also the trial and statements made afterwards.
@willpayton: That's a pretty incredibly story, the man is a hero.
@willpayton: That's a pretty incredibly story, the man is a hero.
Agreed!
@willpayton: That's a pretty incredibly story, the man is a hero.
Agreed!
No he is not.
@willpayton: That's a pretty incredibly story, the man is a hero.
Agreed!
No he is not.
He's not the hero we deserve, but he's the hero we need right now.
@willpayton: I don't recall a child molester being a hero, I know there is no definitive proof of the claim but I think it was too detailed not to be true.
@willpayton: I don't recall a child molester being a hero, I know there is no definitive proof of the claim but I think it was too detailed not to be true.
Come on now, that's a bit uncalled for. As you say, there's no proof so why even bring it up?
He saved that family.
@willpayton: I don't recall a child molester being a hero, I know there is no definitive proof of the claim but I think it was too detailed not to be true.
Hehe... dont get too wound up, I was just agreeing with the "hero" comment because I thought it was being sarcastic, and so was I. Mind you I dont think he's evil either. People bring their own preconceived notions into this case and ignore the facts. Most already make up their minds about his guilt or innocence before the case even started.
@willpayton: I don't recall a child molester being a hero, I know there is no definitive proof of the claim but I think it was too detailed not to be true.
Come on now, that's a bit uncalled for. As you say, there's no proof so why even bring it up?
He saved that family.
Yeah. I dont see cause from the Martin case to call him either a hero or a villain. It was a bad situation and they both made mistakes that led to a confrontation.
But here it looks like he helped save some people from a crashed car. We should at least acknowledge that.
@willpayton: I don't recall a child molester being a hero, I know there is no definitive proof of the claim but I think it was too detailed not to be true.
Come on now, that's a bit uncalled for. As you say, there's no proof so why even bring it up?
He saved that family.
I said there is no "definitive" proof. Maybe it was uncalled for but frankly, right now I really don't care.
@willpayton: I don't recall a child molester being a hero, I know there is no definitive proof of the claim but I think it was too detailed not to be true.
Hehe... dont get too wound up, I was just agreeing with the "hero" comment because I thought it was being sarcastic, and so was I. Mind you I dont think he's evil either. People bring their own preconceived notions into this case and ignore the facts. Most already make up their minds about his guilt or innocence before the case even started.
lol I see. I came off the way I did because frankly i'm sick and tired of hearing about this sh!t Zimmerman was fount not guilty people deal with it. People are taking this sh!t too far now and frankly it getting on my last nerves. Two black guys beat up an Hispanic male and while they were doing this horrendous act they said and I quote "this is for Travon". Now tell me what is that accomplishing? Nothing. This murder was not done behind race at all. Zimmerman did not say "Hey! there is a black kid let me follow him, because he's black" That was simply not the case at all as some people want to out it. Do I think he profiled Treyvon? Yes, yes I do. Do I believe he killed Trayvon for being black as some people claim? No, no he did not. I hate cases like this when what ever side you take the other side is going to perceive you as the villain it does nothing but divide us. And the news is not helping it any better have you watch Fox News network? Some moron on there said Obama, is trying to tear the nation apart with this case when I heard this I said WTF? Really? To make a very long story short I'm neutral in this case.
@dccomicsrule2011 said:
@willpayton: I don't recall a child molester being a hero, I know there is no definitive proof of the claim but I think it was too detailed not to be true.
Come on now, that's a bit uncalled for. As you say, there's no proof so why even bring it up?
He saved that family.
I said there is no "definitive" proof. Maybe it was uncalled for but frankly, right now I really don't care.
Either way you're simply attacking his character and ignoring his actions, those that can be proven anyway.
btw, who won the Yugioh tourney?
@dccomicsrule2011 said:
@willpayton: I don't recall a child molester being a hero, I know there is no definitive proof of the claim but I think it was too detailed not to be true.
Come on now, that's a bit uncalled for. As you say, there's no proof so why even bring it up?
He saved that family.
I said there is no "definitive" proof. Maybe it was uncalled for but frankly, right now I really don't care.
Either way you're simply attacking his character and ignoring his actions, those that can be proven anyway.
btw, who won the Yugioh tourney?
Maybe lol I'm just mad because i'm realy really really really really really really really tired of hearing this case, he was found not guilty, some people just have to live with it.
Umm I am one of the final 3 but there is a bit of a problem...... They do not have three way duels on dueling Network so we have no idea how we are going decide the winner. lol I made it because I always.......
@dccomicsrule2011: I'm tired of it too, I wish people would just move on from it but, they do what they do. lol
Good luck! =D
lol I see. I came off the way I did because frankly i'm sick and tired of hearing about this sh!t Zimmerman was fount not guilty people deal with it. People are taking this sh!t too far now and frankly it getting on my last nerves. Two black guys beat up an Hispanic male and while they were doing this horrendous act they said and I quote "this is for Travon". Now tell me what is that accomplishing? Nothing. This murder was not done behind race at all. Zimmerman did not say "Hey! there is a black kid let me follow him, because he's black" That was simply not the case at all as some people want to out it. Do I think he profiled Treyvon? Yes, yes I do. Do I believe he killed Trayvon for being black as some people claim? No, no he did not. I hate cases like this when what ever side you take the other side is going to perceive you as the villain it does nothing but divide us. And the news is not helping it any better have you watch Fox News network? Some moron on there said Obama, is trying to tear the nation apart with this case when I heard this I said WTF? Really? To make a very long story short I'm neutral in this case.
Totally agree.
@xanni15: Indeed, it's time to put this sad case behind us.
Thanks =P There is noway I will lose with the Heart Of The Cards on my side. =D
The only good thing to come from the verdict is that it shows who values all life relatively equally and highlights those who don't value other humans who have adaptations to hot climates and higher UVA and UVB protection from the Suns rays.
@theblackswordsman: Zimmerman was following Trayvon because Trayvon who had just finished smoking a joint looked suspicious. He was not some cherubim and physically assaulted Zimmerman to the point of his life being threatened, Zimmerman then shot and killed him in self defense.
Zimmerman was acting like a dick but he never broke the law.
@theblackswordsman: Zimmerman was following Trayvon because Trayvon who had just finished smoking a joint looked suspicious. He was not some cherubim and physically assaulted Zimmerman to the point of his life being threatened, Zimmerman then shot and killed him in self defense.
Zimmerman was acting like a dick but he never broke the law.
Zimmerman followed Trayvon to the point where Trayvon feared for his safety and confronted Zimmerman and attacked someone he felt was a danger to him i.e. Trayvon stood his ground.
Zimmerman provoked the confrontation in the hopes that he could use his gun on someone and get away with it.
Whenever the national media gets a hold over any court case it f***s up the entire system. Everyone is told what to think without examining any real facts of the case, then the jurors have to acquit on the smallest possible amounts of doubt (even beyond what most people would consider reasonable). Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman are only the more recent examples of how demonizing defendants before a case is even begins can impede our justice system. I'm not going to comment on whether I believe he was guilty or not guilty but lets not pretend that everyone's mind wasn't already made up long before they commented here.
@theblackswordsman: Zimmerman was following Trayvon because Trayvon who had just finished smoking a joint looked suspicious. He was not some cherubim and physically assaulted Zimmerman to the point of his life being threatened, Zimmerman then shot and killed him in self defense.
Zimmerman was acting like a dick but he never broke the law.
Zimmerman followed Trayvon to the point where Trayvon feared for his safety and confronted Zimmerman and attacked someone he felt was a danger to him i.e. Trayvon stood his ground.
"Standing your ground" doesnt mean "throw the first punch". If Trayvon felt threatened he's allowed to stand his ground, but simply talking to the person that approached him would have been enough... and smarter than physically attacking him.
If you think that you can start a fight just because someone follows you... you're wrong.
You have no idea what Zimmerman was thinking.
@willpayton said:
@theblackswordsman: Zimmerman was following Trayvon because Trayvon who had just finished smoking a joint looked suspicious. He was not some cherubim and physically assaulted Zimmerman to the point of his life being threatened, Zimmerman then shot and killed him in self defense.
Zimmerman was acting like a dick but he never broke the law.
Zimmerman followed Trayvon to the point where Trayvon feared for his safety and confronted Zimmerman and attacked someone he felt was a danger to him i.e. Trayvon stood his ground.
"Standing your ground" doesnt mean "throw the first punch". If Trayvon felt threatened he's allowed to stand his ground, but simply talking to the person that approached him would have been enough... and smarter than physically attacking him.
If you think that you can start a fight just because someone follows you... you're wrong.
Stand your ground allows you to use reasonable force without requiring one to evade of retreat (or simply talk to the person) when you feel you are in danger. Trayvon felt he was in danger.
If you think that you cannot use physical force on someone when you feel that you are in danger....you're wrong.
Zimmerman provoked the confrontation in the hopes that he could use his gun on someone and get away with it.
You have no idea what Zimmerman was thinking.
I have just as much of an "Idea" what Zimmerman was thinking as anyone who claimed that he killed Trayvon in self defense because he felt his life was in danger: I don't see you commenting that they have no idea what Zimmerman was thinking.
Stand your ground allows you to use reasonable force without requiring one to evade of retreat (or simply talk to the person) when you feel you are in danger. Trayvon felt he was in danger.
If you think that you cannot use physical force on someone when you feel that you are in danger....you're wrong.
A dangerous situation is needed to justify Standing Your Ground. You can't just go around punching people if you feel you are danger.
George Zimmerman confronted Trayvon and the conversation maybe turned heated but I doubt it got to the point where Trayvon could genuinely fear for his well being, Zimmerman however was physically being assaulted.
I doubt Trayvon who was a thug would back down from a fight that wasn't needed. Then again that might not be his rational choice because he had just smoked marijuana and that can (sometimes usually the opposite) lead to increased aggression
@willpayton said:
Stand your ground allows you to use reasonable force without requiring one to evade of retreat (or simply talk to the person) when you feel you are in danger. Trayvon felt he was in danger.
If you think that you cannot use physical force on someone when you feel that you are in danger....you're wrong.
I like how you not only know what Zimmerman was feeling and thinking, you also know what Martin was feeling and thinking. That's an amazing power you have. Do you need a crystal ball, or does this knowledge just pop into your head?
Also, I didnt say anything about being "in danger". If you cant be bothered to read what I wrote, why are you replying to me? Is it just so you can say the same thing over and over? I said that you cant start a fight just because you're being followed. You're the one adding the "is in danger" stuff. From the evidence I saw only Zimmerman was "in danger", as shown by the wounds on the back of his head and nose.
@theblackswordsman said:
In other words, you have no idea whatsoever.
I don't see you commenting that they have no idea what Zimmerman was thinking.
And because I didnt comment on something, that proves... what exactly?
@theblackswordsman: Stand your ground allows you to use reasonable force without requiring one to evade of retreat (or simply talk to the person) when you feel you are in danger. Trayvon felt he was in danger
First we don't know if Trayvon felt his life was in danger. He didn't sound scared in his phone call. he may have just been pissed off that a "creepy ass cracker" was following him. But let's assume Trayvon DID feel threatened. He used "Stand Your Ground" which is legal. But by invoking "Stand Your Ground" he gave Zimmerman the right to Stand His Ground. So neither people would be guilty of anything because they both had reason to "Stand Your Ground".
Stand your ground allows you to use reasonable force without requiring one to evade of retreat (or simply talk to the person) when you feel you are in danger. Trayvon felt he was in danger.
If you think that you cannot use physical force on someone when you feel that you are in danger....you're wrong.
A dangerous situation is needed to justify Standing Your Ground. You can't just go around punching people if you feel you are danger.
George Zimmerman confronted Trayvon and the conversation maybe turned heated but I doubt it got to the point where Trayvon could genuinely fear for his well being, Zimmerman however was physically being assaulted.
I doubt Trayvon who was a thug would back down from a fight that wasn't needed. Then again that might not be his rational choice because he had just smoked marijuana and that can (sometimes usually the opposite) lead to increased aggression
If you feel as if you are in danger then you are in a dangerous situation as you see it and if you feel you are in a dangerous sitiation where you are in danger, as Trayvon felt he was in danger because he was being followed and confronted by a strange individual, then stand your ground is justified, which it was on Trayvons part and he was right, he was in danger.
Trayvon feared for his well being as soon as he noticed Zimmerman following him, as any sane individual would. You doubting that Trayvon feared for his safety is simply bias, and not supported by the evidence.
Trayvon felt he was in danger and therefore on his mind the fight was necessary. If you feel you are in danger. You dounbting what Trayvon would do because you feel he is a thug( a generalizing and prejudging label furthur highlighting your bias ). Marijuana does not heighten aggression and you yourself typed that it decreases aggression in most cases but you assume that it increased it in Trayvons case when you yourself stated that the chances of it decreasing aggression were more likely percentage-wise. Bias once again.
You simply do not value Trayvons life because he had adaptations to protect against hot climates and sunlight. You simply lack the guts to admit it.
@willpayton said:
Stand your ground allows you to use reasonable force without requiring one to evade of retreat (or simply talk to the person) when you feel you are in danger. Trayvon felt he was in danger.
If you think that you cannot use physical force on someone when you feel that you are in danger....you're wrong.
I like how you not only know what Zimmerman was feeling and thinking, you also know what Martin was feeling and thinking. That's an amazing power you have. Do you need a crystal ball, or does this knowledge just pop into your head?
Also, I didnt say anything about being "in danger". If you cant be bothered to read what I wrote, why are you replying to me? Is it just so you can say the same thing over and over? I said that you cant start a fight just because you're being followed. You're the one adding the "is in danger" stuff. From the evidence I saw only Zimmerman was "in danger", as shown by the wounds on the back of his head and nose.
What you like is of no concern to me whatsoever. If you cannot comprehend when someone is giving their opinion without the caveat of a a statement explicitly explaining it as such then perhaps you should avoid online conversations if you cannot be bothered to interpret what you have read or need to pretend as if you have not.
I never stated that you said anything about him being in danger I was informing you that him being followed and stalked made him feel that he was in danger supported by the evidence of him being shot in the heart proving that his life was indeed in danger as the results showed.
You have made many claims on this thread that you wish this would go away but your actions do not lend credence to these claims as you have constantly quoted and argued with many people even when they were not addressing you and have insulted people multiple times concerning their medication when they posted strong opinions that you did not like. You don't want it to go away, you simply want to use this a topic and thread, once again, to attack others and vent your frustrations and pass the time.<--Do you need me to implicitly state that that is my opinion or are you going to stop pretending that you don't understand that it is? The question, as you should know full well, is rhetoric.
Goodbye. You will get no further attention from me.
Wrong. The individual who initially made the other feel that their life was in danger would be the guilty party in that scenario. Almost any human being would feel that they are in danger if being stalked and followed by an individual, regardless of what they said or how they said it.
@theblackswordsman: http://adai.uw.edu/marijuana/factsheets/aggression.htm
Zimmerman may have followed him but he confronted and started talking to Trayvon. I doubt Trayvon who was a thug cared about what he was saying....
Even if Trayvon was following Stand Your Ground so was Zimmerman so if what your saying is true (doubt it) then Trayvon was in the right and so was Zimmerman
@theblackswordsman: The individual who initially made the other feel that their life was in danger would be the guilty party in that scenario.
The "SYG" law does NOT only apply to the person who initially felt threatened. The law only requires that you feel threatened at some point. Whether you felt threatened first, second or third doesn't matter. Can you show where the law only applies to the person who initially felt threatened?
@theblackswordsman: Stand your ground allows you to use reasonable force without requiring one to evade of retreat (or simply talk to the person) when you feel you are in danger. Trayvon felt he was in danger
First we don't know if Trayvon felt his life was in danger. He didn't sound scared in his phone call. he may have just been pissed off that a "creepy ass cracker" was following him. But let's assume Trayvon DID feel threatened. He used "Stand Your Ground" which is legal. But by invoking "Stand Your Ground" he gave Zimmerman the right to Stand His Ground. So neither people would be guilty of anything because they both had reason to "Stand Your Ground".
I don't even know why this is still being debated. You're 100% right. Zimmerman might not be guilty, but he was stupid and irresponsible. Now there should be a law against that since it leads to the death of someone.
@theblackswordsman: Stand your ground allows you to use reasonable force without requiring one to evade of retreat (or simply talk to the person) when you feel you are in danger. Trayvon felt he was in danger
First we don't know if Trayvon felt his life was in danger. He didn't sound scared in his phone call. he may have just been pissed off that a "creepy ass cracker" was following him. But let's assume Trayvon DID feel threatened. He used "Stand Your Ground" which is legal. But by invoking "Stand Your Ground" he gave Zimmerman the right to Stand His Ground. So neither people would be guilty of anything because they both had reason to "Stand Your Ground".
I don't even know why this is still being debated. You're 100% right. Zimmerman might not be guilty, but he was stupid and irresponsible. Now there should be a law against that since it leads to the death of someone.
It is still being debated because the "court of public opinion" is not satisfied. The link below shows that African Americans are EXTREMELY against the verdict and believe it was about race not facts. Some believe the law should be changed. Some think Zimmerman should be held responsible in some way. People still want to express their opinion on those topics.
http://news.yahoo.com/wide-racial-gap-reaction-zimmerman-verdict-112952910.html
@theblackswordsman: Stand your ground allows you to use reasonable force without requiring one to evade of retreat (or simply talk to the person) when you feel you are in danger. Trayvon felt he was in danger
First we don't know if Trayvon felt his life was in danger. He didn't sound scared in his phone call. he may have just been pissed off that a "creepy ass cracker" was following him. But let's assume Trayvon DID feel threatened. He used "Stand Your Ground" which is legal. But by invoking "Stand Your Ground" he gave Zimmerman the right to Stand His Ground. So neither people would be guilty of anything because they both had reason to "Stand Your Ground".
I don't even know why this is still being debated. You're 100% right. Zimmerman might not be guilty, but he was stupid and irresponsible. Now there should be a law against that since it leads to the death of someone.
It is still being debated because the "court of public opinion" is not satisfied. The link below shows that African Americans are EXTREMELY against the verdict and believe it was about race not facts. Some believe the law should be changed. Some think Zimmerman should be held responsible in some way. People still want to express their opinion on those topics.
http://news.yahoo.com/wide-racial-gap-reaction-zimmerman-verdict-112952910.html
No, I was actually just referring to on this website. I understand the people who protest on the streets, but some of the comments from the people here are just plain ignorant and scary. Thanks for the link though.
If there was a law against being stupid and irresponsible, half of America would have to be put in prison immediately.
But, dont mind me... everyone please continue to argue who was guilty in this case that was already settled by a jury. I'm sure everyone here has a better grasp of the facts and the law than the jury that made the decision.
My facts I made are better then the facts the jury learned!
Anyway I just pray for Trayvon and am pretty apathetic to Zimmermen none of us were there, do I think he was stupid for ignoring the police, yup, past that none of us knew what truelly happened. But Zimmermen is untouchable now, no way he can get a job, or walk down the street or go anywhere after the trial destroyed him. Whatever, both sides lost a life in the phsical form for one family in the hypothetical form for one man.
I am not arguing guilt -- Zimmerman was found not guilty according to the laws in that state. I was discussing racial profiling and its part in this tragedy, in my opinion.
he was stupid and irresponsible. Now there should be a law against that...
If there was a law against being stupid and irresponsible, half of America would have to be put in prison immediately.
But, dont mind me... everyone please continue to argue who was guilty in this case that was already settled by a jury. I'm sure everyone here has a better grasp of the facts and the law than the jury that made the decision.
I did add the part where it said "since it lead to the death of someone"....
he was stupid and irresponsible. Now there should be a law against that...
If there was a law against being stupid and irresponsible, half of America would have to be put in prison immediately.
But, dont mind me... everyone please continue to argue who was guilty in this case that was already settled by a jury. I'm sure everyone here has a better grasp of the facts and the law than the jury that made the decision.
I did add the part where it said "since it lead to the death of someone"....
That's true. But, there are laws dealing with negligence that leads to death. And, simply acting stupid isnt cause to convict someone of murder or even manslaughter.
The big problem I see in this thread is that people seem to think they know what Zimmerman and Martin were thinking and feeling. But, no one knows. There's also a lot that happened there that's relevant to this case, and only Zimmerman knows for sure.
If you take away all the speculation and only look at the facts, you end up with the verdict the jury handed down. The fact that there's this much debate about it only shows that 1) people let themselves be easily manipulated by the media, and 2) people make their decisions first based on their biases and then justify them later.
On a related note, there's been studies that show that the subconscious mind makes decisions for you before you even think you've made the decision. What you think is you making a decision is just your mind rationalizing what the subconscious already decided to do.
So you guys can keep talking at each other, it will make zero difference. No one will change anyone's minds.
This is for all the people who are outraged over the Martin killing.... where was your outrage when this happened? Where was the President? Where was Sharpton and Jackson? Where was Eric Holder? Where were the cries to change the law? Where were the protests? Where were the smashed windows and burned cars?
http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/
I understand it happened in 2009, but explain to me what was different?
Six days after a Florida jury acquitted a Hispanic man in the shooting death of an African-American teen, President Barack Obama made his first extensive comments on the case, speaking in personal terms about his own experience of being black in America.
" Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago," the president said in the remarks, made Friday during a surprise appearance in the White House press room. Mr. Martin, a 17-year-old African-American, was shot and killed in Florida last year in a case that riveted millions of Americans and sparked debate over the state of race relations in the country.
In rarely made comments about race, Barack Obama discussed the Trayvon Martin case, saying the slain 17-year-old "could have been me 35 years ago" and explaining why the case is so painful to African Americans.
Saying he would leave arguments about the verdict to legal analysts, Mr. Obama didn't critique last Saturday's acquittal of George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watchman who faced various charges related to the killing.
But he tried to explain the lens through which black Americans may see the case, saying that their own experiences and the country's history with race inform how many view what happened to Mr. Martin.
"There are very few African-American men who haven't had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars," Mr. Obama said. "That happens to me—at least before I was a senator."
The remarks, delivered without a teleprompter, were a striking example of America's first black president seeking to guide the country's thinking on race without inflaming racial tensions or undermining the judicial system. They also amounted to Mr. Obama's most pointed comments about race since his 2008 presidential campaign.
Mr. Obama issued a brief statement the day after the Martin verdict was handed down. He urged calm and compassion, noting that "a jury has spoken." Missing, though, was any personal reflection from a president with a unique perspective on the matter.
As the week wore on, the drumbeat from civil-rights groups asking Mr. Obama to speak out and take action continued.
In recent days, the president had conversations with a number of people about this issue before offering a detailed reaction, White House spokesman Jay Carney said. Privately, the president had outlined ahead of time the gist of his remarks.
"He knows what he thinks, and he knows what he feels, and he has not just in the past week, but for a good portion of his life, given a lot of thought to these issues," Mr. Carney said. The president spoke just before a series of planned weekend protests over the verdict.
The president's comments won praise from Benjamin Todd Jealous, the president and chief executive of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, who called it a powerful moment. "That our president has been profiled should encourage all Americans to think deeply about both the depth of this problem and how our country moves beyond it," he said in a statement.
Still, underscoring the tensions that continue to fester, Abigail Thernstrom, vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said Mr. Obama's original statement on the case struck the right tone and that Friday's follow-up could have the unintended consequence of ratcheting up racial tension.
"Mr. President, you said what should have been said: A verdict has been rendered," she said. "Leave it at that."
In Friday's remarks, Mr. Obama appeared to be trying to use the megaphone of the White House to affect the national discussion, and particularly to infuse it with a greater appreciation of African-American viewpoints. He didn't propose any formal government reaction, and didn't weigh in on the decision his administration still has to make, which is whether to pursue a case against Mr. Zimmerman using federal civil rights laws.
Mr. Obama did, however, propose an examination of state and local laws to consider whether some encourage altercations such as the one that took Mr. Martin's life. He said the Justice Department should work with local law enforcement to reduce mistrust in the system, and said that, in the long term, more needs to be done to support African-American boys.
Mr. Obama questioned whether "stand your ground" laws in Florida and other states, which allow individuals to use reasonable force to defend themselves, are contributing to the peace and security communities want.
Responding to calls to launch a national dialogue on race, Mr. Obama said such discussions often are more productive in churches and workplaces and within families.
"I haven't seen that be particularly productive when politicians try to organize conversations," he said. "They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have."
As president, Mr. Obama has taken a careful tack on racial issues, picking his spots carefully after delivering a detailed exploration of race in Philadelphia at a pivotal moment in his 2008 campaign. Then, he said that race is an issue the nation can't afford to ignore, noting that the country had yet to work through the complexities of the subject.
"If we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American," he said.
Since then, Mr. Obama has shied from sweeping speeches focused on race, saying in 2009, "I'm not somebody who believes that constantly talking about race somehow solves racial tensions."
On Friday, Mr. Obama noted that African-Americans are disproportionately victims as well as perpetrators of violence. And while he called for soul-searching on matters of race, he said he sees signs of improvement.
"Each successive generation seems to be making progress in changing attitudes when it comes to race," he said. "It doesn't mean that we're in a postracial society. It doesn't mean that racism is eliminated. But you know, when I talk to [daughters] Malia and Sasha and I listen to their friends and I see them interact, they're better than we are."
Maybe getting out of your car when you see something going on isnt always such a bad thing?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/22/us/florida-zimmerman-vehicle/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
(CNN) -- Four days after he was acquitted of murder, George Zimmerman stepped out of seclusion to help a family get out of an overturned vehicle in Florida, authorities said Monday.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment