The Zimmerman Verdict

Manslaughter is something of a catch-all for "You killed somebody". Basically it's what you charge someone with when they killed someone without premeditation, without malice, and while not committing a felony lol. Self-defense, however, trumps Manslaughter.

If the jury hadn't believed Zimmerman acted in self-defense, but didn't think he acted with malice, they'd have convicted him of manslaughter.

As for the rest, you're speculating wildly. Given that Zimmerman and Martin's ultimately confrontation was roughly as far from his truck as you'd expect him to have gotten in the period where he was running, there's little evidence to support the claim that he continued to search for Trayvon. Indeed, he seemed distinctly uneasy about the situation on the phone, worried about disclosing his address for fear that Trayvon might be listening.

It's possible that he walked further down that alley, of course, but he didn't make it especially far if he did.
 
Why do you still not accept that Zimmerman is the cause of this conflict? He was following, even if he stopped running after him because he can't keep up, he was still following. he caused the issue, he killed a kid because of this.

And here's another thing people often ignore:

Trayvon Martin was an unarmed teenager, George Zimmerman was a 29 year old man with a gun. George Zimmerman had a responsibility as an fully grown adult, a member of his community and a gun owner that Trayvon martin did not. Trayvon Martin was a kid with no weapon, who was doing nothing that warranted being harassed by Zimmerman and who was probably completely unaware of any problems the gated community might have been having. Zimmerman was licensed by the state of Florida to own and carry a concealed weapon, he was a long term member of that community and, most importantly, he was no longer a dumbass teenager.

George Zimmerman should have known better, George Zimmerman should have acted differently under the circumstances and George Zimmerman had the responsibility to do so. He did not because he was an overzealous idiot with a gun who wanted to prove he was a big man. George Zimmerman was the catalyst for everything that happened that night because he was acting stupidly.

Outside the scope of his authority as a civilian.
Against the suggestion of a 911 Operator.
Beyond what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances.
Because he had an authority complex (by the FBI's own admission/investigation)

Under the eyes of the law, an adult has more responsibility and legal obligation than those who are not considered "of age."

Honestly, do you people who own a gun just sympathize with Zimmerman because you put yourself that deeply in his shoes? You don't want to be tried for manslaughter if you were following someone you believed was suspicious and it got them killed, huh? It's not self defense if the conflict arises by your very actions in the first place.
 
Elemmire said:
Why do you still not accept that Zimmerman is the cause of this conflict?
Click to expand...
Why do you continue with the FICTION that treyvon martin was an innocent angel that was brutally hunted and killed in cold blood by a sadistic psychotic monster(the devil himself, the way you're acting), that TM contributed absolutely nothing to the series of events that led to his death, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary? He was the cause of the night's events, the actual conflict that led to the shooting(ie, the assault), however, you have absolutely ZERO proof that zimmerman started.

Both sides made mistakes that led to the shooting. Stop acting like TM was completely innocent in everything and that GZ was a monster who just wanted to kill someone.

Honestly, do you people who own a gun just sympathize with Zimmerman because you put yourself that deeply in his shoes? You don't want to be tried for manslaughter if you were following someone you believed was suspicious and it got them killed, huh? It's not self defense if the conflict arises by your very actions in the first place.
Click to expand...
Zimmerman should never have been charged. The cops at the scene saw that things matched up to his story of events, and let him go. They only arrested him because of people who didn't know what had happened were screaming for blood, and still are because they feel like they know better than the experts and the people who actually investigated the scene. The arrest AND the trial were merely an attempt to appease the public pressure, because people like you are ignoring all of the facts and making up your own version of what happened and want zimmerman murdered by the state to appease your fantasy.

I don't sympathize with zimmerman because I own guns, that is frankly an outright insulting assumption. I know that I'm likely to never enter into this kind of a situation; I genuinely hope that I never have to even point them towards another living thing(I don't hunt), that does not mean I won't if someone it attacking me though. You're basically saying that we have absolutely no right to personal safety, and that we should go back to the playground days of the biggest kids who can fight the best do whatever they want, because using guns to defend yourself is wrong or cowardly or some other nonsense.
 
Last edited:
I think they're both accountable for what happened that night, but it doesn't change the fact that Martin is dead and Zimmerman is the person who put him there and not being held responsible for any of the events that night.

He was the catalyst as Ele put it. He was the adult, Martin the punk ass kid who likely thought himself a thug, sure. But an unarmed thug who was being followed by some creepy character first, slowly in his truck through the neighbourhood then on foot. Raes, I do think Zimmerman continued pursuing him. He didn't run for long from what I can tell from the 911 recording.. that suggests he wasn't in all that great shape and from your own speculations you believe he got approx 3-4 blocks.. he did -not- make it that distance in the amount of time he was running with a phone against his face. So I can only assume, and yes I know, it's all speculation and assumption, that he continued looking for Martin. Plus the fact that he claimed the only reason he got out of his truck was to give them a better idea of where Martin had gone. Saying 'these fucks always get away' also suggests he was frustrated that he couldn't see him any more... but was still searching.

Not sure how credible this image is, but assuming it is, Zimmerman didn't even get to the path between the houses by the sounds of his running/slowing on the recording. Where's the proof Martin got as far as the far street and didn't initially take the path as a short cut before seeing Z was still following/pursuing him and deciding instead to turn around and call him out for it? Obviously not a smart thing to do, but not a lot of 17 yr olds are very bright. He may have been feeling rather bold at that point. All of which we don't know.

If Z was heading back to his truck, why the hell did he go down the path? He was not going back to his truck.. not if this diagram is accurate. He was hunting Martin lol

zimmerman_1000.jpg


As far as manslaughter is concerned, idk how it can mean something different in the states than here. Honestly, self-defense only stands up for so much here. You can and will still get a charge of manslaughter (often enough) if you find yourself in a situation where you are defending yourself/family/household and ultimately end up killing a person you didn't intend to by using excessive force. As I've said before, there are situations where I don't agree, I'm glad it's viewed case by case for that reason. And because Zimmerman had pegged this young man trouble, assumed and was bold enough to make claims to the 911 operator that he knew he was to no good, on something, something was wrong with him etc etc.. and continued to follow/pursue him he did initiate the events that night. Even if he did get jumped, that makes Martin a stupid punk kid, much like he was, who should have gotten an assault charge. Had Zimmerman gotten back in his truck and waited for the authorities, Martin likely would have been followed/escorted home after questioning and that's it. So yea.. I think Zimmerman is responsible at least 50% for the events that night and should face some consequences.. aside from living with the knowledge he ended a young mans life who for all he knew was doing nothing but minding his business.

Hell, maybe Martin was casing the neighbourhood, maybe he was behind the burglaries... that night.. he hadn't done anything but hit the store until he started getting annoyed/freaked out/intimidated or you guess, by some man in a truck.

There are so many maybes.
 
Last edited:
Getting really tired of the bleeding heart bullshit. Tray is dead, and I don't like it. However, unjustly butchering Zim is NOT going to bring him back.

Why was he wrong? He volunteered for a neighborhood watch program that needed it. Was he armed? Yup. Did he need to be? Apparently fucking so considering he was getting the shit kicked out of him. Was Tray a thug? Apparently so, considering most non-thugs would not turn around and beat the shit out of someone for just following them. Did poor little Tray feel threatened as is being argued here? Apparently not enough to actually get away.

Zim is NOT some hunter that had his weapon drawn, stalking his prey with an evil sneer on his face the whole time. He is a neighborhood watch volunteer simply patrolling the neighborhood, just trying to keep tabs on a suspicious character while waiting for the police which had already been called.

Watching him get roasted the way he has been, just makes me want to not be involved in anything at all. If I'm walking down the street and see someone suspicious poking around my neighbor's house. Fuck him, why should I get involved?
 
alanon said:
Watching him get roasted the way he has been, just makes me want to not be involved in anything at all. If I'm walking down the street and see someone suspicious poking around my neighbor's house. Fuck him, why should I get involved?
Click to expand...

This, unfortunately, is going to be the real outcome of this trial. It's sad, but I don't blame anyone for feeling this way.
 
As I said, at 17 I would likely have done similar, more likely from a distance... well not 17.. but 15 yes. I was invincible, I had the right to tell anyone off who caused me stress right. Add some testosterone, a bad punk ass attitude and you have someone who can go from uneasy to pissed off enough to confront someone.

I'm roasting Zimmerman? No.. I'm sharing what I feel is likely the reasoning behind the escalation that night. If you don't think Zimmerman holds ANY accountability as to the events that evening, that is sad... really.

Yes he volunteered for Community Watch, so as a part of the community watch his responsibilities end at making a call to the cops, which he did... he then got out of his vehicle and pursued TM. Not.his.job. Whether his actions intimidated TM or pissed him off probably both by the end of it all, doesn't mean TM didn't have the right to confront Z. He did, they exchanged words, probably not nice ones, Z likely accursational, TM likely chalk full of smugness and attitude and it escalated from there. No matter how it went down, it'll never make me feel any differently about Z having some responsibility and accountability for the events that occurred.

I know my man would confront someone following him, it would likely make him uneasy and then pissed off. I can see it, I know him well. Brad has thrown the first punch a few times after judging a situation. He's said to me more times than I can count that he -knows- when a punch is going to be thrown regardless of how well he tries to defuse a situation... so is he supposed to wait to get smacked first? We all agree 1 punch -can- kill...

All that aside, his life was lost and it didn't have to be. Z would have survived that fight... cops were on their way and he didn't have severe wounds, although he didn't know that.
 
Getting tired of quoting, so I'll just address each person's points in turn, lol.

FOR ELE:
Zimmerman's pursuit is irrelevant if he didn't catch Trayvon, for the purposes of the court. Even if he had caught Trayvon, if he didn't start the fight, it's irrelevant for the purposes of the court.

Yes, Zimmerman kicked the whole thing off by following Trayvon. Yes, Zimmerman's pursuit of Trayvon on foot could be construed as an escalation of the incident.

But.

That doesn't matter in the eyes of the law. There's nothing illegal about following someone. Nor is there anything illegal in attempting to shake off someone tailing you.

What is illegal is punching the person tailing you in the face.

As for Zimmerman's authority complex, again, you're misquoting the evidence in the case. The FBI report in question doesn't conclude anything regarding that; what it does is quote the Sanford police detective Chris Serrino as believing that Zimmerman was a bit overzealous and had a little hero complex. That's not some sort of complicated investigation or finding, it's the opinion of one man, offered while the FBI was investigating the possibility that Zimmerman had committed a hate crime. An investigation that turned up nothing, by the way.




FOR CHEEBS:
That map is a bit out of date; it was compiled before actual court documents were released. Zimmerman stated he parked almost directly in front of that cut-through, rather than across the street from it, if I recall correctly, and it's almost possible to use that truck as a placeholder for his.

What you're missing here on that map is scale. That entire cut-through is like 200 feet long. It easily fits within the necessary timeline.

The final position of Trayvon's body was around 20 feet from the T-junction there, so above the range defined in that map. It also leaves out some key bits of evidence; various bits of paraphernalia scattered along the path of the hypothetical fight, particularly the fact that Zimmerman's keys were found just a little "south" (I forget the actual orientation of the streets, so we'll just use the map's orientation for the purposes of this discussion) of the T-junction, which tends to support that he was walking back to his car, and that is where the confrontation began.

Zimmerman's testimony of how the fight got from point A (the T-junction) to point B (Trayvon's body) is pretty vague. The fact that his keys are dropped at the start indicates that that's where the confrontation began, but how it moved another 20-odd feet south is... problematic.

As far as manslaughter goes, you're describing something usually referred to in the states as "imperfect self-defense", a situation where the defendant believes that lethal force is necessary to defend themselves, but the court finds that their belief was unreasonable (e.g., someone took a swing at me so I shot him.) The application of the concept varies from state to state, however. Florida law is a little vague to be honest. I'm not sure if the state recognizes the concept, but it could be argued under the wording of their self-defense statutes.

Where US law differs from Canadian law on self-defense (and its relation to manslaughter) is in defining what use of force is allowable. To begin with, that definition varies from state to state.

In this particular case, the only cap on allowable force in Florida law is lethal force, which can only be used in defense of life or grievous bodily harm. Anything up to that is allowable under ordinary circumstances. While you're obviously not allowed to start kicking the guy once he's down, you can do anything necessary to repel his aggression short of killing him.

Where I personally find Canadian law to be a fucking nightmare is that any force used in self-defense has to be ruled as "reasonable". That creates a situation where self-defense is an extremely dicey proposition in most circumstances. It's impossible to know for certain in advance what amount of force will be allowable under a given set of circumstances, leaving people who are attempting to defend themselves in an invidious position.

I'll take the typical US law on that count, personally. I'm a big fan of "castle doctrine", for example, and while I can see the enormous problems inherent in "stand your ground" statutes, I can also see where they could save lives or stop good people from going to jail.
 
Bajaratt said:
Why do you continue with the FICTION that treyvon martin was an innocent angel that was brutally hunted and killed in cold blood by a sadistic psychotic monster(the devil himself, the way you're acting), that TM contributed absolutely nothing to the series of events that led to his death, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary? He was the cause of the night's events, the actual conflict that led to the shooting(ie, the assault), however, you have absolutely ZERO proof that zimmerman started.

Both sides made mistakes that led to the shooting. Stop acting like TM was completely innocent in everything and that GZ was a monster who just wanted to kill someone.


Zimmerman should never have been charged. The cops at the scene saw that things matched up to his story of events, and let him go. They only arrested him because of people who didn't know what had happened were screaming for blood, and still are because they feel like they know better than the experts and the people who actually investigated the scene. The arrest AND the trial were merely an attempt to appease the public pressure, because people like you are ignoring all of the facts and making up your own version of what happened and want zimmerman murdered by the state to appease your fantasy.

I don't sympathize with zimmerman because I own guns, that is frankly an outright insulting assumption. I know that I'm likely to never enter into this kind of a situation; I genuinely hope that I never have to even point them towards another living thing(I don't hunt), that does not mean I won't if someone it attacking me though. You're basically saying that we have absolutely no right to personal safety, and that we should go back to the playground days of the biggest kids who can fight the best do whatever they want, because using guns to defend yourself is wrong or cowardly or some other nonsense.
Click to expand...


Where did I ONCE say Trayvon was entirely innocent or did no wrong? I never said he didn't. He should have called the cops at first, definitely. He should have shouted and said to stop following him. Who knows, who cares. Under the eyes of the law, the adult is still more culpable than the underaged kid. Even if he's a 17 year old teen, by Florida state law he was NOT an adult and is not held to the same standards as Zimmerman.

And you have ZERO proof that Trayvon started the fight. You have Zimmerman's testimony, that's not proof, that's a piece of evidence. But evidence does not equate to proof.

And Raes, you admit that his actions escalated the problem and then pretend that he has a right to call self defense? Bullshit. And how you think that he wasn't the direct cause of the confrontation in the first place for agitating Trayvon by following when he did not have the right to do so (you can not tail people as a civilian, even cops can be charged for harassment for doing so, and I've already said how following someone can be considered harassment and that is very much illegal.)? Ya, why are the consequences of his actions ignored? Why is he free of all consequences for his actions? If Trayvon had stopped following (no he did not, stop that bullshit, even Zimmerman admitted he continued pursuit) and went back to his car and sat waiting for the cops and THEN Trayvon attacked him while Zimmerman was on his way back to his car or sitting in his car? Ya, then it would be grounds for self defense. But that wasn't what happened. Even by Zimmerman's own account of the night.
 
Last edited:
Elemmire said:
And you have ZERO proof that Trayvon started the fight. You have Zimmerman's testimony, that's not proof, that's a piece of evidence. But evidence does not equate to proof.
Click to expand...

True, but there's zero evidence that Zimmerman started the fight, and relatively little motivation for Zimmerman to start a fist fight. He had a gun. Why resort to fisticuffs with someone who can kick your ass?

Elemmire said:
And Raes, you admit that his actions escalated the problem and then pretend that he has a right to call self defense? Bullshit.
Click to expand...

Actually, yes, he still has the right to self-defense. I could get up in your face, call your mother a syphilitic whore who has sex with donkeys, and if you swing on me, I have the right to defend myself.

Elemmire said:
And how you think that he wasn't the direct cause of the confrontation in the first place for agitating Trayvon by following when he did not have the right to do so (you can not tail people as a civilian, even cops can be charged for harassment for doing so, and I've already said how following someone can be considered harassment and that is very much illegal.)?
Click to expand...

You can say it all you like, but that doesn't make it true outside of the Elemmireverse. Following isn't a crime. Repeated following, that falls into the category of stalking, and that is a crime. But following? Not so much.


Elemmire said:
Ya, why are the consequences of his actions ignored? Why is he free of all consequences for his actions?
Click to expand...

Consequences like, oh, going to trial for murder?

Oh, wait, that wasn't ignored at all. Even though it probably should have been.

Elemmire said:
If Trayvon had stopped following (no he did not, stop that bullshit, even Zimmerman admitted he continued pursuit) and went back to his car and sat waiting for the cops and THEN Trayvon attacked him while Zimmerman was on his way back to his car or sitting in his car? Ya, then it would be grounds for self defense. But that wasn't what happened. Even by Zimmerman's own account of the night.
Click to expand...

HAVE YOU EVEN FUCKING READ ZIMMERMAN'S OWN ACCOUNT OF THE NIGHT?!?!

Clearly not, since you keep lying about it.

His account, from the time he got out of the car, in short: Followed Trayvon, was told not to follow Trayvon, stopped following Travyon, finished phone call, walked back to car. Halfway to car, jumped by angry black kid, fight ensues, kid gets shot.

Yes, Zimmerman's account has Trayvon attacking him while Zimmerman is on his way back to his car.

Basically, his account says that he stopped running when he was informed that following was unnecessary, did continue to walk to the end of the cut-through supposedly to get his bearings, but made no further attempt to locate or follow Trayvon Martin. Trayvon approached him from his left at the T-junction while he was walking back to his truck, and subsequently confronted/attacked him.
 
Elemmire said:
Where did I ONCE say Trayvon was entirely innocent or did no wrong? I never said he didn't. He should have called the cops at first, definitely. He should have shouted and said to stop following him. Who knows, who cares. Under the eyes of the law, the adult is still more culpable than the underaged kid. Even if he's a 17 year old teen, by Florida state law he was NOT an adult and is not held to the same standards as Zimmerman.
Click to expand...
No, you haven't outright said it, but you're sure as hell acting like it. You've been looking to crucify zimmerman, acting like he is solely responsible for everything that happened. Until this last post, you've been completely ignoring TM's shared responsibility in what happened. Just because he was 17 at the time, doesn't mean that he's not responsible for what happened. It just means that the sentence wouldn't have been as bad if he was the one on trial.

And you have ZERO proof that Trayvon started the fight. You have Zimmerman's testimony, that's not proof, that's a piece of evidence. But evidence does not equate to proof.
Click to expand...
No, I don't. But I've also never said that he did start the fight. In fact, I've said that it's completely irrelevant who started the fight in chat, because it doesn't change how the rest of the events played out. You are the one ASSUMING, based on nothing but your own personal story of what happened that night, that zimmerman started the fight. No one knows, and it doesn't even matter, so stop complaining about it.

Zimmerman did nothing illegal, that's why they let him go. What he did can be immoral, sure, but in the eyes of the law he did nothing wrong.

It's extraordinarily telling just how bad the prosecution's case was, how stupid the entire freaking trial was, because without even watching the trial or the evidence, there's one simple fact: that the jury voted he was not guilty even after the solid year of damning that the media has been giving zimmerman from day 1. The media decided that he was guilty, just like you have, without actually looking at any evidence, regardless of what all of the experts were saying, and they were doing their damnedest to taint the ever loving fuck out of any jury pool so that zimmerman would get killed.
 
I see the smart people are still smart and the dumb people are still dumb, carry on QCDN.

PS: Baja and Raes are the smart ones, so you know what I think of you if you aren't in agreement.
 
Mind blowing contribution. Rather be considered dumb with some integrity and principal than just show up to suck on some ass.
 
Speaking of idiots, out president came out today (7/19) with comments on the case:

He also called for a review of so-called "Stand Your Ground" laws, a central issue in the case.

"If Trayvon Martin was of age and was armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk?" Obama asked. "If the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we should examine those laws."
Click to expand...

I've never really liked Obama, but I haven't really liked a president or any candidate in 17 years. This comment is just full of stupid. As Raes has pointed out, the Stand your Ground law was never used by Zim, and is only being spouted by "journalists" and on internet message boards. Furthermore, the application of said law to someone being followed is just asinine. I expect this level of ignorance from the general public, but the fucking president of the United States? Way to go pres! I know Bush had some dumb ass comments and set the bar low, but it seems it wasn't set low enough that Obama couldn't limbo under it with ease...

"If a white male teen would have been involved in this scenario," he said, "both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different."
Click to expand...

Again, I expect this from a typical internet commenter, by the President? Here's exactly what would of happened in that scenario, Mr. President:

NOTHING

That's right. There would have been no trial. This case only went to trial at all because the DA was put under extreme pressure and did not want the appearance of racism. So if the kid was white, nothing would have happened! No trial. No media circus. No aftermath! But hey, way to play the race card Mr President!
 
Yeah, I can't believe that Obama decided to increase the racial tension with his stupid press conference. I don't like a lot of his policies, but I used to respect him more as a person; this press conference lost a lot of that respect.

Race was never an issue, most of the people who actually paid attention to the trial, rather than the imaginary trial in their head, understand that. You would think that some of his cabinet would have told him to try to quell the unjust racial anger, or at least not hold a press conference to incite it.

I remember hearing during the trial from a co-worker, and I didn't have enough time to pay attention to all of the evidence, so I'll leave this to people who know where to look for all of this. But what I head, and again, this is unverified, was that Zimmerman had reported several other people in the week or two leading up to the shooting, at least one of which was white. I don't remember hearing about it during trial, but then the trial didn't really try to portray any racist angle to the crime, so it wasn't very relevant. If what I heard was in fact true, then it would completely stop any of this racist bullshit from anyone with a brain. But that won't stop most of the people who are pushing the racism argument.

This might piss some people off, but fuck it, it's true in this case: black people are the most racist here, they are by far the majority(almost exclusively where I work, actually) of the people who are pushing the racism angle on this. I'm not saying that racism doesn't exist, but there's 51 other cards in that deck, they've worn that one out. Obama is right, if TM was white, there wouldn't be all of this bullshit about racism and injustice. There wouldn't have been a trial, because there wouldn't have been a bunch of idiot media sheep screaming for blood that force the city to waste time and money on an arrest and a trial that was solely to appease the public rather than actual justice.
 
Last edited:
Obama really needs to learn to watch what he says while in office. While this isn't the most egregious of his missteps in that regard (see: his incredibly stupid comments regarding prosecution of sexual assault in the military), it serves little purpose but to highlight all the tension that surrounds this case, and to highlight it in the worst possible way.

What irritates me about a lot of the people who are taking the whole "more in sorrow than in anger" angle on the matter is that Zimmerman wasn't declared 'not guilty' because he didn't shoot Trayvon Martin, he was declared 'not guilty' because they jury ruled that it was a shooting in self-defense. So when people start talking about what a tragedy it was, and how Trayvon was an innocent victim in all of this, realize that the jury doesn't agree with you.

Sure, it's a tragedy, but by definition the jury's verdict, which is as close to a definitive answer as we'll ever get on the events of that night, means that Trayvon bears the majority of the responsibility for the way things turned out. Zimmerman may have set the stage, but Trayvon is the one who picked the fight.

To make things worse, a lot of people have played it up as "Well, Trayvon had a right to defend himself against Zimmerman!"

Which is insane.

In a sense they're right: he had a right to confront Zimmerman. Peacefully. Without violence. But once that punch gets thrown, he would have needed a damned better excuse than "the creepy cracka was following me".

I'd say that Rachel Jeantel also needs to learn to keep her mouth shut about the case, but by this point the media have made so many excuses for her due to her role as the prosecution's star witness that I doubt anything short of her coming out and saying that Travyon told her he planned to kill Zimmerman would do much to damage her image there. Seriously, I don't understand how people can consider that Piers Morgan interview of hers anything but a disaster. Then again, I have to take into account that the majority of opinions on it will be from people who watch Piers Morgan.
 
at the risk of sounding offensive or un-PC

Many people in this country who sell themselves as fighters for civil rights have gained money, fame, and power from the existence of racism, and if the perception that there is widespread racism were to go away, they would lose their source of income, their fame and their power, so they strive to keep it alive by creating and advertising grievances that in truth, died out years ago.
 
Last edited:
Charles Barkley For President [clicky]

...is my opinion. I think the justice system worked as it was supposed to.

That said, Zimmerman should have stayed his ass in the car and away from the "trouble" like he was told to do. I have absolutely zero sympathy for him and what his life will be like anymore.
 
Last edited:
Do you think it's unfair to bring up the issue of racism in our country though? Seriously. When you have studies like this:
http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/spring03/racialbias.html

Or another study here (this one has to deal with SYG laws):
http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf (article on it here )

Or here's another study, this one having to do with NY's "stop and frisk" which shows blacks and hispanics are FAR more frequently stopped and frisks and it vastly outweighs the demographics of the city:
http://advocate.nyc.gov/sites/advoc...2344026426.1&__hssc=223762052.1.1372344026427

Or drug usage vs drug arrests, whites and black use at the same amount, but blacks are 4 times more likely to be arrested for it:
http://blog.sfgate.com/smellthetrut...could-perpetuate-drug-wars-racial-class-bias/

Or in terms of the death penalty:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/race-death-row-inmates-executed-1976#defend

or things like this (this video kinda shows sexism too >.>):


Or more cases like this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/john-henry-spooner-guilty_n_3613457.html

I don't think it's unfair for him to bring up race and as an issue that we as a whole society should really talk over. It's not like racism is gone just cause we elected a black president. And the facts show there very much is a racist problem in our nation.

As for this case? I agree there's not enough substantial evidence to confirm Zimmerman was a racist and that race is the cause for him tailing Trayvon, but it's not like there's evidence to say he isn't a racist either considering there are those who have come out and admitted he's made racist comments in the past. Regardless, it's still not like it isn't unfair to bring up and talk about as a nation as a whole.

But ya, back on the race bit, I think it's fair to have a discussion as a country on it since there's clearly racism when you look at the statistics. Sure, I can understand the statistic that per capita black people are more likely to be found engaging in violent crimes than others, but that's also not necessarily the full picture either. If you take into account the other statistics that black people are often not treated equally under the law (be it courts or the police) compared to the other races, that can very well skew the criminal statistics. Furthermore, I'd say the problem is even deeper than that and more likely having to do with poverty and education. More blacks than whites (and Asians and such) live in poverty and are often subjected to public schooling which has been declining in its effectiveness for several decades now. That can account for their likelihood to engage in criminal behavior on a higher frequency. It's one reason why I think we need to focus more on improving education and on helping the income issues in our nation. On a similar topic, it's why I support helping to build up Afghanistan and Iraq. Staying to help build their infrastructure and their education and such things. It's what we did in Germany and Japan and it's not like they didn't have insurgents too. And now Germany and Japan are two of our close allies and two very economically stable world powers. It's also why I think people believe Islam is a "violent religion" when really the religious texts are no more violent than the other Abrahamic religions. It's just that many Islamic nations are poorer and don't have as much education for their people that leads to such problems.

So ya, I think it's not unfair for Obama to have made that speech, but it is unfair to say for sure Zimmerman is a racist.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top