Zimmerman Trial

gilesfan said:
You seem to give TM a lot of benefit of the doubt, but fail to do so with Zimmerman.

There are instances of Zimmerman sticking up for a black homeless man that was beat and he called for police corruption. Martin is also on the phone saying "creepy cracker," correct? Why is Zimmerman considered the racist when there is actual evidence of the other party throwing out a racial slur?

Again, Zimmerman answered every question. He took the police out to the crime scene and described what happened. It was played back along with the recording and both paths of travel between Zimmerman and Martin. Nothing he said showed him to be lying, hiding the truth, or any form of dishonest. I didn't find any evidence that Zimmerman account of the events to be false. As much scrutiny on this case, I would think the pressure would get to him and he would slip up, no?

Again, if you think he was the aggressor, then thats your opinion. I just don't see any evidence to crucify the guy. I just dont agree with how Zimmermans past is being blown out of proportion yet you get no mention of Martins past. And also, this media circus blew up because it was presumed that Zimmerman was white, when in fact he's hispanic. (unless you believe Obama and Tiger are white, ?)

The ignorance on this matter is what really got me. Especially from a lot of celebrities/athletes.
Click to expand...

I don't get the "Martin's past" thing. What in his past makes it more likely that he attacked Zimmerman totally unprovoked?
 
Julio3000 said:
I don't get the "Martin's past" thing. What in his past makes it more likely that he attacked Zimmerman totally unprovoked?
Click to expand...

History of fighting? How he talks on his cell phone records about "dat ****a didn't bleed enough" after he beat the other person up?
 
What law did Zimmerman break exactly? The jury got the verdict right. Sad for the family of the dead kid and this shoukd never have happened but Zimmerman did not break any laws.
 
Julio3000 said:
We have only Zimmerman's word that Martin attacked him. We KNOW that Zimmerman made the choice to pursue in his car, and again on foot, against police advice. In highlighting his past—which had not to my knowledge been touched upon here—I'm underscoring the idea that one can make assumptions as easily about GZ as people in this thread have made about Martin.

The fact remains that only one of the two had arrests for violent crime and/or felony criminal complaints made against him.

You said Martin was a thug. That's a pretty loaded term, particularly applied to a black teen. It implies what? Violent criminality? Interesting.

Why is he a thug? Weed? In that case, I guess Jordan Schafer is a thug. Suspension from school for truancy? Guess I'm a thug, too.

I've limited my observations about Zimmerman to criticism of choices and behavior that he indisputably engaged in. I haven't made a sweeping value judgement about who or what he "is."
Click to expand...

From what we know of young Martin, he was into the gangsta-thug sort of culture/look/speech/act right? So, why is it inappropriate to use that label for him?
 
Julio3000 said:
I think I've stated it plenty of times. I don't know. Neither do any of us. I am pointing out the fact that there is only one surviving witness, and his story is necessarily self-serving. I don't buy his story. You do. Super.

Either guy could have initiated the physical confrontation. Granted. I'm just perplexed by why you (and others) seem to think it's immaterial that the armed Zimmerman was pursuing the "****ing punk," who was in fact not engaged in any illegal activity.
Click to expand...

I buy a part of his story - that part confirmed by the evidence.
 
Julio3000 said:
How can I help you out here?

You want me to say that truancy, tardiness, and weed—along with a glorification of guns that, well, would seem to cut a pretty wide swath in our culture—represents a grave danger to society?
Click to expand...

I think of you, though much to the left of me, as typically being pretty fair-minded (maybe more so than I think I am). And yet post after post, I just don't sense that you are very willing to admit that mistakes, wrongs, caricatures, etc., have been made by anybody but Zimmerman and the RW media and anyone that would challenge your narrative. I guess I expected more balance. Sorry.
 
BedellBrave said:
I buy a part of his story - that part confirmed by the evidence.
Click to expand...

That he got punched in the nose, that his injuries were not inconsistent with striking his head on the concrete, and that at one point TM was on top of him. I agree. That's why he's a free man. It says nothing about the rest of his story. I'm not sure why I have to keep repeating this.
 
thethe said:
What law did Zimmerman break exactly? The jury got the verdict right. Sad for the family of the dead kid and this shoukd never have happened but Zimmerman did not break any laws.
Click to expand...

You should rephrase it to you cannot prove Zimmerman broke any laws. He very well could have but there's no evidence
 
BedellBrave said:
I think of you, though much to the left of me, as typically being pretty fair-minded (maybe more so than I think I am). And yet post after post, I just don't sense that you are very willing to admit that mistakes, wrongs, caricatures, etc., have been made by anybody but Zimmerman and the RW media and anyone that would challenge your narrative. I guess I expected more balance. Sorry.
Click to expand...

I don't have a narrative. I have a visceral negative response to the appearance of blaming of victim and suggesting that the dead kid got what was coming to him somehow. I believe that lots of unfair and irresponsible things were said about Zimmerman, and promulgated by the media. I believe that justice was done, in the narrowest sense, but that Zimmerman bears the majority of the responsibility for the tragedy. Not because of the color of the skin or the content of his character, but because of the choices he made that night.
 
And the only thing I'd add is that, while understandable that he would go off on Zimmerman, Martin was very foolish in doing so.
 
thethe said:
What law did Zimmerman break exactly? The jury got the verdict right. Sad for the family of the dead kid and this shoukd never have happened but Zimmerman did not break any laws.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you don't hold this view for potential terror suspects...
 
BedellBrave said:
From what we know of young Martin, he was into the gangsta-thug sort of culture/look/speech/act right? So, why is it inappropriate to use that label for him?
Click to expand...

I know a kid who smokes weed, wears gold fronts, has been accused of battery and who is fond of posing with guns.

bieberthug_zps28fb80e6.jpg


justin-bieber-gold-grill_zps1e081c97.jpg
 
thethe said:
Well, not being prosecuted for a crime that nobody witnessed protects you against people making false accusations doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Yes but it doesn't mean you're innocent.

This is 100% hypothetical Mr. Government agent who's tracking my every move but suppose a Mobster pulls a hit off, he's put in court but acquitted of his crime, does that mean he's innocent? Or just that he wasn't caught? Innocent means that you did not commit any crime.
 
zitothebrave said:
Yes but it doesn't mean you're innocent.

This is 100% hypothetical Mr. Government agent who's tracking my every move but suppose a Mobster pulls a hit off, he's put in court but acquitted of his crime, does that mean he's innocent? Or just that he wasn't caught? Innocent means that you did not commit any crime.
Click to expand...

Ok, thats fair but you are putting a hypothetical out there that Zimmerman actually committed a crime. You don't know that he did just like I don't know that he didn't. All we know is the evidence and thats what the judicial system is all about.
 
thethe said:
Ok, thats fair but you are putting a hypothetical out there that Zimmerman actually committed a crime. You don't know that he did just like I don't know that he didn't. All we know is the evidence and thats what the judicial system is all about.
Click to expand...

Not knowing doesn't mean he's abtually innocent, just that he's not guilty. If that makes sense. Legally he's innocent, in all actuality, who knows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top