|
Post by Word™ on Apr 12, 2012 4:56:40 GMT -5
THIS! You think Al Sharpton would give a if it was a white kid. then ask yourself this... would he have followed a white kid?? that crap works both ways.... Ask yourself this! You sum bitch!!! Will this movie ever see the light of day after this trial?
|
|
jakksking1
Main Eventer
Joined on: Feb 2, 2011 14:45:41 GMT -5
Posts: 2,843
|
Post by jakksking1 on Apr 12, 2012 9:43:26 GMT -5
The media has been soo PRO race war when talking about this case I feel George will not get a fair trial. The media had OJ, Robert Blake and Casey Anthony dead to rights and scoured them mercilessly, and they got off.
|
|
eljefe
Superstar
Joined on: Oct 2, 2010 17:39:35 GMT -5
Posts: 733
|
Post by eljefe on Apr 12, 2012 10:02:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by skrillex on Apr 12, 2012 10:26:09 GMT -5
Who's he?
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Apr 12, 2012 11:44:25 GMT -5
You don't "stand your ground" by attacking someone. Zimmerman's story is that he lost Martin and was getting back in his truck. That's when Martin found him and asked him if he had a problem. Zimmerman said he didn't. Then Martin attacked him. If that's true, I have no idea where the murder charges are coming from unless the prosecutor has more evidence than we do or can prove that story is bogus. So, what would you suggest someone do if a random guy in an SUV was following them around a neighborhood, and then got out of said SUV and tried to find them on foot? I'm not saying violence is the correct answer, but I think most people would feel very threatened in that situation, and almost any response to it would be justified. The only thing we know is that they had a scuffle, Martin is dead, and Zimmerman killed him. Witness reports are conflicting, so the only steady details in between are coming from the man who killed him. Generally, you don't just take that person's word for it and call it a day. Zimmerman claims he had lost the guy and was getting back in his truck when the altercation happened. Again, who knows if this is true or not. I would think a reasonable person would conclude that physically confronting someone who's following you around is a bad idea. Would we not agree on that? Let's say the incident stopped there. Martin jumps Zimmerman, kicks his ass and slams his head into the concrete several times. The cops show up and break up the entire incident. Martin is going to get charged with assault in that case and it's probably a cut and dried case too. Following someone doesn't justify an assault. Whether you take Zimmerman's word on what happened or not is irrelevant really. If you want to convict him for second degree murder you have to PROVE that he's not telling the truth. Based on what has come out so far, I don't see any way you do that.
|
|
facemeat
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jul 24, 2011 0:38:10 GMT -5
Posts: 2,891
|
Post by facemeat on Apr 12, 2012 13:45:05 GMT -5
So, what would you suggest someone do if a random guy in an SUV was following them around a neighborhood, and then got out of said SUV and tried to find them on foot? I'm not saying violence is the correct answer, but I think most people would feel very threatened in that situation, and almost any response to it would be justified. The only thing we know is that they had a scuffle, Martin is dead, and Zimmerman killed him. Witness reports are conflicting, so the only steady details in between are coming from the man who killed him. Generally, you don't just take that person's word for it and call it a day. Zimmerman claims he had lost the guy and was getting back in his truck when the altercation happened. Again, who knows if this is true or not. I would think a reasonable person would conclude that physically confronting someone who's following you around is a bad idea. Would we not agree on that? Let's say the incident stopped there. Martin jumps Zimmerman, kicks his ass and slams his head into the concrete several times. The cops show up and break up the entire incident. Martin is going to get charged with assault in that case and it's probably a cut and dried case too. Following someone doesn't justify an assault. Whether you take Zimmerman's word on what happened or not is irrelevant really. If you want to convict him for second degree murder you have to PROVE that he's not telling the truth. Based on what has come out so far, I don't see any way you do that. The core of your argument is Zimmerman's story, and obviously if it actually went down exactly like he said, an attack would not have been justified. But I personally think there's about 0% chance it actually went down exactly as Zimmerman said. To me, his story makes no sense at all, especially looking at both guys' track records. Why would a guy with no known prior accusations of violence, jump another guy from behind and start beating him if he felt that man was no longer a threat? Regardless, that's all opinion. As far as hard evidence goes, surely not everything has come out. We haven't seen ballistics test results, and I'm sure those will be very crucial in disproving self-defense.
|
|
|
Post by chillax on Apr 12, 2012 13:51:31 GMT -5
Not trying to be racist, but if he shot a white teen this story wouldn't be as big as it is. Everyone likes to use race as an excuse for everything. It's not everyone who uses race as an excuse. But there are certain people who love to cry racism anytime things don't go the way they want. And this trial should have nothing to do with race. It will, but it shouldn't. Right and wrong has nothing to do with black/white/hispanic.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Apr 12, 2012 14:00:16 GMT -5
Zimmerman claims he had lost the guy and was getting back in his truck when the altercation happened. Again, who knows if this is true or not. I would think a reasonable person would conclude that physically confronting someone who's following you around is a bad idea. Would we not agree on that? Let's say the incident stopped there. Martin jumps Zimmerman, kicks his ass and slams his head into the concrete several times. The cops show up and break up the entire incident. Martin is going to get charged with assault in that case and it's probably a cut and dried case too. Following someone doesn't justify an assault. Whether you take Zimmerman's word on what happened or not is irrelevant really. If you want to convict him for second degree murder you have to PROVE that he's not telling the truth. Based on what has come out so far, I don't see any way you do that. The core of your argument is Zimmerman's story, and obviously if it actually went down exactly like he said, an attack would not have been justified. But I personally think there's about 0% chance it actually went down exactly as Zimmerman said. To me, his story makes no sense at all, especially looking at both guys' track records. Why would a guy with no known prior accusations of violence, jump another guy from behind and start beating him if he felt that man was no longer a threat? Regardless, that's all opinion. As far as hard evidence goes, surely not everything has come out. We haven't seen ballistics test results, and I'm sure those will be very crucial in disproving self-defense. I didn't know Martin. I've crossed paths with people who would do just that. Zimmerman claims Martin asked him if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no. Martin then attacked him. I know people that if someone told me they did that I would 100% believe it. I know people that if someone told me that I would not believe it for a second. Let's say for the sake of argument though that Zimmerman is lying through his teeth about everything. You still have to prove that he's a liar. You can't just assume that he is and convict him. I was on a jury once where we all agreed that the defendant's story was completely bogus. We also agreed that the prosecution hadn't proven the defendant's story was bogus at all. So we acquitted him.
|
|
facemeat
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jul 24, 2011 0:38:10 GMT -5
Posts: 2,891
|
Post by facemeat on Apr 12, 2012 14:05:23 GMT -5
The core of your argument is Zimmerman's story, and obviously if it actually went down exactly like he said, an attack would not have been justified. But I personally think there's about 0% chance it actually went down exactly as Zimmerman said. To me, his story makes no sense at all, especially looking at both guys' track records. Why would a guy with no known prior accusations of violence, jump another guy from behind and start beating him if he felt that man was no longer a threat? Regardless, that's all opinion. As far as hard evidence goes, surely not everything has come out. We haven't seen ballistics test results, and I'm sure those will be very crucial in disproving self-defense. I didn't know Martin. I've crossed paths with people who would do just that. Zimmerman claims Martin asked him if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no. Martin then attacked him. I know people that if someone told me they did that I would 100% believe it. I know people that if someone told me that I would not believe it for a second. Let's say for the sake of argument though that Zimmerman is lying through his teeth about everything. You still have to prove that he's a liar. You can't just assume that he is and convict him. I was on a jury once where we all agreed that the defendant's story was completely bogus. We also agreed that the prosecution hadn't proven the defendant's story was bogus at all. So we acquitted him. I don't know if you missed my last paragraph, but I clearly said that all of that was just opinion and speculation, and I'm sure the ballistics will tell the true tale.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Apr 12, 2012 14:34:25 GMT -5
I don't know what ballistics could prove here. No one disputes that Zimmerman fired the gun. No one disputes that his gun killed Martin. If ballistics show that Martin was killed at short range it doesn't prove or disprove Zimmerman's claims IMO. I don't know what ballistics tests could add. Now if they show that Martin was killed from ten feet away, that's a different story, but I don't think that's the case here.
|
|
facemeat
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jul 24, 2011 0:38:10 GMT -5
Posts: 2,891
|
Post by facemeat on Apr 12, 2012 14:51:56 GMT -5
I don't know what ballistics could prove here. No one disputes that Zimmerman fired the gun. No one disputes that his gun killed Martin. If ballistics show that Martin was killed at short range it doesn't prove or disprove Zimmerman's claims IMO. I don't know what ballistics tests could add. Now if they show that Martin was killed from ten feet away, that's a different story, but I don't think that's the case here. In this case, it seems to me that ballistics could completely destroy Zimmerman's defense. If they can prove that he shot at any sort of distance, or that he was on top of Martin when he shot him, or that Martin was shot in the back, etc., that could ruin him.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Apr 12, 2012 14:57:04 GMT -5
I don't know what ballistics could prove here. No one disputes that Zimmerman fired the gun. No one disputes that his gun killed Martin. If ballistics show that Martin was killed at short range it doesn't prove or disprove Zimmerman's claims IMO. I don't know what ballistics tests could add. Now if they show that Martin was killed from ten feet away, that's a different story, but I don't think that's the case here. In this case, it seems to me that ballistics could completely destroy Zimmerman's defense. If they can prove that he shot at any sort of distance, or that he was on top of Martin when he shot him, or that Martin was shot in the back, etc., that could ruin him. An autopsy would show almost all of that. We know that Martin was shot in the chest from the front. That much has come out. Shot from above I don't see is relevant. That could easily happen if Zimmerman's story that they were struggling over the gun is correct. Distance could make a huge difference potentially. A lot of that would depend on what the distance was though.
|
|
facemeat
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jul 24, 2011 0:38:10 GMT -5
Posts: 2,891
|
Post by facemeat on Apr 12, 2012 15:25:21 GMT -5
Well, whatever the case may be, I'm sure the prosecutor wouldn't have charged him with murder 2 if she didn't believe she had the evidence to convict. We'll just have to wait and see what that evidence may be, because quite frankly I'm getting rather bored with all of this pointless speculation and hyperbole.
|
|
|
Post by Yeezy's Mullet: Team X Blades on Apr 13, 2012 11:30:59 GMT -5
You guys who are saying that this shouldn't be about race are right and wrong. This case should ultimately (if Zimmerman was at fault) be about justice. Sending a murderer up the road for his crime. With that said, this case is racially driven because it's extremely possible here that the shooting was racially driven. I'm not saying it had to be, but chances are that it was. People feel as though Trayvon was racially profiled by Zimmerman which lead to the shooting.
I'm a 23 year old black male. I've been profiled before, yes, even in 2012 in this great nation of ours. I sat and pondered long and hard at the question of "Would there even have been a shooting or would he have even felt threatened if this weren't a black kid in a hoodie"? Unfortunately, I couldn't bring myself to answer yes because I honestly don't think that is true.
Oh, and to everyone who's hating on the media for how they're covering and presenting it, all I have to say is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. That's what it's all about and I think it's horrible.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Apr 13, 2012 16:38:04 GMT -5
You guys who are saying that this shouldn't be about race are right and wrong. This case should ultimately (if Zimmerman was at fault) be about justice. Sending a murderer up the road for his crime. With that said, this case is racially driven because it's extremely possible here that the shooting was racially driven. I'm not saying it had to be, but chances are that it was. People feel as though Trayvon was racially profiled by Zimmerman which lead to the shooting. I'm a 23 year old black male. I've been profiled before, yes, even in 2012 in this great nation of ours. I sat and pondered long and hard at the question of "Would there even have been a shooting or would he have even felt threatened if this weren't a black kid in a hoodie"? Unfortunately, I couldn't bring myself to answer yes because I honestly don't think that is true. Oh, and to everyone who's hating on the media for how they're covering and presenting it, all I have to say is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. That's what it's all about and I think it's horrible. According to his story Martin jumped him and slammed his head into the sidewalk several times. If someone did that to me, I would feel threatened by them regardless of race. The fact is if both of them were white or if both of them were black, this would be a non-story.
|
|
|
Post by Quanthor on Apr 15, 2012 13:07:15 GMT -5
This is one of those stories where both guys involved acted irrationally because they were lead by fear.
1. mind your own business unless that business is yours, especially if you don't know if that person is indeed breaking the law 2. don't stalk people even if you have good intentions, you're going to make that person's life feel threatened. 3. don't go back and attack the guy who was stalking you
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Apr 15, 2012 22:25:13 GMT -5
The media has been soo PRO race war when talking about this case I feel George will not get a fair trial. The media had OJ, Robert Blake and Casey Anthony dead to rights and scoured them mercilessly, and they got off. All of us that are old enough know exactly why OJ got off. All it takes it a look back just a few years before at what happened in another trial.
|
|
|
Post by robinsonben36 on Apr 16, 2012 8:57:42 GMT -5
The media had OJ, Robert Blake and Casey Anthony dead to rights and scoured them mercilessly, and they got off. All of us that are old enough know exactly why OJ got off. All it takes it a look back just a few years before at what happened in another trial. Bumbled, corrupt police work and a terrible prosecution? Or were you suggesting something else?
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: May 19, 2024 1:27:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2012 9:37:52 GMT -5
All of us that are old enough know exactly why OJ got off. All it takes it a look back just a few years before at what happened in another trial. Bumbled, corrupt police work and a terrible prosecution? Or were you suggesting something else? Well....
|
|
|
Post by robinsonben36 on Apr 16, 2012 23:31:46 GMT -5
So..... you aren't familiar with the case and the reason OJ was found not guilty? Considering there were black members of the jury that said they thought he was guilty, but that the prosecution didn't do its job.
Race may have played a small factor, but that case is historic with regard to the horrible prosecution and corrupt police department that "handled" the evidence. The two cases aren't much alike at all except they're both murder trials.
|
|