The reason many people are pissed off is that the courts were not going to handle it. Before the public uproar, it looked very much like there was not going to be any investigation of what the actual facts were; the authorities appeared to be simply taking the shooters account of what happened as the gospel truth. As if the shooter would have no reason to lie/embellish to make himself look innocent. No investigation, no charges, no court.
This is what got people pissed. The people wanted an actual investigation rather than the police/authorities simply brushing the whole incident off.
Because for them ‘justice’ means one thing and one thing only - Zimmerman behind bars. Unlike us they know exactly what happened that day as well as if they were there, they have judiciously weighed the evidence available to them (conflicting statements, media hype, internet rumor) and come to the only conclusion possible: guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
They are, not to put too fine a point upon it, idiots and bigots.
“One thing?” Hell, ‘justice’ wont mean a damn thing to me 'til asses get fired, laws get repealed, and Zimmerman is behind bars. I’d be pleased if some lying pigs ended up in jail too, but I’ll settle merely for ‘justice’.
After he’s had a trial and an opportunity to present his defense were it usually occurs . . . in front of a jury and not just to the police on the scene, then (based on what I know now), and only then, do I expect to see Zimmerman behind bars.
Ya know, that being what justice usually was in the America I grew up in.
Go figure, some of us are capable of coming to a conclusion about a given set of events/facts, subject to reevaluation when new events/facts show the original conclusion to be faulty. So easy even an idiot can do it!
For one thing, I am demonstrating that Martin’s purposes are indeed relevant. To be sure, there is no law against wandering around a gated community for unknown purposes. (Just as there is no law against following and questioning such a person.)
But that’s not the issue. The issue is the credibility of Zimmerman’s assertion that Martin attacked him.
By the way, just so we are clear, I agree that I am “intimating” that Martin was doing something “nefarious” if “intimating” includes “raising as a legitimate possibility” and if “nefarious” includes a wide range of illegitimate activities such as looking for trouble.
Did you mean “intimating” and “nefarious” to include these possibilities?
I would have to agree. Fundamentally, they are no different from the folks at chimpout.com who have surely concluded by now (beyond all reasonable doubt) that Zimmerman was the innocent victim of a vicious, unprovoked attempt to murder him.
But they did decide not to charge Zimmerman, after an investigation. Has it all come out yet? Or are you talking about the Grand Jury? Now why did they decide to bring the case before a Grand Jury? It seems odd, considering they’d already decided not to charge him. Why would they do that?
Yeah. Sure. And hey, maybe he was really a secret agent with K.A.O.S. about to put his plans for world domination into effect.
Fucking ridiculous. Casting aspersions on some kid minding his own business to make the guy who killed him look better. As I said before … disgraceful.
The fundamental difference would be that all the evidence points to the “Zimmerman committed murder” side and that the mass army of people who are racist against white people and demanding that they be put in jail for no reason don’t exist.
Excuse me? I can’t speak for everyone, but I am pissed because the wheels of justice had stopped rolling, not because I wasn’t willing to wait for them. Certainly the “unlike you” part of your post is correct, though; it’s clear your position is based on little more than your own ideology.
Whining about how the evil liberals are out to get you makes you sound like a moron even if they actually are.
I’m not sure what your point is here. If “casting aspersions” includes speculating about peoples’ motives, I don’t see what’s so bad about it. Are you saying that in general people deserve the benefit of the doubt about their motivations?
Lol, now you are condemning my motives. And are you now conceding that Martin’s motives are relevant to assessing the likelihood that he did indeed attack Zimmerman?
A brief glance at the posting history of anyone in this thread looking to excuse Zimmerman indicates that nearly all of them have quite a history of sounding like morons.
Lol, your co-idiots and bigots on Chimpout no doubt believe that all the evidence points to the “Zimmerman is innocent side.”
Lol, I’m not sure what you mean by “mass army,” but there are plenty of folks who automatically side with blacks in any black/white dispute. That’s exactly what happened with the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax. ETA: Are the team Trayvon idiots and bigots in this thread motivated by race or something else? Hard to say at this point.
Sure we noticed it. But [list=A][li]It’s a post from you []It has to do with the law - ergo[]It’s wrong.[/list][/li]
That’s a fair point, but it means that “initiating the confrontation” means nothing in terms of establishing guilt or innocence.
Martin wasn’t doing anything illegal either (as far as we know). He was just walking thru the subdivision. But if he hadn’t done that, he wouldn’t have been shot. But that doesn’t matter legally, because walking thru a subdivision isn’t illegal. In the same way, Zimmerman wasn’t doing anything illegal in getting out of a car to follow somebody. And therefore that doesn’t matter legally either.
And if you do something stupid, or even immoral, the law cannot punish you unless your act is also illegal.
What I think is happening is that “Zimmerman initiated the confrontation” is being used to sneak “Zimmerman deserves to go to prison” thru the back door. People should not be in prison unless they have done something illegal.
Motives? For walking down the street? Is that the game we want to play? If I wonder whether or not Zimmerman’s motives included wanting to kill someone to satisfy his blood-lust, is that on the table too?
You’re being ridiculous. Did Martin *really *leave the house for Skittles likes his father claimed, or was it actuality Starburts he was after? Aha! Liar! We now have every right to assume he jumped Zimmerman from behind while screaming Banzai! at the top of his lungs. Good job, Colombo.
I think there’s a valid legal question as to whether initiating the confrontation removes Zimmerman’s ability to use the SYG defense. Now that the outcry has got a thorough investigation going, I’m content to wait for the outcome of the latter.
I agree, but I think there is another point here. Even if Zimmerman had a legal right to follow and question Martin, the fact that he did so is relevant to figuring out what was going on in his head that night. It raises the probability that he was looking for trouble. And therefore raises the probability that he committed some kind of criminal homicide.
(Of course an analogous point can be made about Martin. )
Indeed. This is why an investigation should look into what the complete circumstances were before any confrontation. You can’t just completely ignore every behaviour by every party that went on before because it was technically “legal”
For example, if Martin had a known habit of walking alone at night in suburban areas because he was trying to prove that young black men are unfairly targetted by police; if he was carrying a weapon; if he had told people that he was actively looking for a confrontation with “those people”; if he called 911 to report on people hassling him and said he was going to follow them around to see if they would cause him more trouble… Then this would go to his state of mind before any confrontation, and could show that he was in some measure responsible for what happened to him.
Of course, there does not appear to be any evidence that any of the above is true.