Quote:
Originally Posted by Zereh
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Just because you empathize with the lighter-skinned thug doesn't mean that you get call it anything other than what it was.
|
If you want to call me a racist without knowing a damn thing about me, just come out and say it so you can be discredited. Initially, I sided with Trayvon. Facts changed that. I didn't "empathize" with either one - All I heard was a black kid with skittles was killed by a guy with a gun, and initially it looked like a piece of vigilantism. Again, the facts we have access to changed that. I'm open to further evidence.
And you seem to have a very difficult time with the definition of "murder."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zereh
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
just like the police told him to do when he made the 911 call. There would be no murder if he would have listened, instead he decided he was the law and initiated a conflict that resulted in death.
|
Can you tell me what exactly he was told by the dispatcher (not the police - that's an interesting error to make if you've actually read the relevant documents) when he made the 911 call? You haven't even read the 911 call or taken the time to look at any of the evidence that will actually be used in trial and you're gonna call this guy a murderer. Do you realize what you're doing when you label someone a murderer? You're saying they themselves either deserve death or life in prison. That's something almost all qualified attorneys disagree with you on. The detectives on the case, back in March, specifically did not try because their consulting prosectors told them there wasn't enough evidence for a manslaughter conviction because it was obvious Martin attacked Zimmerman.
You must be a real genius to be right over all those other people.
And how can you say Zimmerman initiated a conflict? Is talking to someone in public initiating conflict? Because damn, if that's so, I better not go to the circle K on the corner or I might be seen as initiating conflict and therefore forfeiting my right to defend myself. The only evidence we have - even excluding Zimmerman's testimony which is mostly corroborated by witnesses - is that he was attacked and bloodied (That's the police officers who responded and met Zimmerman at the scene), and only fired apparently a single shot into Trayvon Martin.
Have you read the doctor's report regarding Zimmerman's injuries? If not, go do that. We're wasting time if you're going to choose to side with Trayvon just because you like to make snap judgments without the facts and avoid all the obvious problems that are staring you in the face.
How many breakins occurred in his neighborhood prior to that? If you moved in somewhere and were constantly feeling threatened by criminals, you might act differently yourself. 8 burglaries in 14 months. Did you know that?
I wouldn't have done what Zimmerman did because it was dumb. For whatever reason, he confronted the guy who hadn't done anything wrong (yet), just because he was suspicious. But that doesn't change the facts of the scenario, which is that Martin decided to attack Zimmerman (for whatever reason and at whatever potential verbal provocation), broke his nose and apparently beat his head into the ground. Eventually, you attack the wrong person physically, you'll get shot or stabbed.
Martin initiated force - Zimmerman ended it. That doesn't make it murder.
Again, i'm open to new evidence. But everything I see seems to say it was a stupid series of events, but it WAS self defense.