View Single Post
Old July 16th, 2013 (5:49 PM). Edited July 16th, 2013 by Entermaid.
Entermaid's Avatar
Entermaid Entermaid is offline
    Join Date: Jan 2013
    Location: The States
    Gender: Other
    Nature: Adamant
    Posts: 2,148
    Originally Posted by KingCharizard View Post
    Racism won't die because blacks(African Americans) wont let it die, they use the race card to this day to get by, or get something to go their way.. Its very unfair, and the reason racism still exist.
    This is a bit much (to say the least). Racism doesn't exist solely because of the black community by any means. It remains in existence largely as a residual reminiscence of racism observed since the 1600's onward in the US. Though, there are certain issue in which race should not be a factor or a point of contention, that doesn't mean that there doesn't exists issues in which true racial tensions do exist. The existing relations are in part aggravated by civil rights advocates, that detract from substantive issues that are systemic and affect the population broadly, and thereby close off certain pathways of dialogue pertaining to issues of poverty and crime in the black community. Those are issue that need to be addressed, not isolated incidences that don't have a broad effect on the general public. These issues, do involve race, and therefore, discounting racial tensions and statistical evidence that supports the claim that there exists flaws in public policy that affects blacks in the U.S. is non-productive. Further, overreaching generalizations of an entire demographic's behavior is in of itself an agitator of racial tensions given that there is nothing to substantiate your claim rather than a subjective bias.

    Originally Posted by AlexTheRose View Post
    Here's what I think.

    First off, Zimmerman was wrong with approaching Martin. His mistake, thus his fault for whatever injuries he sustained.

    Second, Martin was wrong in attacking Zimmerman (out of, what we can assume, fear for his life). That, however, isn't much against a dead man.

    Zimmerman could've avoided all of this and prevented Martin's death if he did what he was told. Unfortunately for Martin, though, he was pretty stubborn for a wannabe cop and intentionally followed him.

    Zimmerman caused the mess, and finished the mess. He was completely at fault for everything that happened to him and Martin. Not only that, all of his claims and stories are solely against the word of a dead man. How fair is that?

    Nonetheless, all jurors in any case are specifically instructed that, if in the case of "reasonable doubt", to plead not guilty. That's general business in a case without any witnesses that aren't suspects, normally.
    Again, a subjective, completely one-dimensional analysis of the events that occurred. We cannot place 100% of the blame of the iniation of verbal conflict on zimmerman as he did have a legitimate claim given that Trayvon was engaging in the illegal and suspicious act of trespassing. More than one witness corroborated his actions. Thus, it can be assumed that if Trayvon had not had been trespassing the death would not have occurred just as must as we can say without Zimmerman's actions Trayvon's death would not have occurred. Please try to observe both sides arguments, as they are valid points, but only if the concession is made that acknowledges the fault of both parties vis-a-vis the involvement in commencing the verbal conflict.

    No matter who starts a verbal conflict though, is outside of the law as it pertains to the physical conflict and the use of self-defense. And this is the difficult key fact of the case, which is who initiated the physical conflict, and was the defendant in a position is which belief of great bodily harm or death could have happened if he did not use his gun in defense. Thus, the initiator of the verbal confrontation is not a defining article of information in assessing whether this was self-defense or not. Yes, we can all agree it is troubling that Zimmerman followed Trayvon, but the law doesn't state that following a person who is observed engaging in illegal and suspicious activity is illegal in of itself.

    "Second, Martin was wrong in attacking Zimmerman (out of, what we can assume, fear for his life). That, however, isn't much against a dead man."

    Fear of his life was not substantiated in court. In being confronted for illegal activity, Martin could have feared being apprehended by the authorities, ect, as simply being confronted for illegal behavior doesn't grant a person the ability to respond by physical means. However, it cannot be proven who commenced the actual physical element of the confrontation. Thus, the prosecutor was unable to demonstrate that Zimmerman was the physical aggressor, of which the burden of proof is on the prosecutor's bench, whereas the defense was able to demonstrate reasonably that Zimmerman was in a position in which great bodily harm could be done. The only article that was not substantiated either way, was who iniated the physical attack, again which is a fact in which the prosecution has the burden. What would happen to our justice system if we are allowed to convict someone without the evidence necessary to demonstrate guilt?

    "Not only that, all of his claims and stories are solely against the word of a dead man. How fair is that?"

    This is true of many cases of self-defense, just because the alleged aggressor is dead does not mean that the defendant's story should not be taken into account along with the other witnesses' and officials' testimonies.
    #Team Popplio & Brionne
    Reply With Quote