Yes, thankfully George Zimmerman was there to aggressively stop the crime of carrying skittles while black.
Printable View
The media has had a ball with this because ... everybody thinks they know what happened that night. How is that possible? I've been looking my whole life for a crystal ball, and all of a sudden everybody has one!
Please stop spamming.
Martin told his girlfriend he was being followed by a cracker. Would he have attacked if he was being followed by a black neighborhood watch member? You have to take emotion out of this and listen to the testimony and look at the facts of this case and the law, thats what the jury did.
Here is the Washington Post description of SYG laws:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...?wpisrc=nl_fix
Well, when the defendant's testimony aligns perfectly with the evidence of the case, it seems to me the guy is telling the truth. Is it a tale of stupid choices and bad decisions? Sure seems that way. But there's no law against being stupid.
I think what clinches it for me is that Zimmerman was lied to by police [[how about that?) and told that the whole encounter was caught on video. Zimmerman's reaction was, "Thank god."
Does that sound like the reaction of a stalker-killer?
I don't think so.
Citing that juror's understanding of the law and her reasoning is not helpful to legitimizing the issue. for example, she spent a lot of time talking about SYG in a case where it supposedly wasn't begin applied.
Secondly there is zero testimony from anyone other than Zim about what started the fight. He didn't take the stand so there is no cross about how MArtin "jumped out from a bush" [[on a corner with no bushes) and how Zim couldn't recall if Martin jumped out from behind him or in front of him.
Again, not Zim's burden and that is fine. However, let's not lose site of the fact the guy who could refute Zim's claims was on a slab at the morgue.
Being an asshole is now punishable by death? Asshole or not, zim stays in his car, none of this happens. I firmly believe the only reason he got out of the car is because he was carrying a concealed weapon and knew he'd have the upper hand in any confrontation.
But he didn't stop crime in his neighborhood, he created one and ended up killing someone who was not engaged in criminal activity. Beyond the obvious differences [[age, race, class, etc.), I don't see much moral difference between Milton Goodson's killer and Trayvon Martin's. Except that, being an adult, one might have reasonably expected a bit more self-control from Martin's killer.
I've heard this line of thought quite a few times and can't honestly say I understand it. Like somehow the 17 yr old was the instigator and responsible for this confrontation.
My age is multiples that of Treyvon, so I would like to think that by now I am much more level headed and mature. That being said I wouldn't like seeing some guy sneaking around, following me at night, in the rain. And if that person were to approach me and ask me who I am and what I'm doing I would also tell him to "puck off".
Being a wanna be cop, self appointed neighborhood watch captain does not give you the right to exert your authority over whom you see fit. Granted it is not illegal, but how can you claim victim when you set the ball in motion. Like Newton's 3rd law states, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".