you absolutely did. I will trace our conversation for you, which started with your misunderstanding of my point, which I clarified for you. here I clearly stated that blaming Zimmerman for the situation and blaming him for his judgement are separate issues, which was what I was discussing and why your statement about judging and blaming not being mutually exclusive was irrelevant. you then disputed that specific point that I clarified with the following: clearly you are lumping them together with that statement. that isn't a strawman to claim such, because it can have no other meaning if that statement is the immediate dispute to my above assertion that they are separate.
Nice try, but not even close. You said the legal issue and the personal responsibility issue are separate. And they are. As in, you can blame someone for causing a situation with their poor judgment (i.e. personal responsibility) without "blaming" them by finding them guilty in a court of law. Those are separate. Let me make this as clear as possible for you: The legal verdict (or blame, if you will) is separate from blaming him for causing the situation based on an opinion of his judgment. You have been saying people should not even blame Zimmerman for causing the situation from a personal responsibility point of view because he did nothing illegal. You then brought up the rape victim analogy as support for this claim, saying we can't blame the victim because nothing illegal was done, but the rapist did do something illegal so the rapist should get the blame. THAT is what my response was addressing when I said they are not mutually exclusive... that 100% of the blame to one person leaves 0% for the other. This really should not be that difficult for you to understand... and you know what? I don't think it is.
no, that is not at all what I said. I stated that you can judge someone's decision making for putting themself in a bad situation without blaming them for any criminal act that arises from that situation. that isn't blaming them for the situation, that is blaming them for making a dumb decision that allowed a second person to commit a crime, or accusation of a crime, against them. take Kobe Bryant for example. I don't blame him for being accused for rape; but I blame him for putting himself in a position where a woman can accuse him of rape. I don't blame Zimmerman for Trayvon attacking him and then defending himself; but I can hold him accountable for putting himself in a situation that allowed that to occur (not causing it to occur, but allowing it). Zimmerman's decisions did not cause the situation, and claiming such absolves Trayvon of his actions. Just as Kobe Bryant fucking a chick in the ass did not cause her to claim he raped her. she simply chose to accuse him, and that is on her. there is nothing about following Trayvon that caused Trayvon to attack him. Trayvon had to make a choice based on that for that to occur. the person that makes that criminal choice is who caused the criminal act. Zimmerman follows Trayvon. if Trayvon simply walks home, nothing happens. so following him is not the cause of the attack. Zimmerman follows Trayvon. Trayvon simply asks why he is doing so, and then explains he lives in the complex and is going home. Now, not only does following Trayvon not cause an attack, but Trayvon simply asking why he was being followed does not cause an attack. so to claim either of those acts caused the subsequent attack, and thus absolving the one decision that actually did, is dishonest. following Trayvon created a situation in which Trayvon could act out in an anti-social and violent manner, but it did not cause him to do so. Trayvon's adolescent and thug wannabe psychology did so. and Zimmerman did not create that.
Will this ever die down and go away? I'm already Trayvon'd out. The verdict is in. The shooter got a pass and since the GOP rules Florida, ain't nothing gonna change down there regarding "SYG" until that does. At the end of the day, you have one dead kid, one terrified wannabe lawman in hiding and a lot of folks that just can't accept the reality of the situation. Time to move on.
The photos? I guess Zimmerman shot Martin, then battered his head front and back. But if that is so, who is screaming in the background of the 911 call?
Yes. Offended is a good word. It's offensive. It's an affront to the whole American jury trial system. In this country, we have an institutional distrust of the juries. Little Kaylee Anthony is found dead with duct tape residue on her face and her mother's car with evidence of decomposition and chloroform in the trunk, but we STILL shrug and rationalize how the jury has spoken when Casey Anthony is acquitted. The prosecutor over-charged. The district attorney was incompetent. The defendant had a high-priced team of lawyers. The police contaminated the crime scene. Key evidence was excluded because it was prejudicial or some other really neat reason. We might get all huffy and pissed off, but we accept all these reasons when a defendant who may look pretty effing guilty is acquitted. Matter of fact, we actually count on juries to do irrational things. Because we believe that it's better to accept all of these flaws than to have the hand of the government, unhappy with a jury of peers, stepping in to overrule. Which is exactly what this would be. I'm sure some sharp poster will want to point out that all DOJ will be doing is putting a different question to a different jury. And that's all well and good, but in this case we would be tailoring criminal charges to a single defendant solely because the case has been politicized. How many OTHER individual defendants who were were acquitted in state court are then charged under federal civil rights laws? I can think of only one other example, and only because that too was a high profile case that resulted in marches and race riots. Anyone remember the case? Rhymes with "rod knee king." And let's assume that DOJ does retry Zimmerman for civil rights violations. If he's acquitted a second time, do we THEN get to have peace and serenity? I doubt it. The most galling thing thing to come out of this case were the people who would concede that the jury probably reached the proper verdict based on the evidence and STILL wanted Zimmerman convicted of something. Why have laws at all?
I love big news. But i've never wished for something to pop so fast like right now. This case is closed and is stale. Enough
I don't see too many posters claiming the jury is wrong or the verdict is bum. Yes there are the Olbermans and pathetic pundits like him saying these things but they are the very reason there was even a trial in the first place. Can't be mad at the justice system because it did it's job. I honestly hope the gub ment doesn't step in and force another trial that shouldn't happen. If that happens the Constitution truly means nothing and we are fucked as a country. Not that it matters to the degenerates we keep sending to Washington anyway but this would be one of the lowest places we as a country could sink.
I confess that I haven't gone through the whole thread. But I saw an ignorant woman on MSNBC say that, yeah, the jury probably got it right but that this jury's verdict was a "license to kill black children," or some such thing. That's just galling.
And that's the shit that bugs me, saying things like that are pure ignorance but consider the source. They had another idiot the other night saying in order for white people to understand racism white kids need to die or some shit like that. Seriously? How about instead of continuing to try and divide we come together? Oh wait dividing the masses is big business.
As a society, we give racial hucksters like Jackson and Sharpton no public approbation for their acts of public indecency.
I wonder how much different the media would have treated this case if it were Jorge Zimmerman rather than George?
SJ - thats actually mild coming from MSNBC; i have made it a point to watch this particular network's reaction during the post trial period and IMO they are an agenda driven activist supported news channel that is largely responsible for keeping the wounds fresh, so to say. The crap i have heard on this network is criminal and reeks of discrimination - social and political - forward and reverse. CNN is a close second, but u can find segments on there that examine both sides of the fence. but ALL news networks are guilty of reporting bias, including FOX, which takes major heat because they kind of stand alone against nbc, cnn, etc etc. speaking of fox - i heard that a prospective juror on the martin case was dismissed because he/she admitted to watching fox news.... is that true??. i would wager a hefty bet if that person watched msnbc instead, they would have remained. funny how that works isn't it.
not gonna happen BTB, IMO we are too far gone to function as one nation, together, regardless of color. There are too many corrupt forces in play with no end in sight.
That will require another major terrorist attack from outside the nation. Going back to the immediate time period right after 9/11, the nation was unified. Since then, whole different story.
How is that relevant in the least to this situation? Each situation should be discussed individually, because the circumstances are not the same. Grouping every situation into the same category is generalizing and nothing more. I thought Paterno did the right thing by telling his supervisor what the janitor reported. The supervisor should have called the police or opened an investigation. It wasn't Joe's fault that the supervisor didn't even follow up with it and it seems his name was tarnished because of it. Sure, he could have done more and wasn't completely blameless, but out of everyone involved in that case, he was probably the least responsible and he had no proof that any of the accusations were even true. He was the public figurehead so he took the bulk of the blame.
