Yahoo
'Not guilty' a backward time warp:
The real question at the heart of this case is whether, by virtue of
the mere color of his skin and the wearing of a hoodie, a person is
dangerous. Yes, said the jury. Yes he is.
Dangerous enough to
kill. Martin wasn't allowed to stand his ground against an adult man who
followed him first in a car, and then by foot. His sentence for doing
so?
Death.
The racists will crow, they've been crowing for
weeks, and will talk about how Martin got what he deserved, how
Zimmerman was justified. Any opinions to the contrary will be minefields
of comments so ugly, so wrong as to make any sane person question the
direction of humanity.
Saturday, the hideous past of segregation
and racial violence was born anew, fitting like an old pair of shoes,
still warm from their previous wearing. In a modern society, it should
not be OK for an adult to follow a child home from the store in the
dark, first in a car, then on foot. It should not be OK for him to shoot
him dead.
But our society is getting less and less modern. And my fear for my friends — real people with real families — is overwhelming.
— Isa-Lee Wolf
Martin isn't dead because he wore a hoodie. The evidence suggests that he died because he attacked Zimmerman.
ReplyDeleteNo, the evidence did not show that. The evidence showed there was a reasonable doubt about Zimmerman's guilt. That's all.
DeleteSure, Mike, that's the minimum that can be taken away from the jury deliberations as a legal rule.
DeleteThat being said, for those who watched the trial, there seemed to be a lot of evidence backing up Zimmerman's version of the fight, and I never heard about any evidence presented that said anything about a hoodie or blackness being an issue.
I also find it hilarious that support for GZ is apparently a sign of being a white supremacist since those dickheads typically hate hispanics as much as blacks and jews.
Yes Mike, the evidence did in fact show that Martin attacked Zimmerman. That is what this case is ultimately about. Physical, forensic and eye witness evidence shows that attack. The trial came about because of political pressure of racism, and that didn't stick.
DeleteWrong. No one knows what was said or done to provoke the fight, other than the fact that the vigilante-minded gun owner was following the kid who had every right to be where he was.
DeleteMike,
DeleteI didn't say evidence said who started the fight. I said that the evidence backed up parts of Zimmerman's version of it--there was evidence that he was on bottom, in spite the prosecution sort of trying to say otherwise; there was evidence that he got a severe beating; there was evidence that he was the one crying for help; etc.
The prosecution offered some evidence to the contrary--claims that it was Martin crying for help, etc. but their evidence was usually the same strength or weaker than the defense's evidence.
Sure, this doesn't tell us who started it, but it paints the picture of the Defense telling the story with the greater ring of truth--hence many people accepting Zimmerman's version.
As for your summary, you're tinging it with your interpretation of things and with certain things you're projecting on Zimmerman, using prejudicial terms like vigilante-minded--something that's your opinion, but that some people in the neighborhood saw as civic-minded.
To avoid shading it one way or the other, how about: The know facts are that: The volunteer neighborhood watch member, who had every right to be wandering his own neighborhood, was following the kid, who had every right to be wandering the neighborhood, while talking on the phone with a dispatcher, reporting that he didn't recognize the kid and thought he was suspicious for reasons x,y,z (enumerated in the phone call), and updating the dispatcher on where the kid was and was going. The dispatcher told the man that they did not need him to pursue the kid to keep an eye on him, and the man claimed to be returning to his vehicle before the call ended. A fight broke out--differing accounts exist on how the fight began, the severity of the fight, who was winning the fight, etc. The man shot the kid once claiming self defense.
There's testimony that pushes one way or the other, but those are the only known facts. Your statement indulged in interpretation and in shading the statement of the facts by only noting that one person had the right to be there and be doing what they were doing.
Know one knows, except, Mikeb, you repeatedly make claims as to what you think you do know. If you're going to say that no one knows, then leave it at that.
DeleteAh--the ugly sight and sounds of racist rage.
ReplyDelete