The Lynching of George Zimmerman.

[KrazyHorse]

The only thing that morally and/or legally matters is a. whether Zimmerman started the fight and b. whether it was necessary for him to use lethal force. It doesn't matter if Martin drank cough syrup or if he stole jewelry or if he was truant from school etc - it's not okay to assault or kill somebody for any of these crimes, so they shouldn't matter in a court of law or in the court of public opinion. If Zimmerman somehow knew about Martin being accused of theft then that would justify his following him around, but he really doesn't need a legal justification to do this in the first place.

It also doesn't matter if Zimmerman drank cough syrup or if he stole jewelry or if he was truant from school etc, because none of these crimes would lead one to believe that he'd be prone to assaulting / killing a random teenager. The only type of past offense that matters here is whether Martin / Zimmerman had been convicted of assault, as this would imply that they were more likely than the person with the clean assault record to have been responsible for starting the fight.

All that matters is what happened that night, I agree. But we lack sufficient direct evidence of what happened at the crucial points you've laid out, and past behavior helps predict future behavior. A little angel is far less likely to start a fight than a thieving little tough who's been in previous trouble with the law. And somebody who's been tailing a "suspicious youth" is far more likely to start a fight than somebody just out walking their dog.

[notyoueither]

The only thing that morally and/or legally matters is a. whether Zimmerman started the fight and b. whether it was necessary for him to use lethal force. It doesn't matter if Martin drank cough syrup or if he stole jewelry or if he was truant from school etc - it's not okay to assault or kill somebody for any of these crimes, so they shouldn't matter in a court of law or in the court of public opinion. If Zimmerman somehow knew about Martin being accused of theft then that would justify his following him around, but he really doesn't need a legal justification to do this in the first place. Hell, even if he'd been racially profiling Martin then I doubt that would legally matter, unless he were convicted of assault / murder in which case he might be charged with a hate crime or whatever - however, I don't think that it's a crime for a neighborhood watch captain to be racially insensitive when choosing who to monitor, and Martin wouldn't have been legally justified with assaulting Zimmerman even if Zimmerman were racially profiling him.

It also doesn't matter if Zimmerman drank cough syrup or if he stole jewelry or if he was truant from school etc, because none of these crimes would lead one to believe that he'd be prone to assaulting / killing a random teenager. The only type of past offense that matters here is whether Martin / Zimmerman had been convicted of assault, as this would imply that they were more likely than the person with the clean assault record to have been responsible for starting the fight.

OK. You're talking about innocence and guilt in the case.

I am talking about the media. That's what I thought the thread is about.

[loinburger]

I'm also talking about the media. The answer to their biased reporting against Zimmerman shouldn't be equally biased reporting against Martin.

[Alexander's Horse]

Painting Trayvon as a good, young kid racially profiled by the nasty old white guy.

It's worse than that - racially profiled by a hispanic. The Brits were masters at turning minorities against each other, divide and rule, some people jumping on the bandwagon have taken a leaf out of their book.

As for Al Sharpton, he has been a caricature of himself and a laughing stock ever since Tom Wolfe nailed him in Bonfire of the Vanities.

Where the vid let's itself down is right at the end with that photo of the dope smoking young Barry Obama. That was stupid and unfair, the rest of the report was powerful.

[notyoueither]

I'm also talking about the media. The answer to their biased reporting against Zimmerman shouldn't be equally biased reporting against Martin.

I don't agree that reporting possible criminal activity would be biased. The jewelry found is pertinent to forming an opinion given other facts.

[Alexander's Horse]

what do you mean? people are always giving teenagers jewellery, which they stash in their school locker, along with their housebreaking implements...

[regexcellent]

It happened to me dozens of times in middle school.

[Uncle Sparky]

Zimmerman kills black babies and drinks their blood. Prove he has never done this.

[Alexander's Horse]

I read online somewhere, probably Al Sharpton's web site or the Huffington Post, that Zimmerman is related to the Castro brothers of Cleveland. That's where he got the babies.

[kentonio]

I don't agree that reporting possible criminal activity would be biased. The jewelry found is pertinent to forming an opinion given other facts.

So if someone finds themselves in a situation where they are falsely accused of something, it's perfectly acceptable for that person to then be publicly vilified should they ever find themselves involved in a high profile criminal incident or just say.. shot to death in the street?

[Wezil]

Sounds almost like Zimmerman.

Innocent man publicly vilified to the point the State brought unsubstantiated charges to appease the mob.

[molly bloom]

Your point?
Topic too adult for you?

Get real, dogbreath.

Genetics?

I'd say that accounts for some things about you....

[notyoueither]

So if someone finds themselves in a situation where they are falsely accused of something, it's perfectly acceptable for that person to then be publicly vilified should they ever find themselves involved in a high profile criminal incident or just say.. shot to death in the street?

Trayvon was not falsely accused of anything, nor was he vilified by the original news item.

What happened is Zimmerman made a claim about why he was interested in Martin. There were stories and conjecture about other motives, like racial profiling. To then form any sort of valid opinion you'd need to know something about Martin's character. The incident of the seized (and unclaimed?) jewelry is certainly relevant to that.

Did Zimmerman's claim fit with other facts? Likely. Was there anyhting to support the racial profiling motive? Not that I know of, in fact there are other facts that say that is bunk (assuming reports of those are accurate).

[PLATO]

Understanding Trayvon's character should have been part of the evidence presented. Once Z claimed that Trayvon attacked him, then the question becomes, "What was Trayvon's motive?"


mo·tive
noun
1.
something that causes a person to act in a certain way, do a certain thing, etc

IF (and how can we know for certain without the facts being tried) Trayvon was into drugs that made him paranoid and aggressive...IF Trayvon was a habitually violent person...IF Trayvon was used to fighting in MMA style matches. Then I see that as extremely relevant to the case. The problem is that the judge never allowed these avenues to be explored and the facts to be tried.

Since this was not allowed to be tried and Z was acquitted anyway speaks volumes to the evidence that was allowed as being compelling in its own right.

So...the bottom line is that we will never know for sure what Trayvon's motivation in that situation really was. Obviously, the "He was just a scared kid" did not hold water with the evidence that was presented.

[kentonio]

DP