George Zimmerman was acquitted from 2nd degree murder and manslaughter a while back. And I created this thread to not shit up the progressive rage thread and their wonderful discussion about political ideologies after they finished talking about this verdict.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I originally intended for this to be a much longer post, but the novelty of the trial soon ran off and I no longer care to spend my time wasting my time. But I'd also rather not let what I've got go to waste. These responses are from the prosecution, defence and this forum by the way.
To begin with, the first time I heard of this shooting was from the internet news company The Young Turks, and from them I gathered it sounded like Trayvon was murdered by George Zimmerman. I lost interest with the story until a year later, I stumbled on a livestream of the trial. My introduction was of people complaining that the trial was a media spectacle meant to cover up major news stories like the NSA leaks and otherwise slow news days. So I thought if it must be damn good for every news station in America, land of entertainment to not shut up about.
And oh boy was it entertaining. It had drama, tragedy, emotions, protagonists and antagonists. And to top it all off, there was an unprecedented rate of OC created; from shoops to raps, art [actually beautiful stuff at that] and stories. For a moment, you forget that the life of someone is standing on the line. I missed Serrino's testimony and a few other things, owing to time zone differences as well as the verdict as it happened [on that day I felt like nothing was going to happen and left before the last two hours... Oops]. But other than those, I've seen most of the trial myself.
And it consistently puzzles me why so many people have an opinion about it when literally everyone I've seen talking about here and every mainstream news site [in America] - and this is for people who were both either happy or unhappy about the verdict, seemed as if they had not actually watched the trial at all.
"The issue is that, even if you fully believe Zimmerman's story, what he did is completely fucked up. There was nothing at all to suggestion that Martin was suspicious, he was specifically told not to follow him, and the conflict was ultimately his fault (although it's difficult to say who actually initiated violence when he killed the key witness). I really don't think it's acceptable to initiate a confrontation and then kill the other person when they get the upper hand and inflict a few minor injuries."
"Fucking punks" – he said that following 17 year old boy he didn’t know.
"These assholes, they always get away. Those are the words in that man’s chest, when he got out of his car armed… [1] To follow on foot, Trayvon, Benjamin Martin.”
[1] list of what Zimmerman took with him omitted, two flashlights and a loaded pistol
Trayvon Martin was walking up to people's houses, inspecting them. He was not passing through, walking along the road. This was done in the rain, and George Zimmerman said he saw someone who looked like he was on drugs acting suspiciously.
But let's not take Zimmerman's word for it, as Bao said it, THC was found in Trayvon's body and as the toxicologist said, this could have meant Trayvon's behaviour could have been altered to be more relaxed and happy, but also possibly lethargic, very anxious, paranoid, or even psychotic.
The 'he was told to stop' part has been a favourite sentence of mine to spot. Like a bird watcher who is happy at the sight of the common pigeon and its various, slight differences, it's brought up by everyone who didn't watch the trial no matter who they support. Indeed, most people already had an idea of who they were supporting before the evidence was brought to light, they had already made their minds up who was innocent and who was guilty.
This is a part of the transcript from his 911 call:
Police : Okay, this guy is he white, black or hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
Police : Did you see what he's wearing?
Zimmerman: Yeah, dark hoodie like a grey hoodie and with jeans or sweat pants and white kind of shoes. He's here now, he's just staring...
Police : Oh, he's just walking around there...
Zimmerman: ...looking at all the house. Now, he's staring at me.
Police : Okay, this is 1111 {unintelligible}, or 111?
Zimmerman: It the... that's the Clubhouse.
Police : That's the Clubhouse. Do you know... he's near the Clubhouse right now?
Zimmerman: Yeah, now he's coming towards me.
Police : Okay.
[some noise]
Zimmerman: His hand's in his waistband. And he's a black male.
Police : How old would you say he looked?
Zimmerman: Late teens?
Police : Late teens, okay.
[some noise]
Zimmerman: Something's wrong with him. He's coming to check me out. He got something in his hands. I don't know what's the deal is?
Police : Just let me know if he does something, okay?
Zimmerman: Can you get an officer patrol here?
Police : Yeah, we got them on the way? Just let me know if he got anything.
Zimmerman: Okay...
Zimmerman: Ahh, these assholes, they always get away.
[some noise]
Zimmerman: When you come to the Clubhouse, you come straight in, and make a left. Actually, you go past the Clubhouse.
Police : Okay, it's on the left hand side of the Clubhouse?
Zimmerman: No... you go in straight through the entrance, and then you make a left. You go straight in, don't turn and make a left. [Shit?] he's running.
Police : He's running? Which way is he running.
Zimmerman: Down towards the entrance to the neighborhood.
Police : Okay... which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance.
Zimmerman: It's fucking cold.
Police : Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Police : Okay, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Okay.He stopped following and started discussing with the dispatch officer where he was going to meet up with the patrol.
Rachel Jeantel's testimony brought up by the defence was quite enlightening. She said Trayvon was taking a shortcut to the area yet also didn't tell her why he would be taking over an hour to get there. She also thought "it was just a fight," and the texts on Trayvon's phone bragging about getting into street fights would also help her story out.
'He got mo hits cause in da 1st round,' Martin says in a November 2011 text message, 'He had me on da ground nd I couldn’t do ntn.'
Some time in those 4 minutes Trayvon Martin came back and assaulted George Zimmerman. [And in actual fact, there is an unheard controversy in the prosecution's deliberate miscarriage of justice by not delivering this evidence, that on the phone].
There was 4 minutes at the least between the 911 calls from George and the residents. And in that time, Trayvon Martin turned back and assaulted George Zimmerman.
And that's what makes it so evidently clear who is in the wrong here. George Zimmerman followed the necessary instructions to avoiding conflict, whereas Trayvon Martin took every action to ensure it happened.
"e: The other issue is that Zimmerman's account changed a bunch of times."
"That [GZ] man is a liar."
Which is funny because George Zimmerman never went on the witness stand, even after the judge questioned him three times about his intentions to [not] testify in direct contravention with what she read to the jurors:
"The Constitution requires the State to prove its accusations against George Zimmerman. It is not necessary for George Zimmerman to disprove anything. Nor is George Zimmerman required to prove his innocence. It is up to the State to prove George Zimmerman’s guilt by evidence. George Zimmerman exercised a fundamental right by choosing not to be a witness in this case. You must not view this as an admission of guilt or be influenced in any way by his decision. No juror should ever be concerned that George Zimmerman did or did not take the witness stand to give testimony in the case."
His account changed in that he didn't know whether the fight started on the grass or not. And it was never used as evidence by either side. Not the most damning of information.
Although I do suppose questioning whether the people involved in this trial have been concerned about being truthful in court is a good idea. Rachel Jeantel had no problem changing her story with every question for 4 hours, Selena Bahadoor was called as a witness and lied to the court. When you are a witness you must have no opinion unless you are called as an expert witness, Selena had lied to court about her intentions and statements and in addition had signed the petition to "prosecute the killer of our son Trayvon Martin," she was not simply reporting her testimony. As such she was discredited. Tracy Martin testified saying that on the 911 call, the cries for help were not from his son. His lawyer said he said otherwise, that he had in fact heard his son on a new version of the call. Tracy Martin later testified again that he said no such thing, told his lawyer to say such a thing and no such new version of the call was added to evidence.
The text messages and photos that explained Trayvon's mindset before he had his fatal encounter with Zimmerman about why he would go and turn back to fight Zimmerman even when he had long since escaped was not presented to the defence or even the court. Of interest is that the evidence on Trayvon's phone was not submitted to court,
which Ben Kruidbos was fired for. The evidence of Trayvon's mindset only came to light when the defence caught the prosecution on the 4th of June. As a result, the prosecution had been misrepresenting the case by deliberately omitting a significant number of facts and also failed to allow the defence to contact any of the people Trayvon had been talking to as witnesses or to give the evidence to the jury. This is huge and never so much as made a dent in the headlines.
"My mom has made the joke that someone going to shoot him and go "It was self-defence. What? I knew he was a killer, I feared for my life. Hell, I was wearing a hoodie! what if he shot me?"
"There is a bitter irony in that Zimmerman may need to use the "stand your ground" law in the future to prevent vigilante justice being carried out."
"And nevermore these walls within
Shall echo fierce sedition's din,
Unslaked with blood and crime;
The thirsty dust shall nevermore
Suck up the darkly streaming gore
Of civic broils, shed out in wrath
And vengeance, crying death for death!
But man with man and state with state
Shall vow The pledge of common hate
And common friendship, that for man
Hath oft made blessing, out of ban,
Be ours unto all time." - Eumenides
"If George Zimmerman win, Im gonna kill a fat white boy dat look lik George Zimmerman I swear lol" [sic] - One post in the Twitterout of 2013 #JUSTICEFORTRAYVON
There won't be any irony at all really.
"Anyway, this was always a little in his favor, as it was a incident which no one else clearly witnessed, and he they had to prove somehow that he had been acting aggressive to him."
There were witness testimonies brought up by both prosecution and defence and both sides all saw segments of the whole story. The prosecution's opening statement itself acknowledged that even from their own selected witnesses, it is known that Trayvon was on top of George on the floor. Unless of course you were listening to the media's version.
Honestly with the amount of powerful people who wanted to convict George Zimmerman it's nothing short of a miracle he wasn't convicted. Though that last bit about miracles is just an opinion. OPINION.
"They had to prove somehow that he had been acting aggressive to him."
"Nope. They had to prove he didn't fear for his life. Which is why I've said before, it was obvious there would be no conviction because of the Stand Your Ground laws. The burden of proof for a conviction in that case is pretty damn near impossible. Everything else is all irrelevant circumstantial mish-mash."
Taken from the script of what was given to the jury to guide them on how to judge the case:
"SECOND DEGREE MURDER:
To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Trayvon Martin is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of George Zimmerman.
3. There was an unlawful killing of Trayvon Martin by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life."
And if George Zimmerman would be found not guilty, they would also have to see if he is guilty of lesser crimes, mainly:
"MANSLAUGHTER
To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Trayvon Martin is dead.
2. George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin. George Zimmerman cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide:
Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence."
1. Trayvon Martin's body was found and he was clinically determined to be dead at the scene of the shooting and in the autopsy. Still is dead.
2. Here is what the law says that would determine his innocence:
EXCUSABLE HOMICIDE:
The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the three following circumstances:
1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or
2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or
3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the attempted killing is not done in a cruel and unusual manner.
Zimmerman is not excused on all three. So we look at self-defence and:
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE
An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defence. It is a defence to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.
“Deadly force” means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real. If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. In considering the issue of self-defence, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. If in your consideration of the issue of self-defence you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.
However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.
Under those laws, it is indeed almost impossible to convict someone who killed an aggressor who pinned him onto the ground slamming his head into the concrete. It's a very clear case here, the only way it could have ended in a conviction is if the media and the officials who mired the defence at every path succeeded in greatly affecting the jury. Thanks to successful impartial isolation, no such thing happened.
White and hispanic aren't really mutually exclusive - Zimmerman is both.
Police : Okay, this guy is he white, black or hispanic?Even when you're trying to be racist you're doing it wrong.
Hell, if Trayvon were white you'd bet your shekels George would be hispanic. Though I guess that's not true, it wouldn't have made it to trial or even the news.
"So George Zimmerman is cleared of all charges. Fair enough, I could accept the courts ruling, were it not for the fact that a black 20 year old mother was given 20 years for firing warning shots above her abusive husband."
"Seriously, some things do not add up, and this is one of them. White male goes free after actually shooting someone. Black female goes to jail after jusitifiably using minimum force to protect herself. Fucking Florida..."
"She appears to be guilty of handling a firearm while black.
I would also say of handling a firearm while being a woman as well, but I'm pretty sure its the blackness in this case."
"Oh, I 100% accept the courts decision to aquit him based on the evidence at hand, however emotionally charged a case it may be. I just dont get how he can be innocent of a crime when compared to the not as well publicised case linked earlier. It shows the law as it is being applied to be an ass, as is so very often the case."
And here was my response:
And therein lies the problem of making assumptions based off a news report which listed none of the evidence that led to the conviction.
She had no fear of her husband. Hell, four months after the incident [and after the judge told them both not to be near each other] she violated that order to give her husband a black eye. She didn't fire the shot at the ceiling but at the wall behind Gray. He wasn't coming up to her shouting "BITCH I'LL KILL YOU" he was telling his kids to "get your clothes, we're out of here." At which point she fired into the wall at his head height, and the bullet ricocheted into the ceiling.
Gray is not an angel either. He was a chronic abuser and had done so before, much as she did. Yet this is where the stand your ground laws work: It does not allow you to kill people who are no threat to you. At this time, he was no such threat and yet she did try to kill him. Originally she would have gotten 3 years for attempted murder, however she pleaded not guilty and the evidence proved otherwise, elevating the sentence to 20 years.
In addition, I would like to use this case to also point out that the insinuation that the prosecution had to prove that George wasn't fearing for his life, that they had to prove his
feelings were not what
George himself reported them to be for George to get sentenced, is downright wrong. In Alexander's case, even if she genuinely believed her life was in danger, unless there was some act taken at that time to instill that fear, she wouldn't be able to to just on some random Monday morning grab a gun and shoot Gray because Gray had done abusive things.
"All I will say that self-defence should never extend to pursuing someone who has done nothing to you, or killing someone who you know is unarmed while you are armed. Flordia's ill-written legal code degrades the concept of self-defence and reasonable laws concerning it. Things like this increase the risk that self-defence laws will be thrown out entirely, which is not acceptable.
"You need reasons beyond "George Zimmerman willfully and deliberately took actions that lead to the wrongful death of Trayvon Martin" ?
"It is a fact that George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin. It is a fact that he complained about assholes getting away. It is a fact the police told him he did not need to follow Travyon. It is a fact that he did so regardless of this being expressed to him. It is a fact that Travyon Martin was killed by George Zimmerman.
None of these things are in debate."
Ignoring all that has already been debated and refuted [in court!]:
Twice Trayvon approached George, on the second encounter, he attacked George. George had done nothing unlawfully, whereas it is pretty clear Trayvon did, while acting unlawfully to begin and end with. The bullet was in direct contact with Trayvon's hoody, yet it was not in contact with Trayvon's body when it hit as told by Bao, an expert witness who was in charge of examining Trayvon's corpse, called by the prosecution. The bullet did not exit Trayvon's back and it entered from the front of his chest, only one shot was fired.
This means that the gun was held against the hoody when it was hanging down, consistent with the witnesses who said Trayvon was on top of George. Bao also said that Trayvon showed no wounds other than the gunshot wound and a slight abrasion on a finger on his left hand, and that he was alive for as long as 10 minutes after the gunshot - George had fled the moment he could and didn't make any steps to ensuring Trayvon would die, more commonly known as murder. His family testified and said that George was horrified the moment he found out that he had killed someone. As for "assholes getting away," if you've listened to the call you can hear that there is no anger in his voice. Only pathetic frustration. Frustration is not even close to a disregard for human life.
"-None of these things are in debate." Indeed. Because they've already been covered, though a vast majority of Americans still believe in whatever the news tells them sadly, or at least whenever the news tells them what they want to hear.
Also, because I don't think I made this point hard enough in my previous posts: Zimmerman's injuries were very minor. He did not need any kind of medical treatment for them. The idea that his head was being smashed against the ground at any point is a total lie, as he would have suffered far worse injuries if that were true.
Let us ignore the witness testimonies, the medical evidence, the idiotic notion that Zimmerman should have waited until he was incapacitated until he defended himself, or the fact that most severe head wounds [the NHS gives 97%] will not need treatment, or the fact that this reason is so full of spaghetti and fallacious reasoning that you could make a special dinner out of it - how on Earth do you think he got his wounds? Did he cold cock himself on the back of his head? Slip three times on the road to smash his nose and his head? Don't even answer, it's rhetorical. The wounds on his head were presented to the jury for a reason. They are evidence of Trayvon's intent.
You're mistaken if for a moment you believe it is a requirement to look like the black knight from Monty Python's holy grail to be justified in using lethal force in self-defence. Roderick's case, an earlier case exemplified this rather well.
"The argument (minus the race thing, since angry white folk sure love to say that a known aggressive racist who racially profiled someone before killing him has nothing to do with race) is basically over "What are the circumstances in which the killing took place?" and as far as I can tell, the most articulate argument for "It was somehow lawful" is is "A large man armed with a gun felt threatened by an unarmed teenager who he deliberately followed, therefore it was his right to defend himself with lethal force, and not the right of the unarmed teenager to defend himself from a suspicious stranger who he felt threatened by."
Regardless of the specific circumstances of the killing, the circumstances would not have occurred had Zimmerman not instigated them."
I seriously don't get this. It's not an uncommon view either, but at some point racist became an insult.
First off, the relevance of this statement to the trial:
Non-existent. That is unless you listened to NBC who portrayed Zimmerman as racist because they omitted parts of his 911 call to make it sound like he had racially profiled Trayvon, or CNN who claimed George had called him a "fucking coon" when he did not.
George did not reveal his gun until the point where his head was being slammed into the concrete. At the point where you have failed to fend off a 17 year old young-adult physically and are lying on your back, you are validated in your concerns. Trayvon was a much more experienced fighter, and as Zimmerman's MMA trainer said, on a scale of 1-10 Zimmerman had progressed from 0.5 to 1. He couldn't fight for shit.
Now for the part which is more relevant to the reaction of the trial instead of the actual trial:
Pardon me, but what are you smoking?
Good Madam or Sir, do you not see the inherent logical flaw? Why would white racists be defending a hispanic man? Trayvon Martin is already dead, if they had influence on the trial's decision they would imprison Zimmerman not let him walk free!
But of course, "racists are white!" "People who don't agree with me are racist and therefore white!" I think that's why the media is allowed to get away with their shenanigans in America, too many people feel it is their duty to be offended and cry racism as long as they're spoon fed any flashing lights that suggest their delusions are true, and too many people feel it is acceptable for the media to act in such a manner as long as this feed keeps pouring in.
I'd like to compare two cases - two cases which actually share similarities just to put things in perspective.
The first of course is the George Zimmerman trial. George responded to a hooded teenager, 17 years old believing him to be a burglar and called the police. George had a pistol armed, tucked in his waistband.
The second is the case of Roderick Scott, in his own trial. Roderick's girlfriend heard talking and other noises down her driveway, saw 3 hooded teenagers and alerted her boyfriend whilst calling 911. Roderick went to his armory to arm himself with a pistol.
George Zimmerman pursued Trayvon Martin when Trayvon had fled, then gave up while waiting for police to arrive. He was jumped on, suffering two lacerations on his head and a smashed nose from the attack, and shot Trayvon Martin fatally in the heart before fleeing. He was detained by police. Trayvon Martin was unarmed.
Roderick Scott pursued and then called out to the 3 teenagers and told them to "Freeze! Don't move! Don't go anywhere," with his pistol brandished. Chris charged Roderick and Roderick fired his pistol. Roderick ran inside, Brian and James, the other two hooded teenagers fled. Roderick was detained by police. Roderick was totally physically unharmed. Christopher Cervinni was unarmed.
George Zimmerman was later charged with 2nd degree murder and manslaughter alongside homicide with a deadly weapon, and this lasted for a year with the trial taking over a month and 2 days.
Roderick Scott was charged with manslaughter alongside using a deadly weapon to kill another person, and this trial lasted for 2 days.
George Zimmerman's trial had President Obama giving a speech where he called for a local, state and federal investigation and went so far as to say that if he had a son, he'd look like Trayvon Martin. His trial was noted by news so biased it made Fox news look like an institution built by the ancient Olympian judges and a prosecution that deliberately withheld evidence in an attempt to avoid his acquittal.
Roderick Scott's trial is known only to few.
George Zimmerman trial verdict: Not guilty under stand your ground laws.
Roderick Scott trial verdict: Not guilty under stand your ground laws.
George Zimmerman trial reaction: A nation says justice was not had, the judicial system is racist, large calls to kill George Zimmerman and white people on social media, riots are organized and executed, one kid is arrested for threatening to mass murder his schoolmates if Zimmerman walked free.
Roderick Scott trial reaction: A family says justice was not had.
And of course, you already know why both trials, so similar had different reactions.
Top row: People who got shot. On the top left, Christopher Cervini. On the top right, Trayvon Martin.
Bottom row: People who shot the top row. On the bottom left, Roderick Scott who shot Christopher Cervini. On the bottom right, George Zimmerman who shot Trayvon Martin.
"The truth is that I think that the whole smirking in court and showing no signs of remorse thing is kind of gross and an indicator that he was probably guilty, whether or not all of the "hard" signs were there.
Not saying that, if you get down to the nitty-gritty, they should have found him guilty. But if you're going "haha I killed a dude" then that makes me feel somewhat worse about it."
"Well yea, like I said, he most likely did it, and the smugness about it just makes me emotionally despise this guy just a little more, but frankly, I would prefer a legal system where somebodies emotions are less relevant that the evidence presented, no matter how shitty the prosecution is at their job."
This right here is more insulting than anything ever said in a race-infused passion on any social media platform.
There is one thing right in there, and that is George Zimmerman smiled in court. Every time he got to eat lunch.
I just remember the time in the UK when Maddie was all the media craze, she was a little girl who got abducted and her parents were devastated and never stopped searching for her. Then one day, when the mother was enjoying going out someone from the public came up to her and started berating her for smiling while her kid was still not found, and said she was a terrible person who obviously didn't care at all.
It's a special kind of person who can make statements like these. I don't even know what kind of person can judge someone so harshly when they're only judging an imagination of them. There is a word for this kind of opinion... Bigoted.
This last bit also is rather defining:
"-And frankly, all those websites put up by gun supporters about castle and "stand your ground" laws don't realize what they're doing, or at least I hope they don't because that'd be worse. Forget for a second that people advising Zimmerman of Stand your Ground won't be considered infamous like he will be for the rest of his life. Forget for a second that those sites are completely ignorant of the law and all its complexities (Zimmerman, for example, could have a Federal Government Suit for Civil Rights Violation, or Wrongful Death Claim among other things brought against him). They're telling people it is ok to perhaps kill other people.... That is a hell of a piece of advice to give isn't it? I mean wow. R...Really? Woah. I don't even. That to me is just too much to even consider telling another person. Just.... What on earth are those people thinking?"
In that this has been treated as a political fun-fair. The people still saying George Zimmerman is guilty are the people who I've seen saying George Zimmerman is guilty before and after the verdict. The people who said that George Zimmerman is innocent now, at least on this forum, I'm pretty certain they thought he was innocent before the trial even began as they have been shown to be just as ignorant of the facts as the people decrying him. The only difference is that there are less of them.
And to me that says a lot. I've enjoyed for this month just what kind of a popcorn event partisan politics can be, but must you really do this with people's lives? Do you not see just how much of a distraction this has been to keep everyone divided and unfocused while your liberties rot away?
Well, I guess I'm done. If you still wish to make opinions of people in the future, can you please make sure that you get it from a trusted source?
In the modern world this means:
In this case there is no excuse to be relying on the news, and seeing as the news is more aptly described as "ACCEPT THESE OPINIONS" rather than "NEWS," search for yourself the answers.
And when the trial is televised, what is your excuse for leaving it to the others to think for you?And for the progressives here - I especially mean this for you. You are supposed to be the knowledgeable and... Progressive people of your country. Live up to your ideals.
Poll
Author
Topic: George Zimmerman verdict and THINGS (Read 17182 times)