Jubbergun wrote:
My bad, I didn't realize we were moving our focus off one retard onto another. I'll try to pay more attention next time.
Your Pal,
Jubber
Ditto.
Yuratuhl wrote:
Spoiler alert: 1 year from being legally considered an adult is a child, because he's not legally considered an adult.
Haha come on, you know the prosecution kept referring to him as a "child" to drum up sympathy...don't even pretend they weren't. You're right he technically is a "child" but when I say
"hey I saw a child at the Cubs game yesterday" - does your mind go to "17 year old" or do you think of someone a bit younger?
Put it another way in the scope of movies, you can see R-rated films at 17, by yourself. Child tickets can be purchased for ages 2-12, 13+ become student tickets. You can't deny that when someone says "child" it drums up thoughts of someone much younger than Trayvon Martin. Come on Tuhl, you're a smart lawyer guy...wouldn't you want to drum up extra sympathy for the deceased in hopes of a conviction?
Anyway:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... tions.htmlRead this. One of the few rational articles I've seen that isn't a huge race bait one way or the other. In any case, I think I'm done talking about this trial. The media is going to go on and on about it, and people will assume (wrongly) that the verdict now means you can just shoot any black person with no repercussions. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson will continue to be huge trolls who contribute little to society...life will go on. This is the world we live in.
Quote:
I almost joined the frenzy. Yesterday I was going to write that Zimmerman pursued Martin against police instructions and illustrated the perils of racial profiling. But I hadn’t followed the case in detail. So I sat down and watched the closing arguments: nearly seven hours of video in which the prosecution and defense went point by point through the evidence as it had been hashed out at the trial. Based on what I learned from the videos, I did some further reading.
It turned out I had been wrong about many things. The initial portrait of Zimmerman as a racist wasn’t just exaggerated. It was completely unsubstantiated. It’s a case study in how the same kind of bias that causes racism can cause unwarranted allegations of racism. Some of the people Zimmerman had reported as suspicious were black men, so he was a racist. Members of his family seemed racist, so he was a racist. Everybody knew he was a racist, so his recorded words were misheard as racial slurs, proving again that he was a racist.
The 911 dispatcher who spoke to Zimmerman on the fatal night didn’t tell him to stay in his car. Zimmerman said he was following a suspicious person, and the dispatcher told him, "We don't need you do to that." Chief prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda conceded in his closing argument that these words were ambiguous. De la Rionda also acknowledged, based on witness and forensic evidence that both men “were scraping and rolling and fighting out there.” He pointed out that the wounds, blood evidence, and DNA didn’t match Zimmerman’s story of being thoroughly restrained and pummeled throughout the fight. But the evidence didn’t fit the portrait of Martin as a sweet-tempered child, either. And the notion that Zimmerman hunted down Martin to accost him made no sense. Zimmerman knew the police were on the way. They arrived only a minute or so after the gunshot. The fight happened in a public area surrounded by townhouses at close range. It was hardly the place or time to start shooting.
That doesn’t make Zimmerman a hero. It just makes him a reckless fool instead of a murderer.
