or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

killing Trayvon - Page 325

post #4861 of 6250

Was my reply to this thread removed? 

post #4862 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post

Without "social justice" there would have been no investigation and no trial at all.

Fair enough. Although there was an investigation, that is why they were able to decide not to press charges. No trial though.
post #4863 of 6250
A bunch of people armed with bad information (and the backing of the department of justice) decided to substitute their judgment for that of the people best equipped with the knowledge and experience to decide if filing a criminal charge was warranted, and you call that "due process"? This is the kind of thing that the bill of rights, due process, hell, the entire idea of jury trials, is supposed to avoid.
post #4864 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

A bunch of people armed with bad information (and the backing of the department of justice) decided to substitute their judgment for that of the people best equipped with the knowledge and experience to decide if filing a criminal charge was warranted, and you call that "due process"? This is the kind of thing that the bill of rights, due process, hell, the entire idea of jury trials, is supposed to avoid.

I think the civil rights era taught us that Southern small-town police departments don't always to the best job of investigating the deaths of black children.

The Sanford police conducted only the most cursory of investigations, the night of Trayvon Martin's killings. The people wanted a more thorough investigation. They got one. It lead to an arrest. Zimmerman had a fair trail, and was found not-guilty. You're upset that the case went to trial because you do not value Trayvon Martin's life. That is your problem.
post #4865 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/aclu_letter_to_ag_holder_re_gzimmerman_case.pdf

ACLU says not to bring federal charges...but it's still clear Zimmerman is a racist.
It takes a pretty strong idealogical bias to read that as a statement that " its still clear Zimmerman is a racist " rather than simply as a springboard for a rant intended to further the ACLUs agenda but then using this case and all of the irrelevant hubbub surrounding it to further one own agenda seems to be order day
post #4866 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/aclu_letter_to_ag_holder_re_gzimmerman_case.pdf

ACLU says not to bring federal charges...but it's still clear Zimmerman is a racist.
It takes a pretty strong idealogical bias to read that as a statement that " its still clear Zimmerman is a racist " rather than simply as a springboard for a rant intended to further the ACLUs agenda , but then using this case and all of the irrelevant hubbub surrounding it to further ones own agenda seems to be order day
post #4867 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post

I think the civil rights era taught us that Southern small-town police departments don't always to the best job of investigating the deaths of black children.

The Sanford police conducted only the most cursory of investigations, the night of Trayvon Martin's killings. The people wanted a more thorough investigation. They got one. It lead to an arrest. Zimmerman had a fair trail, and was found not-guilty. You're upset that the case went to trial because you do not value Trayvon Martin's life. That is your problem.

Give me a fucking break. Trayvon's life was gone before I knew about this thing happening. What I care about is our justice system, which I would rather not see taken over by the media and the outrage brigade, two parties whose intentions, morals and methods (not to mention their qualifications) I have nothing but contempt for. You aren't honoring Trayvon Martin by bringing this travesty of a case against his killer.
post #4868 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by englade321 View Post

It takes a pretty strong idealogical bias to read that as a statement that " its still clear Zimmerman is a racist " rather than simply as a springboard for a rant intended to further the ACLUs agenda but then using this case and all of the irrelevant hubbub surrounding it to further one own agenda seems to be order day

Really? So how does one read this from the second paragraph?
Quote:
However, there are still actions the federal government can take to help communities like Sanford, Florida to ensure tragedies similar to Travyon Martin's untimely death do not happen again, including preventing widespread racial profiling. Although the George ZImmerman case did not involve a law enforcement officer, many other shootings of unarmed Black men around the country have.

If you do not read that and think the author believes Zimmerman racially profiled Martin you need to learn to read context. Why mention Zimmerman at all in comments about "widespread racial profiling" and "shootings of unarmed Black men" unless you think referencing Zimmerman is apropos to the topic? You think his name was tossed in at random?
post #4869 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post

I think the civil rights era taught us that Southern small-town police departments don't always to the best job of investigating the deaths of black children.

The Sanford police conducted only the most cursory of investigations, the night of Trayvon Martin's killings. The people wanted a more thorough investigation. They got one. It lead to an arrest. Zimmerman had a fair trail, and was found not-guilty. You're upset that the case went to trial because you do not value Trayvon Martin's life. That is your problem.

You remain a fucking idiot. What kind of piece of shit dismisses a well thought out response with an accusation that somebody is nothing more than the worst sort of racist.?
post #4870 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post

I think the civil rights era taught us that Southern small-town police departments don't always to the best job of investigating the deaths of black children.

The Sanford police conducted only the most cursory of investigations, the night of Trayvon Martin's killings. The people wanted a more thorough investigation. They got one. It lead to an arrest. Zimmerman had a fair trail, and was found not-guilty. You're upset that the case went to trial because you do not value Trayvon Martin's life. That is your problem.

Well at least you are now acknowledging there was an investigation even if it was "most cursory" in your view. I think your shot at Munch was unwarranted and rife with landmines. I mean, a thousand people or so have been murdered in Florida since Martin was shot. Probably 100 black teenagers have been murdered (murdered) in Chicago in the last couple of months. Let's not play the game of placing value on one life vs. another.
post #4871 of 6250
I'm sort of shocked that people don't understand the basic idea here:

People clamored for a trial because they believed Zimmerman bore some moral culpability--which is not an unreasonable position. In fact, I think it's hard to argue that it is not the most reasonable position. It was not, as Harvey states, immediately certain that Zimmerman was innocent. The prosecutors knew that the case would be difficult and conviction would be unlikely--but that's not the same thing as a certainty. I think, because of the nature of the situation, and the sense of moral outrage, it made sense to at least conduct a trial to be sure of the situation.

Further, I find it hard to understand how someone can't empathize with the outrage post-acquittal. Was Zimmerman innocent of murder by Florida law and reasonable doubt? I think it's hard to argue otherwise. However, it seems deliberately myopic to suggest that the issue ends there; that there is no longer grounds for any kind of moral dismay. I find it especially odd because the people arguing that no outrage is acceptable or warranted in this case because the law is the law and he was found innocent by a jury have failed to suggest the same outlook in past trials where a suspect went free despite what most felt was a clear sense of moral culpability.

I find it fundamentally suspect when people leap to the defense of anyone and everyone accused of racism, regardless of the individual context and nature of the particular issue. Just because you think racism wasn't a factor in this tragedy, or because you can't imagine a fair application of the term "racism" without explicit hate-speech as the reason (i.e. the use of the N-word and overt white-supremacist language, such as being pro-segregation or advocating racial violence), that doesn't mean you can't find this event tragic.

Take the race out of it. Do you really find nothing tragic about an armed man following an unarmed boy who was innocent of any crime, disregarding police instructions, provoking an altercation, and then shooting the boy? Is there nothing troubling you find about that scenario?

Honestly, I think it's not as much about white people not caring about Trayvon Martin's life so much as it is some people finding themselves boxed into a corner by their pre-existing beliefs and pre-existing motivation to take the opposite side of any issue where some are alleging racist intent or racial injustice. Once Zimmerman was accused of racism, such people immediately positioned themselves on his side, and became certain of his innocence. Even if the circumstances had been identical, including the race of the victim, if there had been no initial suggestion of racism by progressive voices, I think many conservatives would have felt far more open to express a sense of sadness and dismay about the event.
post #4872 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal View Post


The two cases are not really that much alike.
Z never said he did not shoot and kill T. He admitted as much at the scene. He simply claimed, and was able to show with evidence, that he did so in self defense.

OJ cutoff the head of his x wife with a fucking shovel. In her home.
OJ also claimed he never killed those two.
His defense team was able to create a reasonable doubt in the mind of a jury and he walked. So it goes, sloppy police work, quality legal work, and a snappy catch phrase got OJ off.
He has since admitted to the crime.

Whatever else you think of the two crimes, Z was involved in a physical conflict with a stranger and shot him in self defense, OJ hunted down his x and killed her with a shovel. No self defense at all, but a cold blooded murder and a crime against a women at that.

Also, the same people who are protesting today celebrated when OJ walked.


There was a killing. Bad initial policework as well as a crappy prosecution led to OJ being found not guilty.  Many people said that he may have been found not guilty but that is not synonymous with innocent. 

 

vs

 

There was a killing. Bad initial policework as well as crappy a prosecution led to Zimmerman being found not guilty.  Many people said that he may have been found not guilty but that is not synonymous with innocent.

post #4873 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by itsstillmatt View Post

You remain a fucking idiot. What kind of piece of shit dismisses a well thought out response with an accusation that somebody is nothing more than the worst sort of racist.?



Nothing in any or Munch's replies displays even the slightest bit of compassion for a slain child, so I think mu assessment that Munch iis not value that child's life is pretty spot on. You're so race-card happy, you're seeing in where it hasn't been played. I thought I was the one who was supposed to be "overly sensitive".
post #4874 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post


There was a killing. Bad initial policework as well as a crappy prosecution led to OJ being found not guilty.  Many people said that he may have been found not guilty but that is not synonymous with innocent. 

vs

There was a killing. Bad initial policework as well as crappy a prosecution led to Zimmerman being found not guilty.  Many people said that he may have been found not guilty but that is not synonymous with innocent.


List for me the "bad initial policework" in the Zimmerman case. Were eyewitnesses interviewed or not? Was Zimmerman interviewed or not (with at least one cop lying to him to try and trip his story up)? Was physical evidence examined?

Edit: There's no doubt the investigation was not the absolute most thorough. I guess that gives the conspiracy nuts at least a foothold in reality. However, it would seem a reasonable standard was met to determine it was self defense. I would think a two week investigation was long enough?
post #4875 of 6250
As far as Trayvon goes, I don't hold the kid in any ill light. I'm never going to call him a thug or a criminal because he never got to tell his side of the story (also because I know what a real thug looks like and he's not it). I personally presume him innocent and take issue with a lot of the over the top discussion of him on right wing boards and whatnot. If anything, the picture I get of him is of a 17 year old kid who skips school, smokes weed, and likes to get in fights. Not unlike a good portion of the white kids that I went to school with, and most of them turned out fine in the end. But sometimes they would do stupid, impulsive things that could have gotten them shot. It can be a tragedy without being a murder.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon