Originally Posted by Figment
That's basically the point. It is certain that Zimmerman killed Martin by his own admittance and all evidence (gun fired, bullet, etc).
The question is whether or not it was justifiable self-defense or alterior motives played a role, as well as whether or not Zimmerman was the actual aggressor, instigator or provocator in the incident.
So it is not that there is no evidence that Zimmerman shot Martin, it is the question of 'why'. If there are doubts about the motivation that it may be more than self-defense or provoked by Zimmerman's actions, then that is more than enough reason to press charges and go to court.
Touré may be prejudiced and as a journalist that's a bad quality. I can understand where Touré is coming from (historical social inferiority complex and history of racial violence), but he is jumping to conclusions.
Do note: we are merely speculating in this thread whether or not it is the case and it will remain speculation since we will not have full evidence and ar reliant on just the information passed in any media. I personally have not asserted that Zimmeran actually acted on racial motives, just that there's a case to be made based on the interpretation of the tapes. I've argued from that perspective, considering there are plenty that did the opposite and I'd say it's not an extremely unlikely scenario. From what I understand from those jumping to the defense of Zimmerman, it's often from a motivation to protect that law, rather than Zimmerman. if the law is flawed though, then it is in the public interest to hold it up for scrutiny.
In some cases I sense an undertone of frustration with certain crime, the gangsta culture and with it, identification with Zimmerman. That too is understandable, but still no justification.
So the same bias argument can be said for anyone jumping to Zimmerman's defense by default and I'm quite sure Pierce would utterly rip those apart as well. In fact, saw a small part of him interviewing the brother of Zimmerman yesterday on CNN as well as the lawyer representing Martin. He looks at both sides of the argument and as a Brit is neutral.
Same for Obama really, I don't get why he - and other US presidents and politicians - regularly make judgmental personal opinion comments on such incidents. As a politician and worse, representative of the non-biased state, your job is not to act as defense attorney nor prosecution but a representative of the people. Especially since you have trial by jury, the influence from high profile, public figures when making statements is not beneficial to the fairness of the trial.
Still, it should come to a trial.
|
For once Figment, you and I are in total agreement.
What bothers me fundamentally about this, is that he has been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion...without having all the facts.
That's fucked up.
Also, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are using this situation to incite racism.
Just look at this:
13 shot, 2 dead in Chicago by 'Hoodies' in Rep. Rush's District
When does it end?
Another thing I take issue with, is this kid gets shot....
But in Kansas City...a white kid is almost burned to death by black racists because the kid's last name is 'Coon'....almost ZERO fucking media attention.
Sauce for that story
Even More Sauce for that Story
Then, Obama......
Oh God don't get me started on that jackass.