The two camps are balanced and reasonable, and unbalanced and hysterical. There are both kinds on either side of the argument
The two camps are balanced and reasonable, and unbalanced and hysterical. There are both kinds on either side of the argument
The two camps are balanced and reasonable, and unbalanced and hysterical. There are both kinds on either side oftheany argument
but at the end of the day, there is one event
and if one is hysterically on one side, they are either on the right side or wrong side of the event
fixed
Ultimately, ya, I can agree with this. But in this case, we'll never know for certain which was the right side
You're not thinking straight. He was suspicious. Nobody knows what happened after that.
Just wondering why LuckyNumber, why don't you come to my south side to protest all the black on black crime?
About 450 black men killed 450 black men in Chicago. Bring you're people to me. Come to me and protest. Are you afraid? Why focus on one white person who killed s black man? Why not follow all the black men who are killed by black men? Oh you don't care about them. You're only interested if a white man kills a black man. Meet me today at 67th and Ashland to protest.
The two camps are balanced and reasonable, and unbalanced and hysterical. There are both kinds on either side of the argument
Define hysterical. Be specific about the quoted post. Because I don't see it.
FYM does allow us to present our observations and impressions. We are not in a court of law here. The post was thoughtful and took a side. And someone else can take another. I saw passion and anger and a sense of justice denied in that post. I didn't see hysteria.
One can differentiate between the law and what they believe is just. Not always the same thing. I thought the correct legal verdict may have been reached--or not. But I think that George Zimmerman likely provoked an incident with a young man who by all accounts at least initially was doing nothing to warrant a provocation and ended up killing that unarmed young man. That young man is dead because he was in the wrong place, at the wrong time, in the company of a man with really bad judgment. One can say that without being irrational.
I do know hysterical is a big word for you. It's a vague word.
I think you'd make your argument better if you dealt with the specific points as many of the people have done with you, going over points rather than a presentation they may or may not have found to their liking, assuming of course that you want to engage in discussion instead of belittling.
Arguers like you and me, JT, we use reason (unless a trigger has been unlocked) but we often lack fire. It does the soul good to see a little passion.
Pine Hills, yo.
Ultimately, ya, I can agree with this. But in this case, we'll never know for certain which was the right side
I disagree, Zimmerman as an adult, made several bad, reckless choices he did not have to make that put him in a position to kill an unarmed 17 year old kid.
The jails are full of people that made bad choices, if they all had Zimmerman's legal defense team many would not have been convicted. And I am not of a general opinion that people that kill other unarmed people should not be in jail.
A claim of self defense on one's own property against an intruder could be more credible.
Gotta go with deep on this one:
To me, it really is that simple--race and all the other drama aside--it really should have been that simple.
Hey! I used to live there!
But what laws did he break? You can't be sent to jail for being an asshole
This is exactly the problem, Jive: he didn't break any laws. That is the part that should give us pause about the US legal system as it stands. If we take the letter of the law out of the equation for a moment and look at the case from an ethical standpoint, are you willing to say that Zimmerman is justified in what he did on that night? I don't think the sense of frustration and outrage is coming from the verdict's propriety or impropriety under the law, but rather at what the law protects and facilitates: that being any asshole with a gun thinking that they have a mission to cleanse their neighborhood of "dangerous" elements.
It’s bad enough how often journalists attribute their scoops to unnamed “sources,” but as cable networks fill time tonight waiting for a verdict in the George Zimmerman trial, Zimmerman’s neighbor Frank Taaffe let slip that his inside sources have told him the jury is deadlocked at the moment, with five of the six jurors moving to acquit.
But what laws did he break? You can't be sent to jail for being an asshole
there is a verdict and one side seems to be satisfied with the verdict
and one side seems to believe there was a miscarriage of justice
what laws did he break?
with this verdict one can say none
and the same can be said of O J Simpson and the killings of Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson, O J broke no laws he is innocent
the same can be said of Officer Laurence Powell and Sergeant Stacey Koon in the near death beating they gave to Rodney King, they broke no laws, based on the verdict
You use "hyperbole", "ridiculous", "unbalanced", "unreasonable" and "kneejerk"
but I believe I slandered you (libeled you? Is an internet forum a published vehicle) with "hysterical". My apologies.
You know none of the are analogous. Zimmerman freely admits he shot and killed Martin
they are, the police admit they beat King, they just got the right jury and defense team for an acquittal of going beyond the legal limit
I usually like when someone gets all fired up in debates (Ashleeeeeyyyyyy)
tim, i live in memphis, a city with very high crime and an over 50% african american population. does that mean i'm qualified to give an opinion?
at no point do i think martin posed a threat to zimmerman. i think he should have been found guilty of something at least. i loved living in florida, but what is it about that state? sheesh.
Well I think this it totally reasonable. But when I read things on facebook etc that say "Oh, so I guess it's legal to kill black people in Florida now?" (I read that exact thing) it does nothing to further the discussion. It's a twisted bastardization of what happened. The laws, as they are now, say Zimmerman probably should have been found not guilty. There's no law against carrying a gun around (which is probably fucked up), there's no law against leaving your house to follow someone you think is suspicious (a poor judgement?...maybe... but not illegal). There are questions as to what happened after that, but we can only go by what was presented. If I leave my house to follow someone that looks suspicious and get the shit kicked out of me, is it my fault? Legally, no (and if we're being consistent with victim blaming, also no). Did he fear for his life? I don't know. Nobody does but Zimmerman. The only issue to discuss really is the gun laws
at no point do i think martin posed a threat to zimmerman. i think he should have been found guilty of something at least.
Are we forgetting the bloody nose, cuts to the back of the head, and a description of Martin on top of Zimmerman delivering the blows? I think at that point Martin posed a threat.
tim, i live in memphis, a city with very high crime and an over 50% african american population. does that mean i'm qualified to give an opinion?
at no point do i think martin posed a threat to zimmerman. i think he should have been found guilty of something at least. i loved living in florida, but what is it about that state? sheesh.
Are we forgetting the bloody nose, cuts to the back of the head, and a description of Martin on top of Zimmerman delivering the blows? I think at that point Martin posed a threat.
Well then it depends what you're interpreting a threat to be.
The prosecution never had the evidence to hold up a second degree murder charge. Manslaughter, maybe.