[quote]Waittz wrote:
So does Rattlehead count as white or is he translucent? I need to know before his opinion on this matter counts. [/quote]
lol
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
So does Rattlehead count as white or is he translucent? I need to know before his opinion on this matter counts. [/quote]
lol[/quote]
definitly latino
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
So does Rattlehead count as white or is he translucent? I need to know before his opinion on this matter counts. [/quote]
lol[/quote]
[quote]Waittz wrote:
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
So does Rattlehead count as white or is he translucent? I need to know before his opinion on this matter counts. [/quote]
lol[/quote]
[/quote]
Not my fault it looks like I live on Hoth 
but +1 on being latino, that’d be awesome
Pity that a legal system is designed to credit the best salesperson. I doubt this trial will continue as anything less than a circus.
I don’t think the fake passport is proof of guilt, but it will be presented as such. It could also be his fear of being wrongfully convicted. (in his eyes).
A young man is still dead. Another is permanently on trial. Tragedy all the way around.
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
[quote]stokes1989 wrote:
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
[quote]stokes1989 wrote:
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
Love how when you have you an objective approach/opinion regarding the trial you are a racist lol[/quote]
did you know? it’s always a race thing, no matter what it is[/quote]
With certain posters it seems to be[/quote]
yup, starting to seem like race is more important in this trial, than whether he’s guilty of any wrongdoing or not[/quote]
Of course, I remember when the original thread regarding the shooting was created and HoustonGuy was trolling by simply being objective and it turned out a lot of his points were correct lol[/quote]
Ummmmmm no.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
What does he have anything to do with this trial? [/quote]
‘‘Coolio’’ as ‘‘cool’’. Duh!
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Of course Zimmerman didn’t now Martin was a gangbanger, which stands to reason, mainly because by all accounts Martin wasn’t banging.
Secondly, while carrying a water bottle. This is common sense. [/quote]
Great. So you’re admitting Zimcunt did profile Trayvon based on his garments and his swag.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
From what I understand, he followed him because he matched the description of people who had broken into homes in the area prior. [/quote]
So he did profile him. Racially profiled him.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I don’t believe MArtin was a gangbanger. Why are you trying to turn my obvious hypothetical into reality? [/quote]
Okie dokie. I won’t from now on.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Your statement would be accurate written like this:
[i]dressing in … cloths if you don’t want to world to think you live like swine. [/quote]
Yeah. And this is what you insinuated in your ‘‘hypothetical scenario.’’
Martin looked like a gangbanger, so it wasn’t surprising Zimcunt confronted him. They fought, consequently resulting in Zimcunt being beaten to a pulp by Martin. Zimcunt was right to use deadly force. Zimcunt had the right to stand his ground.
Gotcha.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Yes, you are. Well, more accurately you are taking a clear hypothetical and trying to make it a reality. Why? I have no idea. [/quote]
I’m not trying to make it into a reality. I’m just dissecting your statement. Just as you’ve been doing mine. Simples.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
If that is what you think a “typical gangbanger” … leathers than I am anyone else. [/quote]
CB, I was being sarcastic, if you didn’t catch that. I don’t need a lesson on Gangs.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
No, that isn’t what I meant. Jesus, you have a vivid imagination and ridiculous bias. [/quote]
So you don’t think Martin looked like a thug as he walked down the streets on that fatal night, uh? You don’t think Zimcunt perceived him as a thug walking down the streets, uh?
Furthermore, based on what has been revealed regarding his fights at school, weed smoking etc., do you think Trayvon was a thug? Do you think Zimcunt has the right to confront him?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Such as? [/quote]
Zimmcunt claims that his head was bashed against the concrete. Unless Zimmerman was about 10 ft tall during the fight, he and Trayvon were too far away from the sidewalk for his head to be bashed against the ground.
Zimmcunt says he was not following Trayvon after the 911 operator told him to stop. Yet, he was still in the back of the building for the altercation to occur.
Zimmcunt said he was on his back the whole time, and yet, he managed to get the gun, which he says was in the back of his pants? How would Trayvon know the gun was there, let alone reach for it?
Zimmcunt claimed Trayvon was not on the phone as he was walking home. Yet we all know he was on the phone.
Zimmcunt said his injuries resulted from his head repeatedly bashed onto the concrete. Oh, so while Trayvon was busy bashing that bastard’s fat head, Trayvon reached for his gun too?
Shall I go on?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Well, it is amazing that you can medically diagnose someone a year later, after not knowing what happened, not seeing it and having mixed testimony from witness. What medical training do you have? Because for you to use such vivid imagery of “proudly standing over” I have to assume you have some factual basis for that statement.
Or is it simply biased conjecture you contrived to fit your narrative? [/quote]
Oh, shall I say the same about you when it comes to your narrative? I have not seen anything balanced from your side, so spare me with the ‘‘biased conjecture’’. You are supporting a killer, and, I am here for for Trayvon. Fucking sue me.
Zimcunt’s head never was bashed against the concrete. He’s a fucking liar.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Who lied about what? And how do you know?[/quote]
Lol. Yeah, as if you do not know whom I’m talking about. Lololol.
[quote]]countingbeans wrote:
She told the jury that Martin called Zimmerman a cracker. It shows that Martin was judging Zimmerman based on the color of his skin. [/quote]
Lol. Just as Zimcunt racially profiled Trayvon the first time he saw him.
[quote]]countingbeans wrote:
His choice of words tends to lend itself to giving us an idea of Martin’s mindset. [/quote]
Yeah? Go on…
What has it got to do with Trayvon being chased down the streets by a fat pig? What has it got to do with him being killed later by the same fat pig?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Her? No, not necessarily, she was recanting what Martin said. It does give a fairly decent case if you wanted to make the argument that Martin was a racist though. [/quote]
Oh okay. So Martin was ‘‘racist’’… okay… so him being ‘‘racist’’ gives a fairly decent case?
Oh, all right… so I gather then that Trayvon was proclaiming his black supremacy in the streets before being spotted by Zimfat. Zimfat got mad about Trayvon and his racial epithets, and decided to follow him. He also knew he had the right to confront him. Trayvon being a ‘‘racist’’ decided to teach that fat batasrd a lesson… resulting in Trayvon’s death.
Yeah… I see… fairly decent case. Martin was killed because he was a racist walking down the streets, back to his father home. Yeap. He deserved to be killed. Yeap.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I brought up that fact that she testified that Martin called Zimmerman a cracker, yeah, and? [/quote]
And there was no need to burst a bubble about my ‘‘ramblings’’ on the difference between C and N words. It is called a debate. You bring a point, I present a counterpoint.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Good thing I didn’t, nor did I intend to, lol. [/quote]
Oh, Yeah, I hear ya. You never do this, you never do that. Lol. What a wishy washer.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Deal with what? Irrelevant ramblings about the hardships of Black American’s? Okay. But I will continue to point out how irrelevant those ramblings are to anything we are discussing. [/quote]
Lol.
You were the one bursting a bubble over me making a point as to why the C cannot be as offensive as the N word. That was my point. I thought you saw yourself as smart ass. Deal with my irrelevant ramblings and stop getting your panties twisted.
We are having debate. And, during a debate, people bring points RELEVANT to the topic.
[quote] countingbeans wrote:
lol, coming from someone who abuses the word “cunt” as much as you do, I’m not even going to entertain the thought of you taking the connotation/denotation train down the tracks.
Every other word you type is an obscenity, lets not nit pick dictionary definitions to defend something that isn’t defendable, shall we? [/quote]
LOLOLOL!!!
Oh, I agreeeeee, O mighty CB. My using of obscenities has very much got something to do with the difference between someone who is prejudiced and another one who feels superior to the other race.
Oh, I agreeeee. My using of obscenities makes me so inferior and so uneducated to you, the superior being that you think you are, and who KNOWS the very meaning of words in a dictionary.
Dream on. Educate yourself, CB. The use of of the ‘‘C’’ word doesn’t make one racist. A bigot, yes, prejudiced yes. Racist, no.
[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
Pity that a legal system is designed to credit the best salesperson. I doubt this trial will continue as anything less than a circus.
I don’t think the fake passport is proof of guilt, but it will be presented as such. It could also be his fear of being wrongfully convicted. (in his eyes).
A young man is still dead. Another is permanently on trial. Tragedy all the way around. [/quote]
Truth.
It’s silly to the point of being sad. The people backing Zimmerman will describe Martin as a Hard time Gangbanger with a police record a mile long when the truth is Zimmerman is the one with an official police record with Multiple descriptions of violence one against a officer only dropped when he went to AA.
The people Backing Martin want you to see Zimmerman as a Klansman with a thirst for blood. When the truth is he is just an overzealous dumb ass. It does not make him Satan. And Martin was a light in the ass 17 yr old who did some dumb shit. Did not make him a blood or crip.
Both could have went on to been good upstanding citizens. But like you stated Tragedy all the way around
[quote]
Great. So you’re admitting Zimmerman did profile Trayvon based on his garments and his swag.[/quote]
I have no idea if Zimmerman profiled Martin based on his clothing or gate… All I know is Zimmerman, for whatever reason, thought Martin was suspicious. I’m not aware if Zimmerman claimed he profiled Martin based off of his dress or walk, etc.
Again, trying to turn a hypothetical into an assertion. For someone so hot about dictionary definitions you’d do yourself a favor to look up “hypothetical” and “logical fallacy”.
I have no idea. This has been your assertion for awhile now.
Stating Martin matched the description of suspects involved in crimes in the area prior, is just that, stating that Martin matched the description of suspects involved in crimes.
[quote]
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I don’t believe MArtin was a gangbanger. Why are you trying to turn my obvious hypothetical into reality? [/quote]
Okie dokie. I won’t from now on.[/quote]
Funny, because you continue to do it, lol.
[quote]
Yeah. And this is what you insinuated in your ‘‘hypothetical scenario.’’ Martin looked like gangbanger, so it wasn’t surprising Zimmerman confronted him and they fought, consequently resulting in Zimcunt being beaten to a pulp by Martin. Zimmerman was right to use deadly force. Zimmerman had the right to stand his ground.
Gotcha.[/quote]
I didn’t insinuate any of that. Either you aren’t reading what I write, or are literally making shit up to try and save e-face at this point.
Where do you even come up with this nonsense? I’ve explained that point like 3 times now. Either re-read it or drop it.
Not really no. You’re making up assertions I didn’t make to try and back me into some corner, that isn’t there.
I have no idea what he looked like. Haven’t seen a video.
I dont’ know if Zimmerman thought he was a thug. All I know is Zimmerman thought he was suspicious and match the description of suspects in crimes in the area prior.
Lol, I know why you aren’t a lawyer.
Eh… I don’t really care whether Martin was a thug or not, all that matters is pattern of behavior. Martin showed a pattern of behavior that included violence. Now this doesn’t mean I 100% instantly believe Zimmerman’s story. But it does, however, make Zimmerman’s account plausible and reasonable, given Martin wasn’t shy about being violent and fighting.
Been over this. What I think doesn’t matter. The laws on this nation give you the right to speak to whom ever you want, about whatever you want, in a public space. So yes, he had the right to do so.
Okay, paramedics are on file saying his head was bleeding and would need stiches…
I suppose you want him to teleport places?
Too many variables to actually answer how Martin may or may not have known the fire arm was there. But it isn’t hard to reach for a pistol if your back arches…
lol yes, headsets dont’ exist, nor are they easy to miss… lol, just lol.
What is the problem here?
Up to you.
Utter bullshit, particularly compared to your posts.
Without referencing your favorite hypothetical, show me where I am anywhere near as biased as you. (Not that the hypothetical is biased, just you have repeatedly purposefully failed to understand it.)
[quote]
Zimmerman’s head never was bashed against the concrete. [/quote]
lol. I guess the paramedics must all be in on the cover-up then? And the cops? And the pictures of his mangled face?
Conjecture
[quote]
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
His choice of words tends to lend itself to giving us an idea of Martin’s mindset. [/quote]
Yeah? Go on…
What has it got to do with Trayvon being chased down the streets by Zimmerman? What has it got to do with him being killed later by the same?[/quote]
It has to do with a similar situation to the hypothetical you refuse to understand.
If Martin doesn’t like white people, and a white person (as far as he can tell at that point) confronts him, it makes a violent reaction a reasonable conclusion. This doesn’t absolutely mean he did react violently, nor that he hates white people. It simply points to a mindset, which coupled with other factors, points to likely scenarios.
[quote]
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Her? No, not necessarily, she was recanting what Martin said. It does give a fairly decent case if you wanted to make the argument that Martin was a racist though. [/quote]
Oh okay. So Martin was ‘‘racist’’… okay… so him being ‘‘racist’’ gives a fairly decent case?
Oh, all right… so I gather then that Trayvon was proclaiming his black supremacy in the streets before being spotted by Zimmerman. So Zimmerman got mad and saw Trayvon as a racist, followed him and knew he had the right to confront him. Trayvon being a ‘‘racist’’ decided to teach Zimmerman a lesson… resulting in his death.[/quote]
Are you drunk right now? How on Earth did you take my statement to that extreme without laughing hysterically as you typed it?
What the hell are you even talking about anymore. Why are you taking my statements and creating this nonsense? I didn’t say that, imply that, insinuate that or even approach that topic with a 10 foot pole. (That is like 3 meters)
Why can’t you just discuss the case without making up this crazy BS?
[quote]
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I brought up that fact that she testified that Martin called Zimmerman a cracker, yeah, and? [/quote]
And there was no need to burst a bubble about my rambling on the difference between C and N words. It is called a debate. You bring a point, I present a counterpoint. [/quote]
A counter point to nothing I said. Counter point implies relevance…
[quote]
Oh, Yeah, I hear ya. You never do this, you never do that. Lol. What a wishy washer.[/quote]
More pretend…
Um… My “panties” aren’t twisted… I am simply pointing out you are rambling about irrelevant shit.
Your use of “cunt” every other word cheapens your argument that I’m using a word out of context or improperly.
Try to actually speak like an adult and I’ll entertain the thought of continuing this part of the dialogue.
[quote]
Dream on. Get that dictionary, CB. The use of of the ‘‘C’’ word doesn’t make one racist. A bigot, yes, prejudiced yes. Racist, no.[/quote]
lol, your reaching.
[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
From what I understand, he followed him because he matched the description of people who had broken into homes in the area prior. [/quote]
So he did profile him. Racially profiled him.[/quote]
That’s quite the leap. For example, the police put out a description of a young black male of a certain height and weight robbing houses in your neighborhood. If you see someone of that description, guess what? You’re likely informing the police that someone suspicious is in your community. However, you’re not basing this off skin color; you would be basing this off the prior description of the suspect, big difference.
The same exact thing would be true if the guy happened to be white, asian, latino. The skin color is only relevant as an identifying characteristic of the suspect like hair or shirt color, it’s not used to make a judgement about that person.
[quote]no_name_narrator wrote:
[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
From what I understand, he followed him because he matched the description of people who had broken into homes in the area prior. [/quote]
So he did profile him. Racially profiled him.[/quote]
That’s quite the leap. For example, the police put out a description of a young black male of a certain height and weight robbing houses in your neighborhood. If you see someone of that description, guess what? You’re likely informing the police that someone suspicious is in your community. However, you’re not basing this off skin color; you would be basing this off the prior description of the suspect, big difference.
The same exact thing would be true if the guy happened to be white, asian, latino. The skin color is only relevant as an identifying characteristic of the suspect like hair or shirt color, it’s not used to make a judgement about that person.[/quote]
If the only Description you have is “young and Black” then something is wrong. Or do any of you have something that has not been shared with the rest of us?
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]no_name_narrator wrote:
[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
From what I understand, he followed him because he matched the description of people who had broken into homes in the area prior. [/quote]
So he did profile him. Racially profiled him.[/quote]
That’s quite the leap. For example, the police put out a description of a young black male of a certain height and weight robbing houses in your neighborhood. If you see someone of that description, guess what? You’re likely informing the police that someone suspicious is in your community. However, you’re not basing this off skin color; you would be basing this off the prior description of the suspect, big difference.
The same exact thing would be true if the guy happened to be white, asian, latino. The skin color is only relevant as an identifying characteristic of the suspect like hair or shirt color, it’s not used to make a judgement about that person.[/quote]
If the only Description you have is “young and Black” then something is wrong. Or do any of you have something that has not been shared with the rest of us?
[/quote]
My description of “young and black” was purely hypothetical which on its own isn’t enough to stop someone. However, my guess is the real description would be much for robust seeing how the police had been called to that particlar neighborhood 402 TIMES in the year leading up to the shooting including, including a robbery a few weeks prior.
Another reason I find reason to doubt it was racial profiling was that the five previous times that Zimmerman reported suspicious activity, he never gave the race of the suspects without being prompted by an operator.
[quote]no_name_narrator wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]no_name_narrator wrote:
[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
From what I understand, he followed him because he matched the description of people who had broken into homes in the area prior. [/quote]
So he did profile him. Racially profiled him.[/quote]
That’s quite the leap. For example, the police put out a description of a young black male of a certain height and weight robbing houses in your neighborhood. If you see someone of that description, guess what? You’re likely informing the police that someone suspicious is in your community. However, you’re not basing this off skin color; you would be basing this off the prior description of the suspect, big difference.
The same exact thing would be true if the guy happened to be white, asian, latino. The skin color is only relevant as an identifying characteristic of the suspect like hair or shirt color, it’s not used to make a judgement about that person.[/quote]
If the only Description you have is “young and Black” then something is wrong. Or do any of you have something that has not been shared with the rest of us?
[/quote]
My description of “young and black” was purely hypothetical which on its own isn’t enough to stop someone. However, my guess is the real description would be much for robust seeing how the police had been called to that particlar neighborhood 402 TIMES in the year leading up to the shooting including, including a robbery a few weeks prior.
Another reason I find reason to doubt it was racial profiling was that the five previous times that Zimmerman reported suspicious activity, he never gave the race of the suspects without being prompted by an operator. [/quote]
In that same frame of thought you also must look at the number of those calls made by Zimmerman himself “Dozens” if we are doing hypotheticals. It stands to reason he would consider any Young Black male a suspect. But that as well as most of this is purely a “guess”
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]no_name_narrator wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]no_name_narrator wrote:
[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
From what I understand, he followed him because he matched the description of people who had broken into homes in the area prior. [/quote]
So he did profile him. Racially profiled him.[/quote]
That’s quite the leap. For example, the police put out a description of a young black male of a certain height and weight robbing houses in your neighborhood. If you see someone of that description, guess what? You’re likely informing the police that someone suspicious is in your community. However, you’re not basing this off skin color; you would be basing this off the prior description of the suspect, big difference.
The same exact thing would be true if the guy happened to be white, asian, latino. The skin color is only relevant as an identifying characteristic of the suspect like hair or shirt color, it’s not used to make a judgement about that person.[/quote]
If the only Description you have is “young and Black” then something is wrong. Or do any of you have something that has not been shared with the rest of us?
[/quote]
My description of “young and black” was purely hypothetical which on its own isn’t enough to stop someone. However, my guess is the real description would be much for robust seeing how the police had been called to that particlar neighborhood 402 TIMES in the year leading up to the shooting including, including a robbery a few weeks prior.
Another reason I find reason to doubt it was racial profiling was that the five previous times that Zimmerman reported suspicious activity, he never gave the race of the suspects without being prompted by an operator. [/quote]
In that same frame of thought you also must look at the number of those calls made by Zimmerman himself “Dozens” if we are doing hypotheticals. It stands to reason he would consider any Young Black male a suspect. But that as well as most of this is purely a “guess”[/quote]
Sure that’s completely fair. My point more than anything wasn’t that Zimmerman was or wasn’t racially profiling, it’s that we can’t know for sure either way. Thus, it just seems counter-productive that this whole thing has turned into a racial issue with many people certain that the crime was committed based on Trayvon’s skin color.
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]no_name_narrator wrote:
However, my guess is the real description would be much for robust seeing how the police had been called to that particlar neighborhood 402 TIMES in the year leading up to the shooting including, including a robbery a few weeks prior.
Another reason I find reason to doubt it was racial profiling was that the five previous times that Zimmerman reported suspicious activity, he never gave the race of the suspects without being prompted by an operator. [/quote]
In that same frame of thought you also must look at the number of those calls made by Zimmerman himself “Dozens” if we are doing hypotheticals. [/quote]
He could have to have called 4 dozen times before he would even be 10% of the calls made. And as a member of the neighborhood watch, it would stand to reason he would have made a significant number of the calls.
Doesn’t mean he wasn’t improperly profiling, just that it makes sense if he called a lot.
[quote]no_name_narrator wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]no_name_narrator wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]no_name_narrator wrote:
[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
From what I understand, he followed him because he matched the description of people who had broken into homes in the area prior. [/quote]
So he did profile him. Racially profiled him.[/quote]
That’s quite the leap. For example, the police put out a description of a young black male of a certain height and weight robbing houses in your neighborhood. If you see someone of that description, guess what? You’re likely informing the police that someone suspicious is in your community. However, you’re not basing this off skin color; you would be basing this off the prior description of the suspect, big difference.
The same exact thing would be true if the guy happened to be white, asian, latino. The skin color is only relevant as an identifying characteristic of the suspect like hair or shirt color, it’s not used to make a judgement about that person.[/quote]
If the only Description you have is “young and Black” then something is wrong. Or do any of you have something that has not been shared with the rest of us?
[/quote]
My description of “young and black” was purely hypothetical which on its own isn’t enough to stop someone. However, my guess is the real description would be much for robust seeing how the police had been called to that particlar neighborhood 402 TIMES in the year leading up to the shooting including, including a robbery a few weeks prior.
Another reason I find reason to doubt it was racial profiling was that the five previous times that Zimmerman reported suspicious activity, he never gave the race of the suspects without being prompted by an operator. [/quote]
In that same frame of thought you also must look at the number of those calls made by Zimmerman himself “Dozens” if we are doing hypotheticals. It stands
to reason he would consider any Young Black male a suspect. But that as well as most of this is purely a “guess”[/quote]
Sure that’s completely fair. My point more than anything wasn’t that Zimmerman was or wasn’t racially profiling, it’s that we can’t know for sure either way. Thus, it just seems counter-productive that this whole thing has turned into a racial issue with many people certain that the crime was committed based on Trayvon’s skin color.[/quote]
Yeah. Much of that comes from both sides not coming clean that neither was an angel. Zimm’s side won’t talk about his police record and Martin’s side won’t talk about his trying to be a tough guy. And by doing that it turns into a fictional portrayal of both.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]no_name_narrator wrote:
However, my guess is the real description would be much for robust seeing how the police had been called to that particlar neighborhood 402 TIMES in the year leading up to the shooting including, including a robbery a few weeks prior.
Another reason I find reason to doubt it was racial profiling was that the five previous times that Zimmerman reported suspicious activity, he never gave the race of the suspects without being prompted by an operator. [/quote]
In that same frame of thought you also must look at the number of those calls made by Zimmerman himself “Dozens” if we are doing hypotheticals. [/quote]
He could have to have called 4 dozen times before he would even be 10% of the calls made. And as a member of the neighborhood watch, it would stand to reason he would have made a significant number of the calls.
Doesn’t mean he wasn’t improperly profiling, just that it makes sense if he called a lot. [/quote]
That statement actually adds to the chance he was profiling. Having been engulfed in all those calls and reports he sees bad guys in Young Black males. Guilty or not. I mean what description is out other than that? No one is coming out with it.
I mean did Martin fit any description out other than “young & black”? Or is this just what Zimmerman seen as being enough. Either way it does not mean he wanted the kid dead.
[quote]four60 wrote:
Either way it does not mean he wanted the kid dead.[/quote]
Right. The facts and circumstances present Zimmerman as a man who’s judgment isn’t very good, or at the very least, isn’t very consistent. But, like you said, that doesn’t make him a murderer, and she shouldn’t be punished as one.
I do not, however, hope he gets off “scott Free”, or whatever the saying is. He acted irresponsible and exhibited enough poor judgment that a lessor charge would have me agreeing with that outcome.
Prosecution really dropped the ball on this one.
I asked before and it was overlooked, can prosecution change the charges to manslaughter or can that only be done at the beginning of the trial?