I wasn't aware that following someone in public through a neighbourhood in which you are part of the neighbourhood watch was illegal. Did I miss that law on the books of any state in the US?Sure, let's continue to demonize the kid who was minding his own business walking home and got killed for it, and praise the wannabe cop who arms himself and follows people who are minding their own business. Again with the Skittles and Arizona. No Robitussin? Well, they say 2 out of 3 ain't bad, but in this case, 2 out of 3 ain't LEAN.
2 out of 3 is better than 50%.Sure, let's continue to demonize the kid who was minding his own business walking home and got killed for it, and praise the wannabe cop who arms himself and follows people who are minding their own business. Again with the Skittles and Arizona. No Robitussin? Well, they say 2 out of 3 ain't bad, but in this case, 2 out of 3 ain't LEAN.
Not that I'm aware of. Who said it was? I didn't. You'll also find Zimmerman never did either.Is walking around at night illegal? I wasn't aware of that.
Zimmerman doesn't self-identify as white. He's Latino. An equal minority to black. No one is saying a "white" guy is exempt. We're saying a guy was attacked while doing nothing illegal and defended himself. Turn the tables: have Zimmerman followed by Martin, Zimmerman turn and attack Martin, Martin defend himself. Should Martin go to jail? No.I see the double standard is in full effect. Trayvon's interest in hip hop, MMA, etc, make him an obviously guilty gangster.
George Zimmerman actually fighting with the police, history of domestic violence, identification as a racist by his own family, etc, is irrelevant hearsay that should be ignored.
Either this historical information, essentially equal in weight and meaning, is equally relevant or it is equally irrelevant.
The people who want it to be relevant for the black guy but irrelevant for the white guy are racist and bigoted people. Very clearly that is a double standard.
My view:
We don't know who the aggressor was, that are good reasons to think it was Zimmerman and there are good reasons to think it was Martin.
That doubt cuts both ways and acquits them both equally.
Who attacked who? Do you know for certain? Were you there? All that is known for certain is that there was a confrontation, then a fight, and the guy who was armed shot the guy who wasn't armed (with a gun).Not that I'm aware of. Who said it was? I didn't. You'll also find Zimmerman never did either.
If you aren't breaking the law, and I'm not breaking the law, and you then turn and attack me and I, in fear of my life, defend myself... Why should I be in jail?
He is white Latino and no Latinos have not and do not face the same level of discrimination as blacks.Zimmerman doesn't self-identify as white. He's Latino. An equal minority to black. No one is saying a "white" guy is exempt. We're saying a guy was attacked while doing nothing illegal and defended himself. Turn the tables: have Zimmerman followed by Martin, Zimmerman turn and attack Martin, Martin defend himself. Should Martin go to jail? No.
Aha!Who attacked who? Do you know for certain? Were you there? All that is known for certain is that there was a confrontation, then a fight, and the guy who was armed shot the guy who wasn't armed (with a gun).
I think you'll find that in the US, Latinos face a very similar level of discrimination. Historically they didn't of course. But in modern times, it's just as hard for a Mexican to find a job in Carson City as it is for a Black. Source: lived in Carson City. I wouldn't say it's identical, nor would I say one is "worse", but I'd definitely call it similar.He is white Latino and no Latinos have not and do not face the same level of discrimination as blacks.
You don't need to turn the tables. Had Martin wrestled the gun from Zimmerman and shot him instead he walks away a free man, on the identical evidence.
The uncertainty about who initiated the fight acquits them both equally.
They have his social media snapshots talking about lean.Ok, so if I have a lighter and some rolling papers automatically I'm a stoner and I'm gonna smoke a joint? Maybe I just like rolling my own tobacco (Not a smoker,BTW.) Maybe TM just wanted to eat some candy and drink an Arizona. If there was no Robitussin on his person at the time of his death, then saying he was on lean or about to make some is pure speculation.
Having been high on lean in the past does not make one guilty of being on lean now.They have his social media snapshots talking about lean.
And?They have his social media snapshots talking about lean.
The autopsy showed signs of liver damage in TM. They also said that use of lean can cause one to be paranoid and aggressive.And?
Zimmerman was a drunk. Does that make either of them murderers?