The Trayvon Martin The Media Didnt Want You To Know! By BILL WHITTLE Pt 1
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
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.
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?
2 out of 3 is better than 50%.
In any event, the 'demonizing' is based on fact. I like the comment about 'character' vs. 'color of skin'. How appropo.
Stupid media. Focusing on the fact that he was an unarmed kid walking home from the store, when they COULD have focused on the fact that he was an unarmed kid walking home from the store who was no saint. Fucking lamestream media! Thank God there are stalwart, upstanding citizens who will stop at nothing in their quest to shit all over a dead kid that was gunned down for the crime of Walking While Black.
Of course, even these so-brave pundits are glossing over the most shocking aspect of the story - that Zimmerman is the world's first confirmed precog. (otherwise, what the fuck does it matter what kind of person the dead kid was?)
Of course, even these so-brave pundits are glossing over the most shocking aspect of the story - that Zimmerman is the world's first confirmed precog. (otherwise, what the fuck does it matter what kind of person the dead kid was?)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
Aha!
So now we agree. We don't know who attacked who. We now two people were doing nothing wrong, then one of them broke the law and a fight ensued.
Now break out your law book again, and explain semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit. If no one knows who attacked first, on what ground can you say the burden of proof has been met? Does that mean your personal standard of "reasonable doubt"?
Let's revisit OJ, shall we? We have all this evidence... and proof that a dirty, racist cop planted some of it. So which evidence can we trust? None of it. Burden of proof met? Nope. Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Nope.
This case has the same hallmarks as the OJ case. Lack of supportable evidence and a media focus on racism when the legal questions are easily answered without any need to even examine the race of either suspect. Now if Martin was white, Zimmerman black, and Zimmerman was found guilty with the same evidence as we have now, I'd be inclined to examine racism as being a factor in the verdict. But surely in a case where no one knows what happened you can't claim the burden of proof is met?
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.
Agreed! One of the two broke the law when they initiated the fight. We don't know which one. Both should be acquitted in court. Unfortunately, only one is alive to stand trial, and he shouldn't be locked up for being the survivor.
Having been high on lean in the past does not make one guilty of being on lean now.
The autopsy showed signs of liver damage in TM. They also said that use of lean can cause one to be paranoid and aggressive.
You mentioned hearsay against Zimmerman but that's also inadmissible. Do they have physical evidence supporting GZ's violent or drunk past?
