re: Jury stuck @ 5-1 in favor of aquittal per Zimmerman friend on Fox

Well put, S1C EM. The thing at very few folks seem to this about is that if everyone got along the way some people "say" they want everyone to get along, let's face it 95% of that ideological paradise involves leaving other folks the frick alone and let them live their lives if their decisions don't impact anyone but themselves.

If people did that and we all got along in a rainbow of orgasmic coexistence, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Jeremiah Wright would starve in the street. They don't WANT harmony and equality. Their livelihoods depend on finding racial strife around every corner. It's like the argument about there not being published cures to cancer because it's more profitable to treat the disease. So goes the "civil rights leaders."

Perhaps I'm just not understanding, but what did that case have to do with this one? A white teenager was shot in the face by a black adult? Doesn't appear to be a case of self defense in the least, so I'm not sure how the two can be compared.

RD, no comparison.

First, "criminal possession of a firearm"....why was that? This tells me that Mr. White was not supposed to have a (perhaps THAT) gun at all.

Was Mr. White attacked? Was he beaten? No, he was not. He was called names. Doesn't matter what you think about the names...they were words met with deadly force. Per the story:

quote:

---

Instead of trying to calm the unarmed teenagers, or simply locking his doors and waiting for the police, Mr. White grabbed an unlicensed pistol and stormed out of his house to confront the teenagers

---

He intentionally went about confronting these teenagers and NEGLIGENTLY waived a firearm IN THEIR FACES. This is EASILY grounds for manslaughter, even if the shot was fired accidentally.

GZ, while following TM, likely never thought the kid would take note of him or confront him. Stupid on him, but that's likely what was going through his head. When TM did, he did not draw his weapon. It wasn't until he was on the ground and being beaten for FORTY SECONDS that he drew....and according to the details, only after TM began groping for the gun and threatened to kill GZ with his own weapon. Think about that.

GZ was put on trial with a very heavily weighted jury in favor of TM....SIX WOMEN, FIVE of them MOTHERS. Not ONE of them, based on the evidence, could see fit to convict him of so much as manslaughter.

Just because a case has a similar storyline on the surface does not mean that you can apply the same judgement without knowing the full run of details. This incident isn't even close to the same thing other than that it involved a man, a gun, and a dead teenager.

I'm getting really tired of the armchair attorneys.

Gotcha. I still don't see what undertones you are talking about, though. Sounds like the victim in the other case was making racial slurs towards the black man and/or his kid, so that's the racial aspect I see. Martin referred to Zimmerman as a cracker, but I don't see how that's relevant to that case.

Perhaps the point was that a black man was convicted of manslaughter for killing a white teenager and that in itself is supposed to be the comparison of a "white" man being acquitted of killing a black teenager. If so, the comparison fails for the simple fact that they are two different situations and it sounds like the results would/should have been the same regardless of any combination of races or ethnicities between the accused and the deceased.

quote:

---

Just trying to point out the racial undertones of our society, that's all...

---

It's hard to ignore racial undertones in society when professional victims like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson bring race to the forefront at any chance they can. It's almost as if they thrive on dividing our country. If the NAACP and others used the resources they used for Trayvon Martin and their million hoodie marches on combating black on black crime and inner city violence I think it would be better for the black community and the US as a whole.

LINK

quote:

---

The difference is they are arrested and charge for their crime unlike Zimmerman.

---

And the CRIME was? Me thinks you're standing on the "dumbass" end of the stick. You STILL haven't gotten it through your thick skull that NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED. A series of foolish decisions by both sides resulted in a teenager's death. Period.

quote:

---

The difference is they are arrested and charge for their crime unlike Zimmerman.

---

First, people are arrested for suspected crimes, then charged with alleged crimes. They are only criminals after they are duly convicted.

Second, Zimmerman was arrested for Murder 2. It made all of the major news outlets - kind of tough to miss.

Third, Zimmerman was charged with Murder 2 and Manslaughter. Again, it made all of the news outlets - they even had a press conference to announce it.

Fourth, Zimmerman was tried for, and acquitted of, both Murder 2 and Manslaughter. There was a televised trial and everything.

Well he did refer to Zimmerman as a "cracker"...

I don't think being in support of Martin or protesting the actions of Zimmerman automatically makes a person a racist or a bigot. I think it means his supporters are ignorant and potentially hypocritical.