Maybe, maybe not. That was not really the point I was trying to make. It is a lot juicer of a story in how it has played out.

 

 

No doubt. In a perfect world the media would report the truth without bias and angles for headlines to sell newspapers no matter how inflammatory the subject.

Yep. A 28 year old black male shooting an unarmed 17 year old kid would have been charged by the end of the shift.

We can say that but at this point it's speculation on our part. Until the same circumstance happens with the roles reversed there's no way to know. Even in the story I post who knows how it would have gone down if not for the what's happening in Sanford right now.

Fox News is about 1 of 20,000 world wide media outlets perpetuating the race angle. It started with every outlet from the onset with virtually every article or story beginning with, "White vigilante male kills unarmed African American child" followed by the whitest picture they can find of Zimmerman and the 11 year old picture of Martin. If you reverse the races of the two you would not even hear of this story. Sad on some level, but true. The media is always clamoring for racial abuses.

 

I think the issue is that Fox isn't just playing the racial angle, but that their angle is that the real racism here is against white people (Sharpton, Black Panthers, etc.). While most of the media has gone overboard on this case and could be fairly criticized for it I don't think they are out of bounds in pointing out that there does exist a racial disparity in this country and this case might be a symptom of it. Serious question: Why does this seem to bother you?

I think the issue is that Fox isn't just playing the racial angle, but that their angle is that the real racism here is against white people (Sharpton, Black Panthers, etc.). While most of the media has gone overboard on this case and could be fairly criticized for it I don't think they are out of bounds in pointing out that there does exist a racial disparity in this country and this case might be a symptom of it. Serious question: Why does this seem to bother you?

Nothing bothers me about it but I am not sure what you are asking. I think it is an interesting case study in "racial disparity" and how the media promotes it. Only time I watch Fox is during O'Reilly primarily during non-basketball season. I probably have not devoted more than 5 hours to it the past 5 months. I have no idea what they are promoting or not. And if you are that in-tune with their angle that means you are a closet conservative j/k

Nothing bothers me about it but I am not sure what you are asking. I think it is an interesting case study in "racial disparity" and how the media promotes it. Only time I watch Fox is during O'Reilly primarily during non-basketball season. I probably have not devoted more than 5 hours to it the past 5 months. I have no idea what they are promoting or not. And if you are that in-tune with their angle that means you are a closet conservative j/k

 

:lol:

At this point, I just hope that Zimmerman is guilty and gets convicted. If he doesn't, the legal system will get pummelled: by some claiming that the legal system was manipulated and that the arrest and prosecution was only done to assuage black America; by others from the other perspective claiming that the trial was a sham and that he wasn't convicted because the jurors were racists themselves.

 

My guess is that the Special Prosecutor is being told: you better win this one.

 

I hope he/she has a rock solid case.

At this point, I just hope that Zimmerman is guilty and gets convicted. If he doesn't, the legal system will get pummelled: by some claiming that the legal system was manipulated and that the arrest and prosecution was only done to assuage black America; by others from the other perspective claiming that the trial was a sham and that he wasn't convicted because the jurors were racists themselves.

 

My guess is that the Special Prosecutor is being told: you better win this one.

 

I hope he/she has a rock solid case.

 

I sure hope not. I hope that if the law in Florida that is different from the law in most or all other states means he should be found not guilty that he is. I could be wrong but my understanding is even if Zimmerman started the fight but he was losing that fight by law in Florida he could use deadly force. If that's the case I'm not a big fan of the law, but I want the law followed.

I sure hope not. I hope that if the law in Florida that is different from the law in most or all other states means he should be found not guilty that he is. I could be wrong but my understanding is even if Zimmerman started the fight but he was losing that fight by law in Florida he could use deadly force. If that's the case I'm not a big fan of the law, but I want the law followed.

 

Pretty sure that's not at all what the law says. Could be wrong though.

Two aspects I found of the Florida law:

 

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

 

 

and

 

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

 

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

 

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

 

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Pretty sure that's not at all what the law says. Could be wrong though.

 

He's going to testify that he turned around and quit persuing Martin and Martin started the confrontation would be my guess. He's the only witness. There is a ton of reasonable doubt to convict him for murder.

I am pretty sure i heard on the news that there actually is an eye witness.

I am pretty sure i heard on the news that there actually is an eye witness.

Unless there is someone else that the media hasn't reported about yet the only witness only saw part of the fight. He/she saw Martin on top of Zimmerman but didn't see how it started.

Unless there is someone else that the media hasn't reported about yet the only witness only saw part of the fight. He/she saw Martin on top of Zimmerman but didn't see how it started.

OK, thought i heard something about an eyewitness, like most others, I don't know all the details.

And the back trackers will be out in 3...2...1...

 

The cops didn't arrest him because his story stood up to the evidence. Crazy, I know but maybe the cops had this one right.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_george_zimmerman_head_dm_120419_wmain.jpg

When someone can explain to me how someone can pull a gun out and deliver a kill shot while getting their head pounded into the ground then I'll backtrack.