[ATTACH=CONFIG]40379[/ATTACH]

That would be it. I think there was just as much issue when her saying #dadkilledit as if she meant it as a play on words.

Not at all. Numerous people have claimed they feel GZ did nothing wrong. In my opinion, that would seem to suggest they feel racially profiling is acceptable.

 

 

Fixed it for you.

Fixed it for you.

 

He racially profiled him. If you don't think he did anything wrong, you must think that's okay.

He racially profiled him. If you don't think he did anything wrong, you must think that's okay.

 

Even if he did, which can't be proven beyond a resonable doubt, it is not against the law.

Not at all. Numerous people have claimed they feel GZ did nothing wrong. That would seem to suggest they feel racially profiling is acceptable.

 

No, numerous people have not said GZ saw a black kid and based upon that he is good to go after him, which is what you are insinuating. Most people are saying that what he did - as it relates to the case - does not mean he is guilty of murder.

One thing I find very alarming is that so many on here find it acceptable to racially profile. I seriously had thought that practice was universially thought of as unacceptable.

 

It is unacceptable - by police.

He racially profiled him. If you don't think he did anything wrong, you must think that's okay.

 

From a legal perspective, so what?

State is now making their closing arguments. Using the "wannabe cop" angle.

From a legal perspective, so what?

 

That is what I'm confused about, if a cop profiled based on race then there is an issue. But a citizen can profile anyway they want there is no law to restrict it. I don't have to like if he did to know that the act itself is not a crime.

From a legal perspective, so what?

 

I'm not talking from a legal perspective. There's quite a difference between thinking he didn't break any laws, (or that it can't be proven that he did) and thinking he did nothing wrong. I'm talking about the people who have claimed not only GZ didn't break any laws, that he did nothing wrong. I assumed we were past people thinking racially profiling people was okay, I've been proven wrong.

That is what I'm confused about, if a cop profiled based on race then there is an issue. But a citizen can profile anyway they want there is no law to restrict it. I don't have to like if he did to know that the act itself is not a crime.

 

 

It's like someone saying "He's innocent until proven guilty - you can't make a judgment." I can actually.

I'm not talking from a legal perspective. There's quite a difference between thinking he didn't break any laws, (or that it can't be proven that he did) and thinking he did nothing wrong. I'm talking about the people who have claimed not only GZ didn't break any laws, that he did nothing wrong. I assumed we were past people thinking racially profiling people was okay, I've been proven wrong.

 

Many have said on here that GZ has some issues. No question. His actions started process. I just don't think he ca be convicted of murder based on what we've heard.

He racially profiled him. If you don't think he did anything wrong, you must think that's okay.

 

Again, that is your opinion that GZ racially profiled TM when there is no proof whatsoever. Do I think it was ignorant for GZ to follow TM? Yes, but ignorance is not a crime. I think the media, from the beginning, has tried to make America think this was a racially motivated crime. Before this incident, I've never heard anyone referred to as a "white Hispanic". The media wants everyone to think GZ is white so we can have the classic black vs. white conflict which, of course, means that GZ was racially profiling because all white people are racist, right?

State is stressing the "he started it" angle.

State says there was no blood on Trayvon's hands and that shows he wasn't on top of him.

 

Not sure how he can make that leap.