[youtube]Ebu6Yvzs4Ls[/youtube]
Printable View
[youtube]Ebu6Yvzs4Ls[/youtube]
I've asked , and had accepted , that I may open another thread about this issue , and I'm hoping that we can discuss this further without this place getting too heated .
ShiftingGears posted a video that states many background facts about both of the participants .
(If he or Pino , or anyone else could post it for me , I would be grateful)
I don't wish to start a war , but I think some of the background given sheds a lot of new light on the situation .
Video added, now let's discuss it nicely and keep off personal comments/insults. Last chance for this topic and for some of you guys, do remember that !
OK, I'll start.
The jury reached the only possible conclusion they could have given the existing law and the testimony and evidence presented at the trial.
Some in the former thread argued that the finding was wrong. They are the ones in error and I'll tell you why. The Florida Stand Your Ground laws are quite clear. And, unfortunately for some, the laws mean what they say and not what you would like them to mean. The answer for those who believe that justice was not done is not to carp about the jury finding, but to work to get the laws changed so that they say and mean something closer to your viewpoint. (Others will work to retain said laws of course.) That's how rule of law works. Laws are not flexible things, meaning different things at different times and to different people. They mean what they say. That's a lesson for legislators everywhere - be very careful what you enact, as you're going to have to live with it.
Thanks for allowing the topic to continue Pino, and thanks for posing the question Bagwan. :)
To me this was an open and shut case that would have likely never happened without political influence at higher levels. It was well within Zimmermans rights to patrol his neighborhood and attempt to protect property. I've been amazed that so many oppose his actions and saw him as aggressive in any way.
We had some issues in our community years ago and people got involved in the same way. I found that if people had nothing to hide, they hid nothing. People that noticed we were keeping an eye on things (young and older) often approached us to ask what we were looking for, or why. When they realized what we were doing they often assisted in pointing out the "trouble makers" within the community. Even the kids that were up to some small scale illegal activity wanted to clear their names of any major wrong doing and as such avoided circumstances that would point to them as a source of major problems.
Even some of the kids that were major fools got the point, and after talking to them they started understanding how their actions would reflect on their parents and their neighborhood. And we also communicated with the kids, and found out why some of them were doing seemingly shady things at all hours of the night. In some cases, we found other outlets so kids could be kids without drawing the eyes of the adults.
I personally feel that Zimmerman has had his character assaulted from just about every angle possible. A "wanna be" cop... stated over and over. So is there a problem with someone having a desire to uphold the law? Or for that matter education themselves to the law?
Zimmerman a racist? By what standards this came to light I don't really understand at all. There was a great deal of evidence that he was far removed from being a racist, and I've yet to see any evidence that he was inclined towards being a racist in any way, shape or form.
And now Zimmerman will have to live with threats against him and his family for many years to come. He will also have to live with the fact that he took another humans life, even if justified by law. And many studies have concluded that doing such a thing has mental impacts that are lasting, more influenced by the reaction of society than the actual act of killing a person. IMO a great part of society has failed Zimmerman.
Let's start , Starter , with the idea that none of us , including the jury , had heard much of the background of either men , and drew our own conclusions .
For some , "stand your ground" can result in terrible tragedy , which , in this case was what was being portrayed by most of the press .
This , at least to some degree , is the result of the hyper-sensitivity that the US society has towards the issue of racism .
On the bare face of it , with a young man dead , and silenced about the affair , we all had little idea about the reasons behind what happened , and most made the step into one camp or the other .
Now knowing more of Trayvon , perhaps this can show the extent that we can be manipulated in the press .
This , of course , is not the mainstream press by any means , but seeing the video with some more background for each man puts new light on both the situation that occurred , and so , should not necessarily prompt derision towards those who believed it .
They were uninformed .
They were uninformed on purpose , or , at least it looks like it .
It opens up a lot of avenues for questions .
Was Obama informed before he made his stand ?
If not , Is it incompetence , or was someone looking to make him look foolish ?
If he knew , what was the point ?
Will the truth shown in the video ever make it to that mainstream ?
I personally think that in many cases they were misinformed on purpose. Without misinformation applied, or at a bare minimum selective truths, there was no real controversy to report. And lacking such controversy the "case" would never have happened IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
But on the flip side, I think much of society would draw conclusions quickly even if only the full facts were reported by the media. Many people see things in black and white and never look at gray area or put themselves in the situation yet remain mindful of facts presented. Like the song says, many people love "dirty laundry".
Others will accept facts as facts, but in this example possibly question the law. That is human nature, and opinions will always vary. Others will twist whatever facts they do come across to fit their already determined point of view. To me thing is pointless, and one of the reasons such people often don't even attempt to find what is known as fact. The previous thread had a great number of statements presented as fact that I've yet to find evidence were facts. But once again nature to some.... doing anything they can to justify their point of view.
As for Obama, I really can't for the life of me understand why he got involved. It was a no win situation for him, and will continue to be so.
As for the truths in the video, I saw the video before it was posted and checked out some of the statements made as I had no previously been aware of them. And I've yet to find anything that doesn't by all account appear to be true. I had previously (in the locked thread) stated that I thought the real civil rights leaders would be disgusted with how people twist the race issue these days. But in the long run I don't think any mainstream media would dare run something as fact based as this video. It contains far to many truths for the modern media to be interested.
"It contains far to many truths for the modern media to be interested."
But , doesn't it contain a wild number of questions , ripe to address ?
Perhaps the most obvious would be who stands to benefit from a race war .
But , there are many more from which to chose .
Was the media complicit , or were they duped as well ?
Since this video states that it was an easy task to acquire much more information about the two men involved , was it not obvious that this information would emerge eventually , if it was suppressed ?
When stuff like this happens , it makes me wonder why .
And , I'm not talking about either Martin or Zimmerman here .
Governments tend to work in rather Markabillian ways these days , and when the magician waves his hand , it's wise to look for where the other hand is .
It might be that they needed a distraction from another issue .
If a race war was the object , you'd think they'd be more careful with their choice of heroes to champion .
All this new stuff coming out , seemingly easily , puts me wondering if it all was a set-up , to discredit Obama , with potential to pi$$ off both the whites and the hispanics , by incorrectly identifying Zimmerman a racist , and the blacks , by using this punk to identify an example of a fine young black man .
It'll be interesting to see this all come to light , as it looks like it's just being let to stew in the background .
I don't understand why "stand your ground" is being brought up again and again in the news. Zimmerman should have been acquitted simply due to a simple self-defense argument even without stand your ground law. My theory is that the anti-gun lobby is using the Zimmerman case as an excuse to bash the stand your ground laws.
Bagwan,
All good questions, and I wish I had the true answers.
To be honest the more I sweep through media coverage in different regions of the world, the more I suspect that the media in general has a greater influence on the opinions of the population than I really ever suspected. I've found that the "spin" is often as regional as it is biased based on source. I've found information that may be swayed far left in one part of the world, far right in another, and fact checking tells me it's somewhere in the middle. But it's often difficult to find a media source anywhere in the world that deals with those facts without a slant one way or another.
I actually think a strongly fact based media source with higher standards and more accountability would be popular all over the world. It would take some getting used to depending on what spin a persons regular sources were slanted towards, but in time I think everyone would appreciate it. In most cases when I fact search/check I find stories that most media portray as black and white are in fact grey.
Zako85,
I really don't get it either. Even without specific laws in this case there is no evidence that Zimmerman didn't act in self defense. I personally think that some are taking the "stand your ground" laws out of context and are assuming that it implies you can start a confrontation and remain innocent regardless of outcome.
I'm 100% behind stand your ground and castle laws, including those that extend to vehicles. I think that the majority of people in the world would flee given the choice rather than take another persons life, but I don't think they should be expected to do so. To change the laws to force or expect people to flee is almost an invitation to greater crime IMO.