Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by solarjetman
I'm glad I officially made it into this thread! Haha...well, let me start out by thanking you for taking the time to respond. You threw a lot at me,
so please allow me to address everything because it seems I didn't make my points very clear, and also you're putting a few words in my mouth.
And now you are angry only one person responded to your diatribe,
First, I am not "angry" that I didn't get a bunch of responses-- just because I pointed it out doesn't mean I'm angry about it. Also, I'm not sure
how my post reads like an emotional rant to you-- I've tried to coherently break down double standards citing specific examples. If you don't agree
with my points or argument, then that's fine, but I don't know see how you're going to dismiss the entire post as a "diatribe."
and calling people that don't think like you devolved biased sheep. Also implying that people are only calling out the lies and BS the media spouted,
because it's sexy? So you would rather everyone kept their mouths shut, and let the media smear someone.... Got it.
I might have come off a bit harshly here, and I apologize for that, but you're twisting my words a bit here too. I'm not equating people at ATS who
"don't think like me" to devolved sheep, but rather I am saying some of the arguments people are bringing to the table here share the same kinds of
speculations and biases that the MSM-brainwashed masses buy into, only that these biases express themselves in a way that support the "underdog."
Calling out the lies and BS is good, but call it out both ways.
1)Dig a little deeper, you will see the truth for what it is. Poor people go to jail the most, because they can't afford to pay a few hundred grand to
hire a good defense liar. A lot of poor people are minorities, but poor white people get treated unfairly as well.
I agree that there is most certainly a class issue regarding convictions and sentencing in courts. How much deals with race and how much deals with
class is a topic thats probably best saved for another thread, but wouldn't you agree it's safe to say that there is no clear cut line for "beyond
reasonable doubt"? That's really the only point I was trying to make-- the line seems to be entirely dependent on who the defendant and who the the
alleged victim is.
Why shouldn't I throw their tactics right back at them?
As I stated to rebellender, I think both tactics are foul. Why can't you take the middle ground and see both sides as entirely speculative?
I care about neither one's past personally, they are both irrelevant in a spur of the moment confrontation in a life and death situation. As long as
the Tray supporters think it's fair to bring up Geaorge's past, why wouldn't others dig into Tray's past and show he is not the 12 year old angel that
the media tried to portray him as? Turnabout is fair play, no?
I think you're missing my point here, but I'm glad you view both as irrelevant, because at least it's a consistent point of view for both Zimmerman
and Trayvon. What I am suggesting is that people are taking one variable-- history of violence-- and calling it irrelevant for one person and obvious
proof of violent disposition for the other. Isolating this one variable alone, it is clear that there is a double standard going on in some people's
3)Talking about assholes getting away, and walking down a sidewalk in your community... Nothing illegal or immoral in that. How can you claim, without
any evidence, that he was still on Tray's trail? Zimmerman said he lost Tray, went to make note of the house number where he last saw him at. Then he
turned around, and headed back toward his truck. Tray confronted him from the side sidewalk, suckerpunched him, then jumped on top of him and
continued beating him up. Witnesses back up the beating up part, no witnesses to contradict the suckerpunch part.
Again missing the point. Look, I'll say for the third time that I'm not trying to argue that Zimmerman was in the wrong. I'm just saying that if you
are going to attack speculation, then don't use that same exact kind of speculation to formulate your argument. When I stated, "Zimmerman follows
Trayvon, talking about assholes getting away, to the point of getting out of the car, against dispatcher's recommendation, running after him. Fight
and death ensues" that's not my personal argument, that's the argument thats on the table, which I followed up with the pro-Zimmerman response of
"there's nothing wrong with that." That's fine, and you're right, there is a time lapse that occurred between his actions and the confrontation.
Let's even say he DID follow the dispatcher's suggestions. Fair enough.
If you are going to defend Zimmerman by stating the reality that a time lapse occurred, thereby not making him the aggressor, then are you not also
forced to accept that a time lapse occurred between the initial punch and the witness' account of Trayvon being on top of Zimmerman? How is this
smoking gun evidence that Trayvon jumped/suckerpunched Zimmerman? How is this evidence that he waited in the bushes? NONE OF US WERE THERE.
So why the assumption he is lieing? How else can you see poor defenseless Trayvon end up on top of a grown man, beating him, without sustaining any
damage himself? If George punched Tray, he would have done some damage. Do you think the cops might have looked at his knuckles, and the kids face for
signs of injuries indicating a fight, and not an attack? Or are you one of the people that think their is some huge cover-up conspiracy going on, or
claim the cops are complete retards that don't know how to do their jobs?
I'm not assuming he is lying, but I am not assuming he is telling the truth either, especially when multiple stories are on the table. Poor and
defenseless? I never said that either... but if you're asking me how else could he be on top, well just using my imagination maybe Zimmerman swung
and missed, and started losing the fight. Maybe Zimmerman made an aggressive move but didn't actually swing, which led him to believe he got
suckerpunched. Maybe Trayvon himself was trying to apply SYG himself, but alas didn't have a deadly weapon. Who knows? However, I do feel the cops
mishandled the situation, and a lot of information is going to come out as the evidence rolls out, but until then I am withholding judgement
altogether on who really started it, because we weren't there, no witnesses saw the first swing and all we have to go by is the killer's
interpretation of events.
4)The original PA reviewed the facts, and decided their was no evidence to contradict his version of the events, and enough evidence that told the
same version. The PA decided to not prosecute a man for defending himself. It would have been the end of it, if not for the media giving airtime to
community leaders, telling made up tales and forcing them to hand the case to an overzealous prosecutor. A prosecutor that is known for charging 12
year old kids as adults for murder, known for charging a lady for firing a warning shot in her ceiling, when a violent man broke into her home. Why
would they choose her? Because she is probably the only one that would try and prosecute a guy for defending himself perhaps?
You raise a good point about the current prosecutor-- it does seem like such a choice could only hurt their stance, image-wise. Maybe this wasn't as
good an example, because I'm not isolating anything here, I'm more addressing the overall sentiment and bottom line of this whole story, which is that
a teenage boy, even if he were troubled, is now dead. That should be a tragedy just as the way Zimmerman may have found his own life ruined by public
scrutiny is a tragedy. But rather than seeing the whole thing as a mess, people are becoming illogically polarized, which is exactly what TPTB want
from us (I wouldn't be surprised if some of the same people are behind both sides of the news stories). Regardless, if this were a final draft
argumentative essay, maybe I would cut this one out
I see no double standards at all here. If the Tray bandwagon can make stuff up, and say it over and over, they can't cry foul when other people do the
Making up stuff is bad, period. Why can't there be a middle ground?
Let me ask all of the pro-Zimmerman people this: are you guys really arguing that Zimmerman is CLEARLY innocent, or are you arguing that there simply
isn't enough to prove that he is guilty? I have less of a problem with the latter-- time will tell on that-- but some of the more venomous posts I've
seen here and elsewhere attacking Trayvon have led me to believe it's the former...
edit on 1-5-2012 by solarjetman because: (no reason given)