I am royally, supremely pissed off. George Zimmerman was acquitted on the grounds of self defense for shooting the UNARMED Trayvon Martin. Here's the story. Trayvon, 17, 158lbs, was walking down the street in the dark and in the rain. He's holding nothing but a bag of skittles and a bottle of tea. Should he have been there? Probably not,but it's not illegal. George Zimmerman, 28, 200lbs, and the head of the neighborhood watch, sees Trayvon and calls 911, to report a suspicious person. This is where George's responsibility ends. The cops are on the way, and George is in his own vehicle where he should have stayed. Then, with the 911 operator still on the line, George grabs his gun, gets out of his vehicle, follows Trayvon, confronts him, provokes him, and shoots him in the chest at near point blank range. He then has the audacity to claim that it was self defense.
Lets look at the facts, George is 200lbs, while Trayvon is 158lbs. George has a 40lb weight advantage. George also has a membership at a mixed martial arts gym, so presumably he is capable of defending himself without a gun. Trayvon is a black kid growing up in the south, so he's likely learned some hard truths about walking alone at night. It wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination to think that he might have panicked when he heard an angry voice yelling out at him in the dark and the rain. Trayvon wouldn't have been startled and wouldn't have attacked George had he stayed in his car and let the police deal with it, if it was indeed trayvon that threw the first punch. Even then, George shot and killed a 17 year old boy, still a child in the eyes of the law.
George Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, and pulled the trigger. THIS IS MURDER! You don't get to claim self defense if you are the one who started the fight. And it isn't self defense if you have a gun, and the other guy has A FUCKING BAG OF SKITTLES!!!!
I am disappointed. George Zimmerman is a child murderer, and they let him go, and gave him back his weapon. It is times like this that I am ashamed to live in this country, especially when certain people can claim that a man who shoots and kills an unarmed black child is a hero, that he did the right thing. No, I'm more than disappointed, I am disgusted.
I'm even more disgusted at the incompetence of the prosecution. Aparently, all it takes to get away with killing a child in this country is a prosecuter that's asleep at the wheel and a jury full of NRA Nutjobs, because who else would let and ASSHOLE like George FUCKING Zimmerman go.
Hide your face and weep if you dare to harm a child. ~Christopher Hitchens.
Do you feel it's fair to exclude Republicans in that list of people flip flopping on certain issues? The NSA spying on people started under Bush, but suddenly it's Obama's fault. I wasn't surprised when that particular story broke out, I was infuriated that it was still around.
Oh, in the US, it's only libel if it's a thinly veiled insult or misrepresentation that is expressed as fact. If it is proven to be fact, or in the case of religion, is neither disprovable nor provable, then it is part of our first amendment right to free speech.
By all means, include Republicans!
I was crossing threads here, H3xx. I was referring to someone in another thread who claimed I supported the rape of children. That meets the legal test.
I got reading all the replies to your little jab, so I almost missed the last thing you said. Let me highlight it...
Like atheists, I suppose, the system demands proof beyond reasonable doubt....In the end, perhaps, as hard as it is in cases like this one, that approach is the right one.
I totally concur. The atheist approach is the right one. A god should provide evidence of his existence which a reasonable person could distinguish from random chance, especially if that reasonable person was raised in the faith and has sought after God with all his heart.
Pray to your god to light something on fire in my apartment in the next 5 minutes, and I guarantee I will take notice.
I saw this verdict coming a few days ago. There just wasn't enough proof. I also got over the OJ Simpson verdict, because the prosecution screwed up. I don't know of a way to make the system work any better.
Meanwhile, Trayvon is just the tip of the iceberg. I would rather get passionate and busy on the larger causes of our problems. The justice system isn't perfect, but there really are larger problems to solve. Or one can stick with solving justice system problems that affect people unfairly every day, like the death penalty. That's just one example.
And take note of the states that have laws that make killing easier, like Florida.
A truly sad situation - to be born black either in America or Australia, one is behind from the moment they are born - the amount in jails disproportionate to the general population - in law it depends on the prosecution, not on evidence - on how thorough the police are, and everybody's general bias, for justice to be truly done.
There is no death penalty in Australia - so if a prosecution does screw up, there is always the chance that new evidence may turn up.
@Bob- You are supposed to be an educated man - you really should have done law, how you twist a discussion - if someone in your supposed position, who has met Bernard Law, but will not do one minute thing to help stop the rape of children - that was my discussion - the fact that a supposed good person does nothing, that is my lament. That is why, the most precious, the most vulnerable, the most innocent, the most naive, have for decades been used for sexual pleasure by the dregs of humanity, your catholic church.
Like Atheists, I suppose - Indeed.
Your problem is you've so narrowed what you consider 'evidence' that you've ruled out all evidence.
Evidence is not the Atheists problem - it is the christian problem - not having one iota of evidence. I would love to have just a micron of evidence, and that has never been forthcoming.
Once again Bob, I am not fussed what any religion believes in - just do no harm, don't hide behind the cross. Hindus revere the cow, Hare Krishna's god is blue and plays a piccolo, both harmless.
“Like atheists, I suppose, the system demands proof beyond reasonable doubt”
No, you are wrong and rather disingenuous to even hint at any correlation between Atheism and this tragedy, no matter how gentle the ribbing was intended to be.
There is a difference between the required levels of proof in both instances. I am sure you will agree that in a murder trial the burden of proof is on the State and that this evidence would need to be very rock solid before the case could be proven. It would require expert witnesses to explain the science behind the statements of facts and any forensic evidence, first hand eye witness accounts, and a willingness on all involved parties to strive for a fair and unbiased investigation.
However when it comes to Atheism and Faith, we do not demand the same level of proof to be displayed. All we ask (and I have asked for this in a previous debate, as I do with all Theists) is for you to offer us the smallest shred of evidence to substantiate you claim that”God exists”. We never ask for “proof beyond reasonable doubt” as you have intimated.
The Onus of Proof is on the claimant. You are claiming that a god exists. We ask for anything, however small it may be, to see if it warrants giving your claim further scrutiny. We are not asking for you to prove anything “beyond a reasonable doubt”. I will change my stance if you can offer this jury of Atheists even the slightest shred of evidence that would suggest I should reconsider my views that no God exists.
I do not think you have anything to offer us. You can offer all the circumstantial argument you like as an Apologist. That is not what I am asking for. The Bible is not proof, it is the claim. Reports of third hand eye witness accounts don’t get in the door either any more than “but the rock was rolled away” (from the tomb) as others have suggested in the past.
So no demands for proof beyond a reasonable doubt are being made, just a tiny shred of evidence to suggest there may be something other than blind faith behind your claim in the existence of your God. What can you bring to our court Bob?
All we ask (and I have asked for this in a previous debate, as I do with all Theists) is for you to offer us the smallest shred of evidence to substantiate you claim that”God exists”.
I think that's the problem. Religion is an intellectual discipline that doesn't make this claim at all. We posit this, and then use that framework to describe the world, particularly focused on human relationships and choices. The core question is whether the framework is useful. If the framework is useful, then just like any intellectual discipline we "believe" it to be true.
It's more like an axiom in mathematics. Can you "prove" that parallel lines don't meet? No, it's axiomatic in Euclidean Geometry. It's not a "claim" that can be proven. The question is whether that axiom leads to a system of thought that is useful. To the extent that it does, we adopt the premise that parallel lines don't meet.
Those stand your ground laws come from a pretty twisted place in American life.
Those "stand your ground" laws weren't even at issue here.
Yes, lets just conveniently forget that the child happened to be beating the shit out of a guy. Lets just conveniently forget the eyewitness testimony and the photos of Zimmerman and talk about a bag of skittles. Is critical thinking dead? And by the way, Stand Your Ground was not brought up at the trial. The defense argued plain old fashioned self defense.