I like your posts normally elcheeso, so I'll try to keep this as civil as possible. However, I really take issue with your absolutist conclusions based on a hugely flawed premise and incomplete information.
I'll start with your reference to my OJ part of my post and go on from there to the rest of your post.
Edit: Also wanted to point out this is nothing like the OJ case. Zimmerman DID kill Martin, he doesn't deny that. The question isn't whether he killed him, it's whether he was justified in doing so or not according to Florida law.
You didn't clarify who you were referring to in regards to the OJ analogy, so I'm hoping you weren't referring to my post and if you weren't, you can skip this block. If you were, read on.
I really hate when people see something, don't bother actually reading it, and respond in an irrelevant manner. I don't mean to be mean...but that's basically what happened here.
What does the nature of the crime have to do with my analogy?
The analogy isn't based on the crime, but whether or not "screwed up trial" reaction is justified. People reacting with outrage to the OJ trial were justifid in their reactions because of how certain evidence was thrown out due to sensationalism and irrational fear. It's really hard to justufy the same reaction to this trial based on what we know...what we actually know. That is where the analogy is made...nothing to do with the crime.
Now on to the rest of your post.
Yes, the media was incredibly irresponsible with it's reporting on the case. It's not a surprise to anyone that sensationalism is preferred because people react more strongly to it, regardless of what "side" the media in question resides in. Zimmerman doesn't (as far as I'm aware) identify as white, he probably didn't refer to Martin as a (BAN ME PLEASE) while on the phone to 911 (though it's worth pointing out that even if you did hear the word punk or anything else, people hear what they want to hear... you only need to look back at the dolls from a few years back supposedly saying Islam is the light and other bogus bullshit like that), all that sort of shit.
OK, glad you agree.
However, those of you who are using Martin's past to paint him as some sort of violent "thug" (a word that DOES, in fact, have some pretty strong racial connotations)... ask yourselves this. Why does being a drug user who took a few stupid looking selfies, who MAY have been a drug dealer, who MAY have been a thief... make him more likely to have been the primary aggressor and/or the violent one when Zimmerman himself has been charged with/accused of multiple accounts of violence against others? He had been charged with battery on a police officer (
http://myclerk.myorangeclerk.com/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=5782626) and domestic violence (
http://myclerk.myorangeclerk.com/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=1021230) against at least one ex-girlfriend (I've heard there may have been a second who accused him of it without going to the police but I'm having trouble finding a reference for it, so eh). How could you assume that a kid with no obvious history of violence was the one who started it, against a guy who has a history of engaging in violence against people who had done nothing to him? Is there perhaps a habit for people to assume that darker skinned people are innately more violent or more likely to be violent? Or were his selfies just so awful that they constituted violence against good taste and therefore he must've been violent in other ways too?
The only part of this block that is important is the "how can you assume" part...because none of us have all the evidence, and the evidence we have is very limited in scope. We, as individuals without access to complete information, cannot assume that Trayvon or Zimmerman started it. Perhaps the jury had access to some evidence that pointed strongly towards Trayvon starting it, but we don't, for either side, and anyone absolutely claiming either is silly.
Incidentally, claiming Zimmerman is cowardly and meek does not add up either, the guy chased after someone who was running away with his gun in his pocket. Meek people would stay in their cars, especially after the suggestion that they don't need to chase the person down. Cowardly people do not attack police officers questioning their friends about underage drinking, and meek people do not attack their exes.
I assume you're just saying that psychological analyses of Zimmerman's flight or fight reaction are irrelevant? I hope so, because they are.
Also, about the claims of brutally bashing Zimmerman's head against the pavement... the injuries sure as fuck do not stack up against that sort of claim. Look at the picture of his injuries:
While they're certainly nothing to sneeze at, they are pretty minor compared to the injuries on his face. It seems pretty clear to me that he was not having his head bashed against the pavement, but Martin was punching him in the face while he was on the ground, and the scratches on the back of his head are just a side effect of, you know, being knocked backwards. Certainly a pretty shitty thing to do, but far less malicious than actively trying to crush his skull against concrete, which seems to be the suggestion by some people here.
THIS is where the hugely flawed premise you base your conclusions on is established...and I can't emphasize how much I disagree with it. Ignoring how some pictures are barely acceptable to even judge the extent of injuries (internal injuries?), I love how you are trying to assume the injury always relates causally to attempted action. If someone brandishes a gun at you, shoots, but misses, would his defense lawyer be justified in pointing to your lack of injuries as a case? Obviously not.
The injury does not tell us anythign about the potential danger of the situation...it just informs us of the minimum danger of the situation. Zimmerman was clearly getting hit...minimally. There might have been more that you cannot possibly absolutely deny without full access to everything and a complete understanding of the actual situation.
So the final question is this... should someone getting punched in the face be considered justified in using lethal force against the person doing it?
No. This is FAR from the final question. This is only the final question if you assume something silly like the injury sustained corresponds causally to the level of danger experienced...which it obviously does not.
I say fuck no, and I consider it pretty god damn disgusting that he wasn't even charged with manslaughter (which, to my understanding, can be done even if the person was "provoked" into killing by other person... so even if Martin WAS the one who started it, it wouldn't matter). Self-defence as a defence here was a crock of shit, speaking as someone who has been on both ends of a violent beating before, I would never feel justified in shooting or killing someone who was punching me in the face, and I sure as hell haven't punched people in the face with the intent of killing them.
In context of your argument, this is based on a flawed premise,but I'll agree with it in a vaccuum. If it was be proved that Trayvon was _only_ punching Zimmerman, and didn't have any weapons on hand, and wasn't punching Zimmerman into concrete / brick wall / lamppost / corner...then yes, using lethal force to respond is poor judgment.
However, you cannot make that assumption based on the information that has been released to us.
Zimmerman's judgement fucking sucked, his injuries do not strike me as someone who was at REAL RISK of dying, and the jury should have realised that he wasn't justified in what he did.
Again...lol...injuries sustained DO NOT have a causal relationship with danger experienced...there might be a correlation, but it is weak at best. And juries cannot condemn a man based on weak correlative evidence (also known as circumstantial evidence).
It wasn't a hate crime (unfortunately, racial profiling is not and will probably never be considered a hate crime considering it's the bread and butter of the police), and it wasn't cold-blooded murder... but it sure as hell was manslaughter.
You're not exactly qualified to state any of that based on what we know lol. How do you guys make such absolutist type statements based on incomplete information...it's crazy. Again, not trying to be mean...but you're basing your judgments on such a flawed premise, and you don't even have access to enough information to justify it.
As for those of you blaming racial issues on Al Sharpton or just those uppity blacks who need to stop talking about race because OMG RACISM IS OVER IF YOU JUST STOP TALKING ABOUT IT... lol. Get a clue. Look up some studies on racial bias in the media/justice system/employment/whatever. It should be an eye opener. Also, why is it inciting riots when Sharpton says to speak up, specifically, in a non-violent way, but it's a rally when Glenn Beck or any other white person encourages a demonstration? There have been exactly ZERO riots in response to the trial, despite what some idiots have been afraid of, so let's not act like there have been.
Irrelevant to the topic. Those people claiming that are just throwing strawmen to detract from the main issue.
On that note, did any of you guys see the video of the 2011 Vancouver riots being passed through social media lately with people suggesting that they're in response to the Zimmerman trial? Despite the fact that the Canadian-accented person was talking about Harper and a few other Canada-specific things over a city riot with mountains in the background? Yeah. Fucking disgusting what depths people will go to to get the "result" they wanted.
Didn't see that, agree it is disgusting. Pretty standard for this day and age though :p
anyway, tl;dr: OJ analogy was based on justification for outraged reaction to trial, nothing to do with the actual crime. Your absolutist conclusions are based on the premise that injury sustained relates directly to maximum danger of situations...which is flawed both because you can't possibly use a few pictures to determine the extent of an individuals injuries (again, internal injuries), and you can't possibly know what a person could have sustained.