EVERY DISCUSSION ABOUT MATIN v. ZIMMERMAN I HAVE HAD SUMMARIZED: I have had numerous and nauseatingly long conversations and debates about this. From a 100% logical and non biased fact only based point of view. EVERY argument can be summarized thus: Me: there is reasonable doubt and thus he cannot be found guilty. Perhaps he might actually be innocent and we should leave him be. Them: He was obviously a racist man with a gun who chased the kid down and shot him in cold blood, and the kid had a right to stand his ground. Me: The only evidence of racism is on the part of the kid, who is not really a kid. The evidence is inconclusive of who started the physical confrontation however there are witnesses that Trayvon was beating Zimmerman severely and had removed his ability to flee. whether or not Zimmerman need to shoot to save life and limb is inconclusive and thus there is reasonable doubt and thus we cannot call him guilty. Plus you are also arguing against stand you ground laws, you are contradicting yourself selectively. Them: He is obviously guilty because an innocent black kid is dead. Me: By stating that guilt of the white man exists because the deceased is black is racist in nature and illogical them: You are a racist for defending the racists. Me: The only person proven to be a racist is Trayvon per the evidence. I defend neither of them but am arguing that there is no evidence of guilt. Them: You cant bring irrelevant things like Trayvons past, his violent history, drug use or his (obviously brutal and racist) online communications into it as that doesnt matter, A black kid is dead and it is obvious that the white man shot him because he was black. Me: There is no evidence of Zimmerman doing anything other than acting in self defense. Them: Zimmerman has a (unproven) history of domestic violence and got into a fight with a cop once so obviously he is a violent individual with a hero complex and shot in cold blood. Me: I thought that past records and character analysis didnt matter, since you introduce this it is fair game and when compared it seems that Trayvon was obviously a brutally violent individual and Zimmerman although not perfect was clearly ANTI racist and rather upstanding in his community. Them: you are obviously trying to paint Trayvon as a bad kid and are being racist. Me: Neither is true, I am pointing out that the only racism was on the part of trayvon and his history shows him to be violent, neither of which is my choice but a matter of fact and record. Them: You are cold blooded because you dont care about this poor dead black kid> if it was your kid you would think differently. Me: Quite the opposite, I wish he had not died but I also wish people were not trying to destroy yet another mans life based on emotion and bad logic as a means to satisfy an inner desire to see a white an hang for all the past ill of history even though they have nothing to do with this case. Them: If a black man shot someone in self defense he would never be found innocent. Me: Not if we remove due process, which is basically what you are arguing for. As well your statement is racist and factually inaccurate. You are making blanket generalizations based on skin color and using it to persecute someone of the opposite skin color... that is racism Them: You are a white man and should have no opinion on racism. Me: I grew up in Compton and was subject to extreme racism growing up and saw it on both sides., My wife is Asian, some of my best friends Black and jewish and I have actively campaigned against racism on BOTH sides my whole life. I think I am allowed to have an opinion, but regardless I am at no point basing my argument on my opinion but merely on facts and logic. Them: You are an asshole ect. ect. in a nut shell.
Posted on: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 23:28:18 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015