Daltron
15-07-2013, 02:37 AM
George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer who fatally shot Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager, igniting a national debate on racial profiling and civil rights, was found not guilty late Saturday night of second-degree murder. He was also acquitted of manslaughter, a lesser charge.
After three weeks of testimony, the six-woman jury rejected the prosecution’s contention that Mr. Zimmerman had deliberately pursued Mr. Martin because he assumed the hoodie-clad teenager was a criminal and instigated the fight that led to his death.
Mr. Zimmerman said he shot Mr. Martin on Feb. 26, 2012, in self-defense after the teenager knocked him to the ground, punched him and slammed his head repeatedly against the sidewalk. In finding him not guilty of murder or manslaughter, the jury agreed that Mr. Zimmerman could have been justified in shooting Mr. Martin because he feared great bodily harm or death.
Let us try to ignore the media and political bias for a moment which seems to be weighing in on this issue.
After reading transcripts and watching a few videos of the trial, I have to say whilst I think it's wrong that he got aquited on a moral basis, the law and process of criminal justice in the US was followed very strictly. Whilst the arguments against Zimmerman had little substance thus causing the racist card to be pulled out by mainstream media to pressure courts, I still question why he wasn't slapped with a manslaughter charge at minimum since someone is dead none the less.
What is your take on the issue? If this was a dispute between two black males or two white males do you think the public reaction fuelled by media politics would be the same?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/us/george-zimmerman-verdict-trayvon-martin.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
After three weeks of testimony, the six-woman jury rejected the prosecution’s contention that Mr. Zimmerman had deliberately pursued Mr. Martin because he assumed the hoodie-clad teenager was a criminal and instigated the fight that led to his death.
Mr. Zimmerman said he shot Mr. Martin on Feb. 26, 2012, in self-defense after the teenager knocked him to the ground, punched him and slammed his head repeatedly against the sidewalk. In finding him not guilty of murder or manslaughter, the jury agreed that Mr. Zimmerman could have been justified in shooting Mr. Martin because he feared great bodily harm or death.
Let us try to ignore the media and political bias for a moment which seems to be weighing in on this issue.
After reading transcripts and watching a few videos of the trial, I have to say whilst I think it's wrong that he got aquited on a moral basis, the law and process of criminal justice in the US was followed very strictly. Whilst the arguments against Zimmerman had little substance thus causing the racist card to be pulled out by mainstream media to pressure courts, I still question why he wasn't slapped with a manslaughter charge at minimum since someone is dead none the less.
What is your take on the issue? If this was a dispute between two black males or two white males do you think the public reaction fuelled by media politics would be the same?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/us/george-zimmerman-verdict-trayvon-martin.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0