Quote:
Originally Posted by MissBrattified
I think it's interesting that most of the media frenzy and public outcry about this case has relatively died down. To ME that clearly sends the message that people were mostly upset that the police weren't really looking into the case, and that they aren't as concerned with the final outcome as long as they believe justice is being served. Of course, there are exceptions--some people will be very upset if he's found innocent. Some people are upset that the prosecutor is even attempting to try this case. Somewhere in the middle, you have normal Americans who are offended by what happened and want the court system to do it's job. And most of those people will be mollified by the process even if they think the outcome wasn't the right one. (aka, Casey Anthony, O.J. Simpson)
It is quite possible that there will not be enough evidence to convict Zimmerman. Two things, though: 1. a lack of clear evidence doesn't mean someone is innocent; it means their guilt can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. No matter what comes out in court, I will always be suspicious of Zimmerman's motives because he was following an unarmed kid who wasn't doing anything wrong AND because he continued to follow after being asked not to by the dispatcher.
There was similar outcry in OK a few years ago because a pharmacist shot a kid who was burglarizing his store--after the kid had already been shot once and was lying on the ground incapacitated (and the threat was completely removed as illustrated by security video), he shot him again and killed him. He was convicted of murder. Rightfully so, IMO. Excessive force is not only illegal, it's immoral. It's illegal for policemen to use excessive force--why would it be okay for the average citizen to do that?
That said, at least this is being addressed and I feel better about it either way. It's important to note that I can be eternally suspicious of Zimmerman and still be satisfied that the police and court system are doing their jobs. I don't have to agree with the final outcome in order to be satisfied that justice is being served.
|
MB - you are making assumptions like everyone else in this case.
1. Zim did not know he was unarmed, as the 911 call shows he stated that he saw something in his hand.
2. Zim was following him and suddenly Trayvon started running away and Zim could not see him. If you are following someone and they start running away does that make you believe they are innocent or guilty?
3. You DO NOT KNOW that he continued to follow. Zim has stated that he returned to his truck.
I remember the OK case. I have a friend who has known Ersland (I think that is his name) for years. He has always been a little out there. With that in mind, I think his problem was that he went back to the counter and reloaded, then returned and killed the perpertrator. If he had shot him again on his way out the door, he probably would have walked.
Threaded Mode
