Open Thread on Zimmerman Verdict

  • Thread starter Thread starter sweetcharity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
meltzerboy said:
No, because generally people don’t carry concealed knives and there is no proliferation of the number of knives in our society. But there was talk about the role that race played in the jury’s decision.
Click to expand...
They don’t? So airports, government buildings and schools mention knives not being allowed because no one carries them?
 
meltzerboy said:
No, because generally people don’t carry concealed knives and there is no proliferation of the number of knives in our society. But there was talk about the role that race played in the jury’s decision.
Click to expand...
Well, sorry, a lot of folks carry concealed knives, particularly where the law-abiding are prohibited from carrying firearms. Britain, in fact has been passing laws directed at knife crime, in addition to gun crime increasing there, knife crime has increased as well.

Now, there wasn’t any outcry over knife crime after the OJ trial, folks tend to focus on guns. Knives may come later. Anyway, I do remember a lot of discussion about domestic violence.
 
fix said:
So what is the point in comparing them?
Click to expand...
Many people who opposed the jury’s verdict in the OJ trial said that race (as well as celebrity) may have biased the jury, which consisted of several Black jurors, in favor of a non-guilty verdict. In the George Zimmerman case, race may also have played a role in an almost all-White jury, but some of the same people who talked about race in the OJ trial don’t see a need to discuss it at all in the present instance. Insofar as guns are concerned, you asked about whether there was discussion of knives in the OJ trial, and I responded no, because people don’t carry concealed knives and there is no proliferation in the number of knives in our society. By contrast, the fact that people do carry concealed guns and that there is a proliferation in the number of guns in our society makes guns worthy of discussion.
 
Son_of_Niall said:
This whole case is about a local neighborhood would-be tough guy playing cop.
I would not be surprised to find out he was a school-yard bully. If the “suspicious person” was guy of any race around his size or bigger, the tough guy would have second thoughts. The gun was his “equalizer”, giving him power.
He saw a skinny teen-age kid he figured he could intimidate. The kid proved not be a pushover and bigger than he anticipated. As he was getting his behind wupped by the kid, the tough guy pulls out his equalizer and lets him have it.
Hardly force of equal standing.
But then bullies always turn out to be cowards underneath.
Click to expand...
It must be interesting to live in such a way so as to be totally unmoored from reality. 🤷
 
meltzerboy said:
You don’t agree with the verdict of the jury, and neither do I; and, for some, that translates to accusations against George Zimmerman, race baiting, or a political anti-gun agenda on our part. I wonder if these same people agreed with the non-guilty verdict in the O.J. Simpson case, which I also disputed at the time.
Click to expand...
The Simpson trial has nothing in common with this one. There is never any doubt that what happened to Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman was 1st degree murder. The defense didn’t claim self defense. There were no witnesses. The question in that trial was who did it.
 
styrgwillidar said:
Well, sorry, a lot of folks carry concealed knives, particularly where the law-abiding are prohibited from carrying firearms. Britain, in fact has been passing laws directed at knife crime, in addition to gun crime increasing there, knife crime has increased as well.

Now, there wasn’t any outcry over knife crime after the OJ trial, folks tend to focus on guns. Knives may come later. Anyway, I do remember a lot of discussion about domestic violence.
Click to expand...
In Great Britain perhaps, there are concealed knives BECAUSE firearms are prohibited; but not in the United States, where firearms are not prohibited. You stated this yourself.
 
meltzerboy said:
Many people who opposed the jury’s verdict in the OJ trial said that race (as well as celebrity) may have biased the jury, which consisted of several Black jurors, in favor of a non-guilty verdict. In the George Zimmerman case, race may also have played a role in an almost all-White jury, but some of the same people who talked about race in the OJ trial don’t see a need to discuss it at all in the present instance. Insofar as guns are concerned, you asked about whether there was discussion of knives in the OJ trial, and I responded no, because people don’t carry concealed knives and there is no proliferation in the number of knives in our society. By contrast, the fact that people do carry concealed guns and that there is a proliferation in the number of guns in our society makes guns worthy of discussion.
Click to expand...
Other than tangential issues you mention I see no clear comparison. The evidence in the OJ case was overwhelming. The jury rejected it for non legal reasons it seems.

This case was not proved at all by the prosecution. Any real analogy is forced it seems.
 
Son_of_Niall said:
This whole case is about a local neighborhood would-be tough guy playing cop.
I would not be surprised to find out he was a school-yard bully. If the “suspicious person” was guy of any race around his size or bigger, the tough guy would have second thoughts. The gun was his “equalizer”, giving him power.
He saw a skinny teen-age kid he figured he could intimidate. The kid proved not be a pushover and bigger than he anticipated. As he was getting his behind wupped by the kid, the tough guy pulls out his equalizer and lets him have it.
Hardly force of equal standing.
But then bullies always turn out to be cowards underneath.
Click to expand...
Thanks for proving my point earlier. The bottom line for some is why didn’t Zimmerman just take the beating like a man and if he died so be it.
 
Robert_Sock said:
The wounds on GZ could easily have happened after GZ went for his gun. WE DO NOT KNOW ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
Click to expand...
For one to accept your version one has to accept the following:

A cold blooded killer called the police and arranged for them to arrive at the scene of the crime not knowing if they would arrive before during or after shooting the “victim”.

A person that has NEVER displayed any racist tendencies decided to kill a young man because he was black.

That a cold blooded killed would pull his weapon, allow himself to be beaten (or beat himself) with the weapon drawn then shoot his intended victim.

:rolleyes:
 
meltzerboy said:
In Great Britain perhaps, there are concealed knives BECAUSE firearms are prohibited; but not in the United States, where firearms are not prohibited. You stated this yourself.
Click to expand...
Yes, but there are laws about carrying concealed knives. In my state they fall under the same 'DWCL"-- Dangerous Weapon Control Law that firearms do.

Any fixed blade knife is considered a Dirk or Dagger and may not be carried in such a way that it is covered. This includes momentary covering by an outer garment such as a jacket. It may be carried in a sheath, but must remain clearly visible and identifiable as a knife.

A woman with a steak knife in her purse can be charged with carrying a concealed weapon.

Any folded knife carried with the blade extended is considered a Dirk or Dagger and may not be concealed.

No automatic (switchblade knives)

No butterfly knives

There are additional rules and regs. But I think you might be surprised at the number of folks who have 4" pocket folders on them.
 
meltzerboy said:
Many people who opposed the jury’s verdict in the OJ trial said that race (as well as celebrity) may have biased the jury, which consisted of several Black jurors, in favor of a non-guilty verdict. In the George Zimmerman case, race may also have played a role in an almost all-White jury, but some of the same people who talked about race in the OJ trial don’t see a need to discuss it at all in the present instance. Insofar as guns are concerned, you asked about whether there was discussion of knives in the OJ trial, and I responded no, because people don’t carry concealed knives and there is no proliferation in the number of knives in our society. By contrast, the fact that people do carry concealed guns and that there is a proliferation in the number of guns in our society makes guns worthy of discussion.
Click to expand...
Blame the prosecutors for getting the black jurer kicked off.
 
He had a cell phone why didn’t he call the cops.
SwizzleStick said:
If Martin feared for his life, why did he not run? Hide and stay hidden in the dark? Go home? Go to any home with a light on, ask for help? Call the police with the phone in his hand or ask his friend to do so, rather than just keep talking with his friend?

True, but it is more reasonable to briefly answer the question as to why you are in a neighborhood that is not your own and not give much information beyond “I’m visiting” rather than attack someone.
Click to expand...
 
meltzerboy said:
Do you believe race can never play a role in a White jury but usually does play a role in a Black jury? This double standard is what I am pointing out.
Click to expand...
I don’t know, does anyone seriously think anymore that OJ didn’t murder them? He was also a celebrity in SoCal, which mucked things up too. The trials don’t have much else in common other than their notoriety.

Perhaps there’s some racial hierarchy for determining guilt that (mostly) white juries use - black, Hispanic, white, in that order? Maybe they would have found GZ guilty had Trayvon been white? Then again, none of us would have probably heard of the case had Trayvon been white. Seems odd to question racial motivations behind the jury verdict regardless. The prosecution’s case stunk from stem to stern. There’s a reason why the original investigators and proscutors didn’t press charges, and it’s not because they like to see criminals roam free.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top