Zimmerman verdict in not guilty

Page 18 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
So of course that's why the white conservatives in P&N had already convicted Trayvon in their minds of theft, drug use, fights, assault, casing houses with the intent to rob them later. Yet Zimmerman was innocent until proven guilty. Go through the different threads about this and find how many conservative posters defended Trayvon's past because he hadn't been convicted, because by my count it's none. It gets pretty clear pretty fast that their own racial bias plays a large role in why they are so willing to attack the character of a dead 17 year old boy who has never been convicted.

Drug use at the very least was substantiated by blood tests after his death. Tests that were admitted in court.

I assume the reason posters were not defending Trayvon's past is because there was no reason to disbelieve the reports on his past. They were allegations with substance to them.

As opposed to the liberals who believed that GZ beckoned a 12 year old boy over to his truck with skittles and then shot him at point blank range. And they broke his own nose and bashed his head into the concrete.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
So of course that's why the white conservatives in P&N had already convicted Trayvon in their minds of theft, drug use, fights, assault, casing houses with the intent to rob them later. Yet Zimmerman was innocent until proven guilty. Go through the different threads about this and find how many conservative posters defended Trayvon's past because he hadn't been convicted, because by my count it's none. It gets pretty clear pretty fast that their own racial bias plays a large role in why they are so willing to attack the character of a dead 17 year old boy who has never been convicted.

When the story came out; what evidence that was provided seemed to indicate that Zimmerman's story could be correct.
As information on/from witnesses was made available; justification for the final result was there.

The big question was WHY did it happen.

Then Crump brought RJ into the picture with the initial storyline.
However, her story did not line up fully with the evidence, given the earbuds and thunk.
And the profile of Martin did not match up; what the family/media stated.

The old problem of protesting to much creates curiosity.

Then when the 7/11 came into play and statements from Brandy & Tracy; pieces began to fall into place.

As more information came out about Martin; it confirmed the attitude that Zimmerman observed.

While Martin was not on trial; his actions and attitude were as it related to the happenings were needing to be examined
 
Last edited:

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
I will by no means disagree with the verdict being correct. I strongly support the American value of innocent until proven guilty and agree the evidence did not support a guilty verdict. I just feel those defending Zimmerman are missing the irony of them so adamantly convicting Trayvon in their own minds instead of granting him the same courtesy. Trayvon was a teenager, teenagers tend to be stupid, I accept that.

But many (ok, not all, but a lot) of the Zimmerman defenders begin to clearly show bias that is related to race when attacking Trayvon. Some more than other (see all posts by SpatiallyAware). And yes, the anger in the black community over the verdict is clearly based on a racial bias as well. In the end what this case shows is that there is still a clear racial divide, racial bias, and racism in this country that many don't want to acknowledge, address, or admit to.

Racism was the primary point being used by the TM defenders; ignoring the facts.
Many who attacked racism stepped over the line in trying to show it.

The TM team refused to look at the facts; kept coming up with off the wall scenarios that ignored the evidence; when called on it; they backed into the protective cloaking of race; TM was not guilty of doing anything; everything was driven by race.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
So of course that's why the white conservatives in P&N had already convicted Trayvon in their minds of theft, drug use, fights, assault, casing houses with the intent to rob them later. Yet Zimmerman was innocent until proven guilty. Go through the different threads about this and find how many conservative posters defended Trayvon's past because he hadn't been convicted, because by my count it's none. It gets pretty clear pretty fast that their own racial bias plays a large role in why they are so willing to attack the character of a dead 17 year old boy who has never been convicted.
I know math is hard for liberals, but counting to one? ;) I'm a conservative and I've defended Martin in many, many posts here. Also, Zimmerman was on trial, which in our criminal justice system requires a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Although given the uproar in this case, one wonders how long that will persist.

EDIT: Very few white conservatives here had Martin convicted of theft & casing houses, although we have pointed out the evidence to support the former. Drug use and fights came from Martin's own words, and assault is a reasonable assumption given the evidence and testimony - although again, I've cautioned that we cannot know what happened, we can only say what assumptions the evidence supports.
 
Last edited:

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,414
468
126
I know math is hard for liberals, but counting to one? ;) I'm a conservative and I've defended Martin in many, many posts here. Also, Zimmerman was on trial, which in our criminal justice system requires a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Although given the uproar in this case, one wonders how long that will persist.

EDIT: Very few white conservatives here had Martin convicted of theft & casing houses, although we have pointed out the evidence to support the former. Drug use and fights came from Martin's own words, and assault is a reasonable assumption given the evidence and testimony - although again, I've cautioned that we cannot know what happened, we can only say what assumptions the evidence supports.

The evidence shows that Martin was giving Zimmerman a massive beat down.