Skip to main content

View Diary: Guys…maybe we are wrong about Zimmerman (181 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I can't get an answer from lawyers on this (0+ / 0-)

    They say the law is that you're not allowed to use force against the creepy person following you unless they do or threaten something overt.

    I can't get them to discuss whether a rule designed for equals in old England is just and realistic in a world where racist violence is ongoing.

    Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

    by Dogs are fuzzy on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 03:48:51 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I keep looking for this point and not seeing it (3+ / 0-)

      so I'll make it myself, now, and leave this disgusting diary.

      I am sick beyond belief of the Zimmerman apologists saying that "we don't know" who initiated the physical altercation (or, more "fairly", that no such evidence was introduced at trial).  Rachel Jeantel testified that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon and the next thing she heard--the earpiece of Trayvon's phone having been ripped away from his ear--is Trayvon saaying "Get off, get off!"

      Now, when so confronted by the evidence of the case, such apologists immediately dismiss Jeantel as "having an interest" or "not credible".  And THAT'S rich since there was ZERO evidence presented at trial that Trayvon initiated the confrontation, but every one one of these Zimmerman boosters accept his "story" (unsupported by the evidence at trial) without question.  Are we to believe that George Zimmerman--a PROVEN liar, and clearly pathological at that, on trial for his life incidentally--has NO "interest"?  Give me an effin' break!

      I thought Rachel Jeantel was quite a compelling and believable witness, myself, during the trial.  But, since the trial, we've had a chance to hear from Rachel, George Zimmerman's brother, the prosecution team and the defense team, and juror B-37.  Of the lot of them, the only one who doesn't need to be embarassed by a lack of intelligence/education and an inability to communicate or understand things is Rachel Jeantel.  Have the bunch of them witness something and then relate what they saw; I guarantee you the only one of them whose account would be trustworthy and accurate would be Rachel's.  I would (sigh) strongly "suggest" that those who dismiss Rachel Jeantel's testimony are the only ones, here, who did not take an objective/un-biased look at the evidence presented at trial.  The "Zimmerman was rightfully acquitted at trial" crowd are the ones who came in with a pre-trial bias that they carried throughout and are now trying to justify by projecting their bias problems onto those who weighed ALL the evidence and concluded George Zimmerman should have been convicted of manslaughter.

      "Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will."—Frederick Douglass

      by costello7 on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 04:27:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site