The "let's all beat this dead horse" thread.

RX Reven' wrote: What is so Berkleying special about this one?

Politicians needed a distraction, the media was happy to oblige.

Strike_Zero wrote: In reply to madmallard: I know I don't understand either . . . I would've ran like hell. But some people choose to aggress their aggressor, but it usually ends up bad anyway. I believe (and has been mentioned by few in this thread) this is one of flaws of the "stand your ground".

I'm a martial artist since age 6. I (argueably) have more tools to deal with confrontation, and I still wouldn'tve chosen to fight.

Granted, my cultural upbringing is not urban by any means, but Darkness? Bad weather? Outdoors? Alone? So many circumstances against your favor.

I understand these applied to GZ, but they should be considered for TM in kind.

SCARR wrote: Lawyers are Lawyers.. it is all about winning within the word of the law. Not truthers... if they were after the truth, trials would be way quickers, and way easier... because one side would always give up.

Funny thing about "the truth"... the "truth" can change depending on the facts known.

One of the first lessons I was taught in journalism school is the truth changes, facts do not (although they may later be proven incorrect). Journalism is supposed to be in the business of reporting facts, not truths.

Unfortunately, facts can be rather boring and don't sell newspapers and tv ads.

RX Reven' wrote: The annual homicide rate in the U.S. is 4.7 per 100,000. So, given a population of 350 million folks and the 16 months that have passed since the shooting in February of 2012, there have been approximately 23,000 other homicides. What is so Berkleying special about this one?

Because Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton said it was.

Ian F wrote:

SCARR wrote: Lawyers are Lawyers.. it is all about winning within the word of the law. Not truthers... if they were after the truth, trials would be way quickers, and way easier... because one side would always give up.

Funny thing about "the truth"... the "truth" can change depending on the facts known. One of the first lessons I was taught in journalism school is the truth changes, facts do not (although they may later be proven incorrect). Journalism is supposed to be in the business of reporting facts, not truths. Unfortunately, facts can be rather boring and don't sell newspapers and tv ads.

That may be the case with journalism (why am I not surprised), but everywhere else the truth is the truth. It's unchanging and absolute. Facts would not be facts unless they indicated the truth.

In reply to bravenrace:

Yep. I wasn't talking about convincing other people that you are right.. I meant the actual truth. not the legal truth.

Shoot, I look more suspicious than Strike_Zero does.

In reply to Curmudgeon:

So, uh... what happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"?

It's kind of funny / sad that I have no idea which one you are talking about.

bravenrace wrote: That may be the case with journalism (why am I not surprised), but everywhere else the truth is the truth. It's unchanging and absolute. Facts would not be facts unless they indicated the truth.

But what is "truth"? Calling something 'unchanging and absolute' can be pretty dangerous. We know far too little about anything in the world to be so rigid in our views. Facts simply "are" and only represent what we know at a given point in time.

So you mean they "are, for now", or some such thing?

Hogwash.

We may not know the truth about a situation, but that doesn't change the truth.

"The earth is flat" -class of 1491

Ian F wrote: We know far too little about anything in the world to be so rigid in our views.

Is that an absolute?

You're funny. I really wish I could tell you more. But there are rules.

Ian F wrote:

bravenrace wrote: That may be the case with journalism (why am I not surprised), but everywhere else the truth is the truth. It's unchanging and absolute. Facts would not be facts unless they indicated the truth.

But what is "truth"? Calling something 'unchanging and absolute' can be pretty dangerous. We know far too little about anything in the world to be so rigid in our views. Facts simply "are" and only represent what we know at a given point in time.

I didn't say we know the truth.

One of the jurors has spoken about the jury deliberations. Looks like they got it right.

iceracer wrote: One of the jurors has spoken about the jury deliberations. Looks like they got it right.

Linky?

Edit: Never mind. The Googles did not dissappoint: http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/15/justice/zimmerman-juror-book

Zimmerman was not found innocent. There's no such thing, only not guilty which means there's not enough evidence to convict or (more common) the lawyer was slimy enough to create enough confusion which equals doubt (see Johnnie Cochran).

The fact that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin was never in doubt. The only thing that was in doubt was whether it was self defense or murder. He's been found not guilty of murder which has a pretty high standard for what's necessary for a conviction. Had the state gone for a lesser charge such as manslaughter the outcome might have been much different.

I also see that HLN is STILL hyping the hell out of the thing, milking it for every last drop of mouth breather viewer ratings. Gotta peddle more useless garbage, don'cha know.

Curmudgeon wrote: The fact that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin was never in doubt. The only thing that was in doubt was whether it was self defense or murder. He's been found not guilty of murder which has a pretty high standard for what's necessary for a conviction. Had the state gone for a lesser charge such as manslaughter the outcome might have been much different.

I heard they were given the option in the last few days to convict on the charge of manslaughter. I could be wrong though.

Either way... man are people getting all kinds of reactionary about this.

I heard they were given the option in the last few days to convict on the charge of manslaughter. I could be wrong though. Either way... man are people getting all kinds of reactionary about this.

Manslaughter was added, and the jury did come back with a question about it during deliberations. That they passed on it and went for Not Guilty tells a lot about the State's case.

A white jogger in MS was allegedly beaten to unconsciousness by 3 black men in retaliation for the verdict.

That should go a long way toward mending race relations.

In reply to SVreX:

Link? Thats berkeleyed up, and just what people seem to want.

In reply to yamaha: Here's one from my neck of the woods. Watch out when you click it, it's got an auto play video of a bunch of blacks shouting bullE36 M3.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/blog/bs-md-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-monday-20130715,0,5135359.story

In reply to Grizz:

Not surpsrised........then again I watched the race riots back in the 90's as a kid, I was still confused by that.

In reply to yamaha: http://patdollard.com/2013/07/police-say-white-jogger-was-beaten-by-three-black-thugs-in-wake-of-zimmerman-verdict/