OT: vote on what the Zimmerman Jury will do

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

This. 1000 times this.

How "stand your ground" and concealed carry became a white on black violence issue, or a license to do it the way the NAACP is behaving, is beyond me and completely absurd.

I can't decide if guys like Sharpton are that stupid or that smart, but how otherwise intelligent people don't see the falsehood being perpetrated on them is beyond me. I can only assume they have no real experience outside their suburban lives and just have that little clue what life is like in the neighborhoods where they never go.

---

Sharpton and others like him make their living perpetuating it. What bothers me is that so many gobble it up like a pint of Founder's Favorite from Cold Stone Creamery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsky

In America, we are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. George Zimmerman has not been proven guilty.

A until B.
No "B"
Therefore "A".

---

The verdicts are "guilty" or "not guilty." Not guilty verdict means only that the prosecution did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is 100% not "innocent." O.J. Simpson was not "innocent" of the killing of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but he was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

He was, however, the killer of both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darrell KSR

The verdicts are "guilty" or "not guilty." Not guilty verdict means only that the prosecution did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is 100% not "innocent." O.J. Simpson was not "innocent" of the killing of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but he was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

He was, however, the killer of both.

---

it's called a "presumption of innocence", not a "presumption of not guilty". Americans are innocent until proven guilty. Innocent is what we are when we wake up in the morning . So if a person isn't found "guilty," he or she remains innocent. A jury doesn't have to find a defendant "innocent" because they are already innocent.

You're guilty if you're found guilty. But you remain innocent if the jury says "not guilty".

Even OJ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kritikalcat

Badrose, in regard to the link you posted. The main theme seems to be "Zimmerman isn't white, he's Hispanic" however Hispanic is an ethnicity not a race. Look at the Census or most government forms. Hispanic or Latino is often broken down into Hispanic - Caucasian and Non-Caucasian. Most Hispanics self-identify as "other" and are descended from a mix of Spanish, local natives, etc.

Making the issue about the "white" Zimmerman was wrong, but mostly because it was wrong to make it about race, not because of nitpicking over whether Zimmerman is "white." Would it have served any good purpose to focus on his Hispanic ethnicity? I can tell you there may be more black-Hispanic tension in a lot of communities than Black-(non-Hispanic white.) I've seen it with my own eyes, and from community leaders whom I've heard speak in the same kind of racist terms that white bigots used against blacks 40 years ago. Anyway, getting derailed here...

Now, I think for Zimmerman himself it was a disservice in that combined with his name it isolated him from the Hispanic community.

---

It was no mistake that the press used "white' in their description of Zimmerman. This whole thing was designed to start riots, just like Sharpton is now calling for protests in 100 cities. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...-in-100-Cities

Bigsky articulated my position on the innocense conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsky

it's called a "presumption of innocence", not a "presumption of not guilty". Americans are innocent until proven guilty. Innocent is what we are when we wake up in the morning . So if a person isn't found "guilty," he or she remains innocent. A jury doesn't have to find a defendant "innocent" because they are already innocent.

You're guilty if you're found guilty. But you remain innocent if the jury says "not guilty".

Even OJ.

---

I don't get the "profile" charges/accusations. It was reported that two men broke into one of the houses not long before the Martin incident and IIRC they were described as two young balck men wearing dark clothes/hoodies. Martin wasn't being profilied he just happen to fit the descriptions of the ones involved in the previous break in.

If a bank robbery has just occured and the suspects were identified as two black males and the car that the perps fled in was identified as being a green Toyota would the police be profiling if thet were pulling over green Toyotas with two black males or would thay be following strong leads? Same if the reported bank robbers were two white males reported racing away in a green Toyota. How is that "profiling"?

If 2 black males in a green Toyota that may have been involved in an armed robbery of a bank is given to law enforcement, that is a description of possible suspects.........not profiling. And from my point of view, profiling is pretty hard to do, given the diverse nature of our nation and its communities.

Profiling is a vague term, at least to me. After 9-11 we learned who the bad guys were and we started hunting them down. That isn't profiling, that's using all available information and attacking them for either capture or killing. Now, not ÀLL people who fit that same description are guilty of being terrorists. But if you treat them ALL the same, then that's profiling.

Just my take on this.

It turns out they were stopping every car driving down that particular sidewalk that day, and that's profiling, and profiling is wrong....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

It turns out they were stopping every car driving down that particular sidewalk that day, and that's profiling, and profiling is wrong....

---

I see what you did there, but have to admit I had to read it twice to catch it.