please explain the difference

Really getting tired of the media hyping the "trevon" case that it is racially motivated. My question would be this

Last year 2 young black men/boys robbed a white mother. While doing this they shot her 13 month old baby in the face! So we heard this in the media for what maybe a couple days to a week.

So what's the difference? The baby did not try to "fight" back, now that is a victim!

The difference must be cause the victims were white?

You really had to wonder when his female friend that he was talking with on the phone at the time explained. Just what "white cracker ass" meant! not racial at all! what a joke, get her the hell away from the media her IQ shortage is glowing in this.

The only ones hyping the "racially motivated" theme are the racist Blacks.

Okay, rdwoodpecker, I'll give your troll more seriousness than it deserves.

The interest in George Zimmerman grew from the fact that, for a month and a half, Florida's prosecutors didn't think his shooting of Trayvon Martin was a murder case. That Florida had devolved to such a state of lawless anarchy that no one really cared about dead, Skittle-wielding black boys like Trayvon Martin.

By contrast, the teens in your story were arrested and indicted by a grand jury for murder in six days this spring.

(BTW, good job botching both the facts of your story as well as your spelling of "trevon". You must not read much/ever.)

All kidding aside, you do make a good point noting how your story has been covered up. By my count, Google only sees one hundred forty one thousand hits about it.

Here's the thing I'm sick of hearing regarding this case. And I'll readily admit I didn't follow the case as closely as some people did, and I didn't buy into any of the political stuff.

It's driving me nuts that facebook/internet experts tout that the VERDICT was unfair, unjust, and a tragedy.

You can argue that the death is a tragedy, that it could have been avoided, that both parties made mistakes, etc. You COULD argue that this was a racial issue but I'm pretty sure it's been established that it wasn't. You could argue that the laws as they are currently on the books should be changed so that this could perhaps be avoided in the future.

But I don't see how you argue the verdict. A jury of his peers was given the evidence of the case, and asked to make a decision using that evidence and current laws. They did that. They weren't being asked to decide whether Zimmerman was an idiot or Trayvon was a punk, or Zimmerman shouldn't have had a gun or Trayvon shouldn't have throw the first punch or pounded Zimmerman's head into the pavement.

I've been foreman on a jury of a DUII case where a death was involved. You take it very seriously. You look at evidence you are given and apply it to the case without prejudice. I'm sure these 6 women didn't LIKE having to give that verdict, but it's not about how they "feel" about the case.

Even the president commented on that in the last couple days.....that the system worked the way it should.

It makes me laugh when people say that the verdict was wrong or that Zimmerman should have been charged because of X,Y, and Z. As if they, with all of their internet wisdom, had more information than everyone else in the courtroom or they thought of an angle that the prosecution simply didn't consider. I've heard people say that the jury were idiots and that "*I* would have found him guilty". Really? You would have been willing to ignore the evidence in front of you and cast aside objectivity and find Zimmerman guilty because of how you feel about him, what MSNBC has told you about him, how you feel about white people, how you feel about black people etc? I would be willing to bet that any of us who would ever go on trial would want an impartial jury.

The situation sucks, but it seems to me that the just decision was reached, based on the facts of the case.

very accurate post Campion. I agree.


Chili, see YOU assumed that I have indulged myself with "reading" about the case! Well you know what assume really means, right?
I have READ nothing about the case, don't need to! The CNN's - HNN's and such have reported on this case almost 24/7! It really does not make a "shit" how his mother spelled his name at birth. That is not the matter that makes any difference.
A jury found Zimmerman not guilty! Does not matter what "we" think. The media just needs to back off this and the "racial motivated" implications they make pass. If the state needs to change the "stand your ground" law that is for them to decide not the nation wide media.

Fixed.

It is definetly a racial matter where I live.
I see more hate over the verdict than with 911.
I saw almost no reaction from the black community over the Boston bombing.

Yes, if something happens in a state, our media must not discuss it. I concede, this is probably your best, most well-thought-out point.

I thought it was "creepy ass cracker".

Creepy-ass Cracker

or

Creepy Ass-Cracker


The hyphen makes all the difference