on that note wrote: The trial is over and most if not all of us were not involved.
So...what is next....the same thing we should have been doing during the whole trial....going on with OUR lives.
This was a media cycle, not something that has anything really to do with anyone that was not in that courtroom or paying for ads on the "news" stations.
I was likely forced down your throat so you would not pay attention to the privacy debate...or rather to end it like it did. So in 20 months or 20 years when you are looking back saying we should have done something...just remember you did...you payed attention to a random court case in Florida.
What you FAIL to take into account is this.....the incident happened WELL before the most
recent privacy debate.....the PRESENT rendered verdict is the culmination of actions that
were put into play a year ago (or so)......the parents were NOT given adequate legal recourse
and THIS finished case has brought, at least, some comfort in knowing it WASN'T swept under
neath the table and forgot. JMO
What you fail to take into account is that I understand that the shooting happened before the most RECENT iteration of the failed privacy debate. The excessive trial coverage came since the privacy debate and mostly displaced it. The privacy debate is already over. How involved did you feel?
What I was referring to was the excessive news coverage and the excessive amount of public watching that came about. I am talking about how a bunch of people that have no real stake in the game spent quite a bit of time paying attention to it, when in fact the results of the trial have little to no effect on their lives...but the stuff they did not pay attention to at the same time, like the privacy debate or their own family, will matter for the rest of their lives.
But, please, keep on talking about this case like it matters to anything really. We already knew the justice system would not answer any real questions except who was or was not going to jail and certainly not if they should or should not go. What you fail to understand is that this case does not matter to most except that CNN figured out how much money they could make by getting the sheep to watch it, even better, they figured out how to get you to think it mattered and make Zimmerman famous. In the end the most important thing is that they know even better the you guys will eat it up, so they are hunting the court records for the next no big deal case to shove down nations throat for profit and in the process assure us that the unfair trail that would have resulted is even less fair because they are now a party to it.
Enjoy.
The FIRST bolded......JMO.....the privacy debate was OVER when the towers dropped (9/11)
and it was DEAD when the Patriot Act was put into law shortly thereafter....it was a forgone
conclusion that we (collectively) OPTED FOR security(?) over our rights....JMO.....your point
holds NO water....JMO
The SECOND bolded....."our lives begin to end,the moment we are SILENT about things that
matter....JMO......I am VERY aware of what matters (in the grand scheme of things.....integrity
responsibility,ethics,being a decent human being).....I will CONTINUE to speak out on things
that involve us,as a whole......".freedom of speech means the freedom to disagree."
jf1acai wrote: First, the obligatory IMO - no source required.
George Zimmerman has been found not guilty of 2nd degree murder and manslaughter by a duly constituted jury of his peers.
Those who are not satisfied with this now want to charge and try him for some other offense. It appears that what they have currently come up with is along the lines of 'living while white(-Hispanic)'.
I think we can all agree that prosecuting someone for 'driving while black' is wrong. Why then would prosecuting someone for 'living while white(-Hispanic)' be acceptable?
If there is something else besides 'living while white(-Hispanic)' that the complainers are saying that he should be prosecuted for, please explain it to me.
