- Joined
- Nov 8, 2006
- Messages
- 1,792
- Reaction score
- 1,475
- Location
- Hiding from the voices in my head.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Been watching the coverage of the verdict on MSNBC. Two things have stuck out to me that have been repeatedly stated and have me yelling back at the TV.
First off, Trayvon Martin has been constantly referred to as a child. Yes, it is true he was legally a minor, but how many people refer to seventeen year olds as children? A seventeen year old charged with a serious crime is almost assuredly going to stand trial as an adult. Trayvon Martin was a seventeen year old male, perfectly capable of representing a physical threat to another person even being unarmed.
Secondly, Al Sharpton and several other commentators continues to say something along the lines of "an unarmed boy went to the store and was shot". That statement happens to leave a HUGE detail, when Martin assaulted and battered Zimmerman. That's like saying Japan signed the London Naval Treaty and was nuked by the US - it leaves out the rather important detail known as World War II.
I don't want to retry the whole case, but its this kind of slanted media coverage (I know what did I expect watching MSNBC) that I think stirred up a lot of the passions on this case. There was commentator who said the verdict "may" have been appropriate given the facts of the case and Florida law, but then went on to talk about how it made people - specifically black America - feel and that they were all holding their sons a little closer now. Frankly, if you feel this case says - as she implied - that the verdict said it was OK to shoot an unarmed black kid who was doing nothing wrong, then you are mentally deficient. The message the verdict sends is if some guy (of any color) is on top of you and beating the crap out of you, you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force. If you don't want your children to be shot, teach them not to go around assaulting people for do nothing more than following them.
First off, Trayvon Martin has been constantly referred to as a child. Yes, it is true he was legally a minor, but how many people refer to seventeen year olds as children? A seventeen year old charged with a serious crime is almost assuredly going to stand trial as an adult. Trayvon Martin was a seventeen year old male, perfectly capable of representing a physical threat to another person even being unarmed.
Secondly, Al Sharpton and several other commentators continues to say something along the lines of "an unarmed boy went to the store and was shot". That statement happens to leave a HUGE detail, when Martin assaulted and battered Zimmerman. That's like saying Japan signed the London Naval Treaty and was nuked by the US - it leaves out the rather important detail known as World War II.
I don't want to retry the whole case, but its this kind of slanted media coverage (I know what did I expect watching MSNBC) that I think stirred up a lot of the passions on this case. There was commentator who said the verdict "may" have been appropriate given the facts of the case and Florida law, but then went on to talk about how it made people - specifically black America - feel and that they were all holding their sons a little closer now. Frankly, if you feel this case says - as she implied - that the verdict said it was OK to shoot an unarmed black kid who was doing nothing wrong, then you are mentally deficient. The message the verdict sends is if some guy (of any color) is on top of you and beating the crap out of you, you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force. If you don't want your children to be shot, teach them not to go around assaulting people for do nothing more than following them.