<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">We dont know how and if Trayvon is responsible, because he isnt here to tell his side of the story. Lets be real here. If someone else was in Zimmerman shoes, I would expect them to paint themselves as the victim as well if they are facing a significant amount of jail time.
You are right, we don't. But it doesn't mean he wasn't responsible either (sorry, double negative). And it doesn't mean Zimmerman was lying. But we do have evidence. And there wasn't enough evidence on the other side to convict Zimmerman. I can only go by what we know and the evidence at hand.
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">So if Trayvon was 12 or 13 years old but still the same physical strength, would it be wrong to call him a child in that instance? As much as we would to hold Trayvon accountable, Zimmerman should be held accountable, he is a adult. In Florida, the age of 17 is considered a juvenile execpt when charged with a violent felony he can be charged as a adult. That's not what happened here. If he was alive he would have (at best) been charged with a misdemeanor as a juvenile and could have that charged dismissed.
But he wasn't 12 or 13 years old. I think most logical people here do not consider a 17 year old a child, plain and simple. So you are saying Trayvon could not have been charged with a violent felony? He would have been accused of trying to kill Zimmerman had he been alive. That is a violent felony. He certainly could have been tried as an adult. You may not believe he would have been, but to say at best it would have been a misdemeanor is completely dismissing parts of the case.
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">You know what the comparison is? Davis is considered a "thug" as well for loud music.
But Trayvon isn't considered a thug for loud music. Two completely different things.
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(247,247,247);">
<p style="font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;background-color:rgb(247,247,247);"> Any Black person can think for themselves and have different interpretations, there is no code to follow. The conversations that take place in the barbershops, hood, etc stems from how we interpret things like the Martin, and Davis trial and that's what im speaking from. I dont think you paid attention to my other posts because I advocate for all races, so I dont understand the "hypocrisy" you are claiming.
That isn't a very good explanation for why you said "Correct me if I'm wrong... didn't you say you were black". You said it like his answer was an acceptable black thing to say. So you always interpret one side favorably regardless of the facts or evidence presented? Isn't that in itself racially motivated?
