news.yahoo.com/jury-reaches-ve…George Zimmerman, the man who shot Trayvon Martin last year, has been found NOT BLOODY GUILTY.
I honestly got about half-way through the article above before I couldn't take it any more. I mean, I know loads of people have been talking about the self-defense aspect and, hell, even the racial aspect of it. But let's take a different look at this, shall we?
The article mentions how the state painted him as "an angry 'wannabe cop' seething with anger", and how the defense claimed he was "within his rights to follow and question Martin". I don't pretend to be an expert on this sort of thing in the slightest, but I DO know what I'VE heard. Early on in this whole issue there was a recording of Zimmerman's call to the police, PRIOR to the 'violent scuffle'. Nearly every news station other than the local news seemed to have played it AT LEAST once, AND I'd heard it in-class that year, too.
In this call, which I believe you can find online still, Zimmerman points out that there's a suspicious figure in his neighborhood--and bear in mind, now, these are all my words. The police VERY CLEARLY tell him NOT TO APPROACH. He does so anyway. He sounded, if not angry, definitely on some form of adrenaline rush from the event. Don't misunderstand--I don't blame him for having that rush. It's a natural thing, when danger rears its head the body goes on high alert. But even if he WASN'T "seething with anger" that adrenaline could dampen his judgement, in a rush to protect himself.
So, even if he was "within his rights to follow and question Martin", the moment he got the police involved implied he needed their direction. He went AGAINST that direction and confronted Martin anyway.
And then there's the fact that he didn't just "follow and question". He was armed--which, I know, they have slightly different laws in Florida than here--and from what I understand he seemed more than ready to use that kind of life-ending force like any trigger-happy gun owner would be. Most cops today, at least the ones that end up in the media, prefer to shoot first, ask questions later, and go through far too many bullets. So, "wannabe cop" is looking pretty spot-on to me right about now.
Martin? Martin had a bag from the convenience store, inside which he had a can of tea and some skittles. OOO, FRIGHTENING!!!!
People argue, "oh, well he had his hood up!" --Yeah, because as several others have pointed out, it was RAINING.
I've always prided myself in my ability to, even marginally, see the other side of the coin; see the other party's point of view. It's a skill my mom taught me when I was little, and it's something that I try and sort out regardless of how trivial the matter is. Here, I'm honestly completely baffled.
Even if he DID look suspicious, walking around after dark with his hood up and a bag of unknown items in hand...Zimmerman was on the neighborhood watch, I don't for a second claim he had no right to find out who the unknown person was. But what baffles me is this. At what point did it seem OKAY to end someone's life?
Oh, sure, regardless of WHO started it there was a scuffle. I don't deny that. But by that point there had already been at LEAST one call to the police, and even if he'd been knocked down to the ground surely Zimmerman could have held a teenager off for a few more moments while the force arrived. Or, okay, say he didn't have the physical strength to keep him away, supposing it was Martin that started it. The sight of a gun, even one that isn't loaded, is usually enough to make anyone back off. If Zimmerman had kept the thing unloaded, even if it
was wrestled out from his hands, no one would have gotten hurt.
Just...
At what point does it seem okay, REGARDLESS of the situation, to end someone else's life? Maybe I'm just obnoxiously sentimental, but surely, SURELY, other people realize that they aren't the only ones with lives, right? Surely they realize that killing someone physically kills countless others emotionally?