Truth, and I actually mostly agree with Tony raising that question. This case is something of a window into race in modern America, and the difference between a white infant (possibly just "infant") and black teenager as victim can't be ignored.

None of those things, though, change the fact that elements of public discourse on this specific case are somewhat out of control, or that the case itself (and the public) could benefit from a dose of rational thought.

Yes, as long as people don't conveniently forget that discourse control and dose of rational thought when it suits them for another incident or case.

Of course, they will so I will be sitting in the Ivory Tower with a glass of wine, looking down on the masses and scoffing at the predictable inconsistencies of life. :p

Pretty much. Obviouly the facts at issue are different, but in the larger sense this case is no different than many others that have been speculated on and discussed on GC. Most posters have sense enough to weigh information, seek out more if they wish, post/not post if they wish, and arrive at fairly logical conclusions.

Cable outlets of varying political influence have legal "experts" speculating, often contradictorily, on the latest information/developments. But somehow the Republic will apparently crumble and fall if folks weigh in on Greekchat. Who knew?

Agree with both of you.


side rant:

Am I the only person who, when a poster basically does nothing but post excerpts of and links to articles, pretty much ignores those posts? I mean, we all link to articles we find interesting or informative from time to time, but c'mon. Don't just be a Google News Alert. -- at least if you think the article is worth reading, tell us why. Offer your own opinion. Engage in discussion.

/side rant

I have an RSS feed, I don't need another one (and one that I don't control, at that).

However, others may appreciate the information - I don't think it's particularly granular or well-selected in most cases, though. More of a fire hose.

Jesus.. hyperbolic much?

The Republic will be fine. Whether we continue to have a positive opinion of TonyB06 and others is what's at issue here.

As to MC's & RC's points, agreed. The cut/pastes done by many here are from questionable sources at best. The mainstream media started with a narrative here, i.e., race was definitely a factor, Martin was an innocent kid with some skittles, Zimmerman is a rat bastard, etc. None of that has actually been established. The state's burden is high but not insurmountable. We'll see.

That said, I don't really think there's much more to talk about in this case. The media circus and the portrayal of the narrative have become much bigger than the actual case.

The question I have, and maybe an attorney may know more than I know on this, but shouldn't Zimmerman have gotten charged for 1st degree murder instead of 2nd degree? I thought there was some shady shit with that.

Revelations From the Zimmerman Affidavit
The case will likely hinge on the testimony of one key witness: the young woman who was on the phone with Trayvon Martin as it all happened.
Andrew Cohen - Andrew Cohen is a contributing editor at The Atlantic and legal analyst for 60 Minutes. He is also chief analyst and legal editor for CBS Radio News and has won a Murrow Award as one of the nation's leading legal analysts and commentators

And on the 45th day we finally learned something.
From the short "Affidavit of Probable Cause -- Second Degree Murder," made public late Thursday by state prosecutors, we now know that Florida believes that George Zimmerman was chasing after Trayvon Martin just before he shot the unarmed teenager to death. This means we know that Florida officials believe that Martin was, indeed, talking on his cellphone with a friend at the time of the altercation. It means we know that officials do not believe Zimmerman's reported story that Martin attacked him from behind.
It means, in turn, that prosecutors and police believe that Martin's friend, the young woman on the other end of that fateful phone call, is credible and will be believed by both judge and jury. It means the prosecutor believes that this testimony can help overcome the state's stout self-defense law. And it also means that a case about race will ultimately become a "he said, she said" story when Zimmerman and his attorneys move to dismiss the charge against him based upon Florida's "Stand Your Ground" justifiable homicide law.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...it/255830/#bio

The prosecutor didn't take it to the Grand Jury. Under Florida law, the maximum a prosecutor can charge without a Grand Jury is Murder in the 2nd Degree. The only difference is that with Murder in the First Degree, it has to be shown that the killing was done with malice aforethought--essentially, that means that the murder was premeditated.

Your question has been covered by several reports. I would suggest reading some of stories of the past few days. IIRC Lionel did a segment or two on matter this week.

Oh gag me with a spoon. Please re-read my posts.

What character attacks are you talking about? Martin getting expelled or suspended from school? Given the context I think it's perfectly acceptable to bring that up. I mean, if a speeding ticket from 2006 is supposed to convince the public of Zimmerman's tendencies towards violence, then it's only natural that Martin's past comes into play as well.

And do you not think the media half assed this? I take it you're clueless about the edited 911 tapes? Hell, even Jon Stewart was ragging on the media's role in this case the other night on The Daily Show.

Pssst Jon Stewart is not admissable in a court of public opinion :D

Oh but Nancy Grace is??? :eek: The last segment with the animal clips is PRICELESS!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zxAAmJZuJ8

I will allow it....hehehe

Is anyone here familiar with the case of John McNeil in Georgia? I'm curious if all this attention to the Stand Your Ground laws will bring his case back to light.