Originally posted on 07/25/2013:

Quote Originally Posted by Turd Ferguson View Post
Why Are Trayvon and Zimmerman Held to Different Standards of Justice?
Hmm

I believe they call it "evidence."

There is so much information about Zimmerman's background/character that was not allowed to be presented at trial that if it had the jury would have come back with a "not guilty" verdict in 10 minutes or less.

Zimmerman's history (including spending much of his youth raised along side black kids/going out of his way to pursue justice for a homeless black man who was assaulted) demonstrates he is more likely to fight racial injustice against blacks than perpetrate it.

And when you combine that with the FACTS of the case, the INDISPUTABLE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that unequivocally proves that Trayvon instigated the physical exchange between the two by RETURNING from a safe haven and confronting Zimmerman, why is it so hard to accept that Trayvon might have been so hopped up on cough syrup his state of mind became aggressive and violent?

The only miscarriage of justice is that this went to trial in the first place. Of course you probably won't ever be able to admit that, but that's because guys like you would rather jump to the worst conclusion possible about what happened that night than get a wider perspective on all the facts first. Like these for instance.....

Here's a black guy who shot a white guy in self-defense (in far less escalated circumstance) and found not guilty...

http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top...tt-not-guilty/

And then there's the fact that President Obama strengthened Illinois "Stand Your Ground" laws....

"President Obama spent part of his surprise appearance at last Friday’s White House press briefing urging that the Stand Your Ground laws that exist in 31 states be reexamined. But only nine years ago, in the Illinois state senate, he co-sponsored a bill that strengthened his state’s 1961 Stand Your Ground law."


"Obama didn’t seem to have any of those concerns when in 2004 he co-sponsored S.B. 2386, which broadened the state’s Stand Your Ground law “by shielding the person who was attacked from being sued in civil court by perpetrators or their estates when a ’stand your ground’ defense is used in protecting his or her person, dwelling or other property.”
S.B. 2386 passed the Illinois state senate by a 56–0 vote on March 25, 2004. It sailed through the state house with only two “nay” votes. Both chambers were controlled by Democrats."


"Stand Your Ground laws weren’t always much of a partisan issue. Florida’s law passed in 2005 after being approved unanimously in the state senate and on a 94–20 vote in the state house."

There was little outcry about the change from minority communities. Perhaps that’s because.... “African Americans benefit from Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground” self-defense law at a rate far out of proportion to their presence in the state’s population...."


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...2004-john-fund

And of course the fact black people in Florida use Stand Your Ground laws more successfully per capita than white people do....

Black Floridians have made about a third of the state’s total “Stand Your Ground” claims in homicide cases, a rate nearly double the black percentage of Florida’s population. The majority of those claims have been successful, a success rate that exceeds that for Florida whites.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/bl...#ixzz2a2Tg5L42

Is it so hard to admit that the media recklessly sensationalized this story? Really?