100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Stand your ground Law should it be changed or reformed? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Me: "Gaining a college education isn't a civil right."
Estelle79: "It should be ..." Go figure. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why shouldn't education be a right? It's a requirement until a certain age. At what point does education become a luxury and not a necessity? When a living wage paying job requires it, that's when it becomes a right. Times are changing. But as jobs requiring college education increase, college education and the cost of living is increasing, yet financial aid still doesn't change much, making college out of reach for most. Obama has told the colleges to limit tuition hikes so that financial aid can catch up with them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yet, you don't consider that maybe government involvement in these things is the problem instead of the solution. In my experience government help as it is doesn't help. Even with the maximum financial aid for full time adult student the government assumes you will get about $7000 support from parents. I never could understand this from talking to the financial aid counselors, they just tell me that I was receiving the max limit and to be happy with that. I know lot's of students used to sell drugs or other illegal acts to fund their education, that's the only way they could make it they told me. And many were practically homeless, sleeping on someone's couch...but they weren't lazy. You nailed down the problem, and then you advocate for the problem. Government "help" doesn't help! That's what I've been saying this whole time, except that I've also been saying government "help" actually exacerbates the problem. You admit that the government doesn't help, so why should we want more of what is clearly not working? Do you know what you're talking about? I have been through the system and I know where it fails, $5,730 is not enough to cover rent. Financial aid should be around $10,00-12,000. I know from experience that a few thousand dollars is the difference between pass or fail. So, I say increase you say decrease. You target poor people as the problem I target lack of resources available to them. You have no solution, but to let them go to hell for being poor. I have a solution that will get them on equal footing to prepare for the real world. And all it takes is 4 years and enough to survive and get a useful education. Do you know what you're talking about? Throwing more money at the same problem just makes the problem more expensive. You're making no sense, and even contradicting yourself. How did anything ever accomplish anything before the government took over? A lot more effectively and efficiently. That's how. You're damn right I'm advocating for the government not only spending less, but spending NOTHING on most of what they have their hands in. Government involvement exacerbates the problem. You even admitted it, then advocate for more MORE government intervention. Doing more of the same yields more of the same. The fact that you buy the typical left wing line indicates to me that perhaps you are not educated, but indoctrinated. You seem to believe that schooling and education are the same thing, when in reality, they are very different. Wise up and think for yourself. I think that a good education prepares young people to go into a professional field. I'm not a liberal...I'm more like an Asian/Indian person when it comes to education...they go for medical, legal, engineering degrees. I think the Indians/Asians got it right..the liberals are out of touch, so are the conservatives. This is just a problem about getting the numbers right so poor students can afford to get an education. I'm not dumb, lazy, greedy I have good credit and never took out a loan, because I live within my means. I relied on financial aid and part time jobs and it failed me by a few thousand dollars and couldn't get enough sleep or study time..couldn't even get an associate degree from a community college during 3 years..but I plan to go back and finish soon I still got 6 classes left. I see no point in getting a loan for a 2 year degree, it won't get me a better paying job. You're making the mistake of assuming that someone who goes to school is educated. Often, getting a degree means you're indoctrinated. Again, your advocacy for more money into the same system shows that you lack critical thinking skills. You may not be a liberal, but on this, you definitely are. Spend more, but don't change the system itself. That has failed for decades. It gets worse, so let's spend more. That didn't work? Spend more. But if anyone dares to look at the truth and see that maybe the problem isn't money, but the system itself, that person is an idiot. Really? You want to keep doing the exact same thing that isn't working. And I'm an idiot? Whatever. You may have been to school, but you certainly didn't learn how to solve problems. You lack respect skills? I have demonstrated that the problem is exactly money. What's wrong with the poor if not money? Use your logic. Is sacrificing common sense a prerequisite for admission into college? Seriously. You said government help doesn't help, then you said let's spend more money on the exact same system, even though we've been spending more money. Why are you against changing the system? More money into a failed system doesn't fix anything. Give an alcoholic more money so he can get into rehab. But he uses the money for more alcohol. So give him more money so he can afford rehab. Again, he spends it on alcohol. At what point do you realize that maybe money isn't the answer? In your convoluted world, apparently never! I already said the government spends the money wrong...I'm pretty sure they have a clue what they're doing, they can do math, but they just don't care to have an honest system. You agree with that part? Why are you debating like I'm the big enemy? Maybe we can agree on some points and learn from each other since we have different perspectives, but you're always insulting me, my world is convoluted? Really? Can you be respectful? Apparently your idea of being respectful is, "you're absolutely right." No. I can't do that because you are not right. Government intervention is the problem, not the solution. History shows this. I'm amazed at how uneducated well schooled people can be. You say the money isn't being used correctly, which is an argument in my favor that more money isn't the answer. If we keep throwing more money at the situation, those in charge have more money to misuse. Change the system. You don't need more dollars. You need more sense. Respect is giving your opinion without putting someone down for theirs. Yes, I have argued in your favor because I actually agree with you on that point. The government is obviously interested in making money for themselves and their friends. It's all designed to benefit the rich and powerful. Keeping a segment of the population poor, keeping the middle class from having jobs or small businesses, keeping education out of reach, poor infrastructure, pitting us against each other, actually benefits them. So there you have the answer as to why government funding has not been working out in our favor. Greed, corruption and lies. And for the poor and the middle class money and power is what they need to change government. We have the numbers but not the resources to fight back. We are living in a police state with a militant police force which means it would be impossible to have a revolution. We had our chance back in the 60's and blew it. Everyone is on their own now. It is designed that way. Maybe you agree with some of that? and what do you know about the Sixties? Didn't even have Legs yet! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Thu 02/19/15 02:31 PM
|
|
Yet, you don't consider that maybe government involvement in these things is the problem instead of the solution. In my experience government help as it is doesn't help. Even with the maximum financial aid for full time adult student the government assumes you will get about $7000 support from parents. I never could understand this from talking to the financial aid counselors, they just tell me that I was receiving the max limit and to be happy with that. I know lot's of students used to sell drugs or other illegal acts to fund their education, that's the only way they could make it they told me. And many were practically homeless, sleeping on someone's couch...but they weren't lazy. You nailed down the problem, and then you advocate for the problem. Government "help" doesn't help! That's what I've been saying this whole time, except that I've also been saying government "help" actually exacerbates the problem. You admit that the government doesn't help, so why should we want more of what is clearly not working? Do you know what you're talking about? I have been through the system and I know where it fails, $5,730 is not enough to cover rent. Financial aid should be around $10,00-12,000. I know from experience that a few thousand dollars is the difference between pass or fail. So, I say increase you say decrease. You target poor people as the problem I target lack of resources available to them. You have no solution, but to let them go to hell for being poor. I have a solution that will get them on equal footing to prepare for the real world. And all it takes is 4 years and enough to survive and get a useful education. Do you know what you're talking about? Throwing more money at the same problem just makes the problem more expensive. You're making no sense, and even contradicting yourself. How did anything ever accomplish anything before the government took over? A lot more effectively and efficiently. That's how. You're damn right I'm advocating for the government not only spending less, but spending NOTHING on most of what they have their hands in. Government involvement exacerbates the problem. You even admitted it, then advocate for more MORE government intervention. Doing more of the same yields more of the same. The fact that you buy the typical left wing line indicates to me that perhaps you are not educated, but indoctrinated. You seem to believe that schooling and education are the same thing, when in reality, they are very different. Wise up and think for yourself. I think that a good education prepares young people to go into a professional field. I'm not a liberal...I'm more like an Asian/Indian person when it comes to education...they go for medical, legal, engineering degrees. I think the Indians/Asians got it right..the liberals are out of touch, so are the conservatives. This is just a problem about getting the numbers right so poor students can afford to get an education. I'm not dumb, lazy, greedy I have good credit and never took out a loan, because I live within my means. I relied on financial aid and part time jobs and it failed me by a few thousand dollars and couldn't get enough sleep or study time..couldn't even get an associate degree from a community college during 3 years..but I plan to go back and finish soon I still got 6 classes left. I see no point in getting a loan for a 2 year degree, it won't get me a better paying job. You're making the mistake of assuming that someone who goes to school is educated. Often, getting a degree means you're indoctrinated. Again, your advocacy for more money into the same system shows that you lack critical thinking skills. You may not be a liberal, but on this, you definitely are. Spend more, but don't change the system itself. That has failed for decades. It gets worse, so let's spend more. That didn't work? Spend more. But if anyone dares to look at the truth and see that maybe the problem isn't money, but the system itself, that person is an idiot. Really? You want to keep doing the exact same thing that isn't working. And I'm an idiot? Whatever. You may have been to school, but you certainly didn't learn how to solve problems. You lack respect skills? I have demonstrated that the problem is exactly money. What's wrong with the poor if not money? Use your logic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why shouldn't education be a right? It's a requirement until a certain age. At what point does education become a luxury and not a necessity? When a living wage paying job requires it, that's when it becomes a right. Times are changing. But as jobs requiring college education increase, college education and the cost of living is increasing, yet financial aid still doesn't change much, making college out of reach for most. Obama has told the colleges to limit tuition hikes so that financial aid can catch up with them. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, now we're getting into what is and what isn't a right. Is education a right? It's not specifically listed in the Constitution, but I believe it is covered by the Ninth Amendment, which, in crude, modern English basically says, "just because it's not listed here doesn't mean it's not a right." That does not mean, however, that the government should provide it. Specifically mentioned in the Constitution is the right to keep and bear arms. Does that mean the government should provide people with firearms? Of course not! The right to freely practice religion is also specifically listed. Does that mean the government should make sure that we all have our preferred houses of worship? No. That's up to each religion. So yes, you have the right to an education. So go work for it. Earn it. Let's scrap this sense of entitlement, especially among those who are descended from the oppressed. My ancestors were oppressed, and because of that I don't want what I haven't earned. By handing out freebies, we are enslaving people in a different way. Why we have people arguing against freedom, especially those who are descendants of oppressed peoples, makes no sense to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Thu 02/19/15 05:03 PM
|
|
n THIS country my people were oppressed
in THIS country my parents lived in a time where they were segregated and not equal although they didn't work any less 'hard' for what thay got either, and due to oppression, arguably had to work harder than those who weren't so now all those 'oppressed' descendants whose ancestors worked their behinds off,, shouldn't have the 'right' to the type of foothold that the descendants of the oppressors had passed down in birthrights? freedom has nothing to do with this discussion,,, food and shelter are not a freedom , they are a necessity to LIVE<,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In THIS country MY people were oppressed! Your point is invalid based on the fact that you selectively point out the history that you want to use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the profitmaker is always right because of 'capitalism' and the impoverished who get priced out are always wrong because of 'self responsibility' that is the system americans (many) buy into,, unfortunately I have to call BS on that^^^ due to my time on earth and personal growth  ...Unless they are reformed, entitlement programs in the US will eventually become insolvent...Our current administration is aware of this, but they delay reform for strictly political reasons AND THAT IS THE REAL THREAT TO OUR NATION'S POOR...Entitlement programs, as structured, are unsustainable because of longer life expectancy, changing demographics, rising interest rates on national debt and rising health care costs...Twenty year projections show us that retired Americans will increase by 75% while those working will only increase by 7%..Government spending on entitlement programs and interest payments comes at the expense of defense, education and infrastructure...Raising taxes to offset even a portion of the spending increases demanded by Obamacare and growing entitlement programs will only serve to crush the economy...It's a little know fact, but right now what Washington spends on entitlement programs and interest exceeds what it collects in federal income taxes... y lump interest in with 'entitlement' in 2014 us spent 3.5 trillion( that's all spending not entitlements alone) http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/12/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell me what you think went the wrong with Trayvon Martin case. The biggest thing that went wrong with the Martin case was that people rushed to judgement. People wanted to project their own beliefs onto a situation without knowing all the facts. Based on the evidence brought forth during the trial, including the testimony of the Martin's female friend, it seems pretty clear that Trayvon brought about his own death by attacking someone who was tailing him. it didn't rely on people, just 12 jurors they barely even considered martins witness .due to their own rush to judgment maybe? she didn't speak or look as proper as the witnesses for z martins friend never testified that he brought it on himself, she testified that he mentioned someone following him,, then someone staring at him, then he RAN,, then he said he was going to stop running , then he turned around and the strange man was behind him AGAIN,, where he finally asked him why he was following him none of that is 'bringing it on himself' or 'attacking' anyone,, its the epitome of going out of ones way to avoid,,,,, jurors were overwhelmed with 'character and professional' witnesses on the defense side and the prosecution slept through the trial the better lawyer was on the defense side,,,thats what happened |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell me what you think went the wrong with Trayvon Martin case. Nothing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell me what you think went the wrong with Trayvon Martin case. The biggest thing that went wrong with the Martin case was that people rushed to judgement. People wanted to project their own beliefs onto a situation without knowing all the facts. Based on the evidence brought forth during the trial, including the testimony of the Martin's female friend, it seems pretty clear that Trayvon brought about his own death by attacking someone who was tailing him. it didn't rely on people, just 12 jurors they barely even considered martins witness .due to their own rush to judgment maybe? she didn't speak or look as proper as the witnesses for z martins friend never testified that he brought it on himself, she testified that he mentioned someone following him,, then someone staring at him, then he RAN,, then he said he was going to stop running , then he turned around and the strange man was behind him AGAIN,, where he finally asked him why he was following him none of that is 'bringing it on himself' or 'attacking' anyone,, its the epitome of going out of ones way to avoid,,,,, jurors were overwhelmed with 'character and professional' witnesses on the defense side and the prosecution slept through the trial the better lawyer was on the defense side,,,thats what happened So juries are the problem? They aren't smart enough to examine facts? They are all so stupid that they fell for slick lawyer tricks? That's pretty condescending. I hope if I'm ever accused of a crime you're not on the jury. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell me what you think went the wrong with Trayvon Martin case. The biggest thing that went wrong with the Martin case was that people rushed to judgement. People wanted to project their own beliefs onto a situation without knowing all the facts. Based on the evidence brought forth during the trial, including the testimony of the Martin's female friend, it seems pretty clear that Trayvon brought about his own death by attacking someone who was tailing him. it didn't rely on people, just 12 jurors they barely even considered martins witness .due to their own rush to judgment maybe? she didn't speak or look as proper as the witnesses for z martins friend never testified that he brought it on himself, she testified that he mentioned someone following him,, then someone staring at him, then he RAN,, then he said he was going to stop running , then he turned around and the strange man was behind him AGAIN,, where he finally asked him why he was following him none of that is 'bringing it on himself' or 'attacking' anyone,, its the epitome of going out of ones way to avoid,,,,, jurors were overwhelmed with 'character and professional' witnesses on the defense side and the prosecution slept through the trial the better lawyer was on the defense side,,,thats what happened So juries are the problem? They aren't smart enough to examine facts? They are all so stupid that they fell for slick lawyer tricks? That's pretty condescending. I hope if I'm ever accused of a crime you're not on the jury. ?? is this one of those things like people not from Africa are evil? imagined? I didn't say any of that. I said, as it pertains to the TREYVON TRIAL,, it came down to 12 jurors as opposed to people(in general) rushing to judgment,, only 12 individuals had power to render a verdict its not condescending at all to know that lawyers have a job to do,, and whoever does their job best wins the case |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MadDog1974
on
Thu 02/19/15 07:59 PM
|
|
Tell me what you think went the wrong with Trayvon Martin case. The biggest thing that went wrong with the Martin case was that people rushed to judgement. People wanted to project their own beliefs onto a situation without knowing all the facts. Based on the evidence brought forth during the trial, including the testimony of the Martin's female friend, it seems pretty clear that Trayvon brought about his own death by attacking someone who was tailing him. it didn't rely on people, just 12 jurors they barely even considered martins witness .due to their own rush to judgment maybe? she didn't speak or look as proper as the witnesses for z martins friend never testified that he brought it on himself, she testified that he mentioned someone following him,, then someone staring at him, then he RAN,, then he said he was going to stop running , then he turned around and the strange man was behind him AGAIN,, where he finally asked him why he was following him none of that is 'bringing it on himself' or 'attacking' anyone,, its the epitome of going out of ones way to avoid,,,,, jurors were overwhelmed with 'character and professional' witnesses on the defense side and the prosecution slept through the trial the better lawyer was on the defense side,,,thats what happened So juries are the problem? They aren't smart enough to examine facts? They are all so stupid that they fell for slick lawyer tricks? That's pretty condescending. I hope if I'm ever accused of a crime you're not on the jury. ?? is this one of those things like people not from Africa are evil? imagined? I didn't say any of that. I said, as it pertains to the TREYVON TRIAL,, it came down to 12 jurors as opposed to people(in general) rushing to judgment,, only 12 individuals had power to render a verdict its not condescending at all to know that lawyers have a job to do,, and whoever does their job best wins the case So people, particularly in the media, didn't rush to judgment? What about the way NBC edited the 911 call to make Zimmerman sound racist? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell me what you think went the wrong with Trayvon Martin case. The biggest thing that went wrong with the Martin case was that people rushed to judgement. People wanted to project their own beliefs onto a situation without knowing all the facts. Based on the evidence brought forth during the trial, including the testimony of the Martin's female friend, it seems pretty clear that Trayvon brought about his own death by attacking someone who was tailing him. it didn't rely on people, just 12 jurors they barely even considered martins witness .due to their own rush to judgment maybe? she didn't speak or look as proper as the witnesses for z martins friend never testified that he brought it on himself, she testified that he mentioned someone following him,, then someone staring at him, then he RAN,, then he said he was going to stop running , then he turned around and the strange man was behind him AGAIN,, where he finally asked him why he was following him none of that is 'bringing it on himself' or 'attacking' anyone,, its the epitome of going out of ones way to avoid,,,,, jurors were overwhelmed with 'character and professional' witnesses on the defense side and the prosecution slept through the trial the better lawyer was on the defense side,,,thats what happened So juries are the problem? They aren't smart enough to examine facts? They are all so stupid that they fell for slick lawyer tricks? That's pretty condescending. I hope if I'm ever accused of a crime you're not on the jury. ?? is this one of those things like people not from Africa are evil? imagined? I didn't say any of that. I said, as it pertains to the TREYVON TRIAL,, it came down to 12 jurors as opposed to people(in general) rushing to judgment,, only 12 individuals had power to render a verdict its not condescending at all to know that lawyers have a job to do,, and whoever does their job best wins the case So people, particularly in the media, didn't rush to judgment? What about the way NBC edited the 911 call to make Zimmerman sound racist? sigh in a trial,, including the Zimmerman trial no people matter except the 12 jurors... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell me what you think went the wrong with Trayvon Martin case. The biggest thing that went wrong with the Martin case was that people rushed to judgement. People wanted to project their own beliefs onto a situation without knowing all the facts. Based on the evidence brought forth during the trial, including the testimony of the Martin's female friend, it seems pretty clear that Trayvon brought about his own death by attacking someone who was tailing him. it didn't rely on people, just 12 jurors they barely even considered martins witness .due to their own rush to judgment maybe? she didn't speak or look as proper as the witnesses for z martins friend never testified that he brought it on himself, she testified that he mentioned someone following him,, then someone staring at him, then he RAN,, then he said he was going to stop running , then he turned around and the strange man was behind him AGAIN,, where he finally asked him why he was following him none of that is 'bringing it on himself' or 'attacking' anyone,, its the epitome of going out of ones way to avoid,,,,, jurors were overwhelmed with 'character and professional' witnesses on the defense side and the prosecution slept through the trial the better lawyer was on the defense side,,,thats what happened So juries are the problem? They aren't smart enough to examine facts? They are all so stupid that they fell for slick lawyer tricks? That's pretty condescending. I hope if I'm ever accused of a crime you're not on the jury. ?? is this one of those things like people not from Africa are evil? imagined? I didn't say any of that. I said, as it pertains to the TREYVON TRIAL,, it came down to 12 jurors as opposed to people(in general) rushing to judgment,, only 12 individuals had power to render a verdict its not condescending at all to know that lawyers have a job to do,, and whoever does their job best wins the case So people, particularly in the media, didn't rush to judgment? What about the way NBC edited the 911 call to make Zimmerman sound racist? sigh in a trial,, including the Zimmerman trial no people matter except the 12 jurors... Are you saying they believed the slicker lawyer and ignored the truth and that's why there wasn't a conviction? If that's the case, you are saying juries are the problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell me what you think went the wrong with Trayvon Martin case. The biggest thing that went wrong with the Martin case was that people rushed to judgement. People wanted to project their own beliefs onto a situation without knowing all the facts. Based on the evidence brought forth during the trial, including the testimony of the Martin's female friend, it seems pretty clear that Trayvon brought about his own death by attacking someone who was tailing him. it didn't rely on people, just 12 jurors they barely even considered martins witness .due to their own rush to judgment maybe? she didn't speak or look as proper as the witnesses for z martins friend never testified that he brought it on himself, she testified that he mentioned someone following him,, then someone staring at him, then he RAN,, then he said he was going to stop running , then he turned around and the strange man was behind him AGAIN,, where he finally asked him why he was following him none of that is 'bringing it on himself' or 'attacking' anyone,, its the epitome of going out of ones way to avoid,,,,, jurors were overwhelmed with 'character and professional' witnesses on the defense side and the prosecution slept through the trial the better lawyer was on the defense side,,,thats what happened So juries are the problem? They aren't smart enough to examine facts? They are all so stupid that they fell for slick lawyer tricks? That's pretty condescending. I hope if I'm ever accused of a crime you're not on the jury. ?? is this one of those things like people not from Africa are evil? imagined? I didn't say any of that. I said, as it pertains to the TREYVON TRIAL,, it came down to 12 jurors as opposed to people(in general) rushing to judgment,, only 12 individuals had power to render a verdict its not condescending at all to know that lawyers have a job to do,, and whoever does their job best wins the case So people, particularly in the media, didn't rush to judgment? What about the way NBC edited the 911 call to make Zimmerman sound racist? sigh in a trial,, including the Zimmerman trial no people matter except the 12 jurors... Are you saying they believed the slicker lawyer and ignored the truth and that's why there wasn't a conviction? If that's the case, you are saying juries are the problem. I was pretty clear. I am not saying juries are the problem. Juries are the best we have, but the process is flawed because justice is not blind,, humans have preconceived prejudices that shape their perspective, and juries are made of humans the lawyer who does the best at utilizing those preconceptions wins the case this is why there is a jury selection by the lawyers...to know the best candidates , the ones easiest to persuade to their side
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let it go it was clearly self defense, Zimmerman simply followed a man he thought may be harming his neighborhood, Trevor did not like it(WHY I DO NOT KNOW) and jumped him trying to beat his brains out, yes he was younger, but much stronger and was beating his brains out so he shot him in self defense! Not white on black, both minorities and has nothing at all to do with "STAND YOUR GROUND LAW"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Thu 02/19/15 08:30 PM
|
|
Let it go it was clearly self defense, Zimmerman simply followed a man he thought may be harming his neighborhood, Trevor did not like it(WHY I DO NOT KNOW) and jumped him trying to beat his brains out, yes he was younger, but much stronger and was beating his brains out so he shot him in self defense! Not white on black, both minorities and has nothing at all to do with "STAND YOUR GROUND LAW" lol, you don't know why someone wouldn't like a person following them in a car, sitting and watching them from the car and then exiting the car to follow that person between buildings late on a rainy night?......unbelievable!,,, I agree, clearly self defense, Treyvon was simply trying to elude some strange man stalking him until he realized despite three times trying that he couldn't at which point , he asked the strange man straight out why he was following him, the man attempted to reach out so he wouldn't 'get away',, and the boy was left reasonably feeling an assault was in progress , and fought for his life,, realizing THEN that this man also had a weapon, meaning he had to fight for his life(treyvon that is) stand your ground wasn't used, but it has to do with the principal of when one has a right to stop running and defend themselves,, the jury decided treyvon hadn't yet reached that point apparently,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell me what you think went the wrong with Trayvon Martin case. The biggest thing that went wrong with the Martin case was that people rushed to judgement. People wanted to project their own beliefs onto a situation without knowing all the facts. Based on the evidence brought forth during the trial, including the testimony of the Martin's female friend, it seems pretty clear that Trayvon brought about his own death by attacking someone who was tailing him. it didn't rely on people, just 12 jurors they barely even considered martins witness .due to their own rush to judgment maybe? she didn't speak or look as proper as the witnesses for z martins friend never testified that he brought it on himself, she testified that he mentioned someone following him,, then someone staring at him, then he RAN,, then he said he was going to stop running , then he turned around and the strange man was behind him AGAIN,, where he finally asked him why he was following him none of that is 'bringing it on himself' or 'attacking' anyone,, its the epitome of going out of ones way to avoid,,,,, jurors were overwhelmed with 'character and professional' witnesses on the defense side and the prosecution slept through the trial the better lawyer was on the defense side,,,thats what happened So juries are the problem? They aren't smart enough to examine facts? They are all so stupid that they fell for slick lawyer tricks? That's pretty condescending. I hope if I'm ever accused of a crime you're not on the jury. ?? is this one of those things like people not from Africa are evil? imagined? I didn't say any of that. I said, as it pertains to the TREYVON TRIAL,, it came down to 12 jurors as opposed to people(in general) rushing to judgment,, only 12 individuals had power to render a verdict its not condescending at all to know that lawyers have a job to do,, and whoever does their job best wins the case So people, particularly in the media, didn't rush to judgment? What about the way NBC edited the 911 call to make Zimmerman sound racist? sigh in a trial,, including the Zimmerman trial no people matter except the 12 jurors... Are you saying they believed the slicker lawyer and ignored the truth and that's why there wasn't a conviction? If that's the case, you are saying juries are the problem. I was pretty clear. I am not saying juries are the problem. Juries are the best we have, but the process is flawed because justice is not blind,, humans have preconceived prejudices that shape their perspective, and juries are made of humans the lawyer who does the best at utilizing those preconceptions wins the case this is why there is a jury selection by the lawyers...to know the best candidates , the ones easiest to persuade to their side You were not at all clear. Had you been clear, I would have understood what you were saying. So basically, lawyers shouldn't defend their clients if you think there should be a guilty verdict? What exactly are you saying? Juries are stupid if you don't like the verdict, but brilliant when you do? Please clear this up. Apparently when someone is acquitted of killing a young black male, that's a problem even though you're not in that jury room? Did you see all the evidence the jury saw? And why so did you so easily dismiss black on black earlier? And you still ignored other questions that were raised in this thread. Admittedly, some strayed off topic, but they are still relevant. Nice job ignoring what you don't want to address. |
|
|
|
|
