This doesn't change my opinion, which is: none of this stuff has been proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law. Hell, we still don't have all the facts from either side, whereas both sides have been pulling various shenanigans since day one.
It's all too easy to come to a quick conclusion of "Zimmerman is a lying racist douchebag who murdered an innocent kid who was peaceably going about his business." He's been convincted in the court of public opinion before *any* evidence has even been formally introduced. I'm withholding judgement until I see the evidence. Oh, and accusations of perjury and sexual abuse are just that: accusations, until backed up by evidence.
It's like the Casey Anthony trial. The almost unanimous public reaction, including among law students who should really know better, boiled down to "everyone knew she did it. Everyone knew she was guilty. The jury was so stupid, how could they let this horrible monster get off scot free, oh that poor little girl, she'll never get justice now, the system is broken, oh that poor little girl!" Rightly or wrongly, the Casey Anthony jury decided that the prosecution's evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she killed Caylee. But try explaining that to someone whose reaction to the verdict is stuck on an endless loop of "oh, that poor little girl!" and you're instantly branded as a hateful, mean-spirited misanthrope.
It's no different here, where everyone is pegged to either an endless loop of "Martin was a crazed aggressive thug and Zimmerman rightly feared for his very life when Martin attacked him!" or "Zimmerman is a power-tripping bully who hates black people, and Martin was a pure little angel just out for skittles and a drink!"
Sorry, I don't buy either explanation, because the whole story has not come out yet.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 19/7/12 16:55 (UTC)This doesn't change my opinion, which is: none of this stuff has been proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law. Hell, we still don't have all the facts from either side, whereas both sides have been pulling various shenanigans since day one.
It's all too easy to come to a quick conclusion of "Zimmerman is a lying racist douchebag who murdered an innocent kid who was peaceably going about his business." He's been convincted in the court of public opinion before *any* evidence has even been formally introduced. I'm withholding judgement until I see the evidence. Oh, and accusations of perjury and sexual abuse are just that: accusations, until backed up by evidence.
It's like the Casey Anthony trial. The almost unanimous public reaction, including among law students who should really know better, boiled down to "everyone knew she did it. Everyone knew she was guilty. The jury was so stupid, how could they let this horrible monster get off scot free, oh that poor little girl, she'll never get justice now, the system is broken, oh that poor little girl!" Rightly or wrongly, the Casey Anthony jury decided that the prosecution's evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she killed Caylee. But try explaining that to someone whose reaction to the verdict is stuck on an endless loop of "oh, that poor little girl!" and you're instantly branded as a hateful, mean-spirited misanthrope.
It's no different here, where everyone is pegged to either an endless loop of "Martin was a crazed aggressive thug and Zimmerman rightly feared for his very life when Martin attacked him!" or "Zimmerman is a power-tripping bully who hates black people, and Martin was a pure little angel just out for skittles and a drink!"
Sorry, I don't buy either explanation, because the whole story has not come out yet.