The media coverage of Trayvon Martin describing a 6 foot plus 17 year old as a "child" is just nauseating.

Frankly anyone who uses that expression for a teenage boy is just too naive to take seriously. Street gangs and Third World armies are packed with 17 year olds. Even the US military will enlist someone that age with a parent's permission. It actually is close to the ideal age to produce a killer.

Aggression is near its peak for males that age and it is untempered by experience that might induce caution as of yet. Many 17 years olds to incredibly dangerous and stupid things - not believing that the can actually die. So add reckless and foolhardy to aggressive. Most males that age are completely unburdened by introspection or philosophical musings to moderate violent tendencies.

A 17 year old is already at very near full stature. He is often approaching adult strength as well, though that is more variable. Those factors all combine to make this age group one of the most prone to violence and crime of any age cohort. Obviously not all 17 year olds are violent criminals. But virtually all adults with those tendencies will manifest them by this age. And many who will become calm, rational men as they grow older act like complete idiots while suffering testosterone poisoning at that age.

Sushi-

You are clearly racist. As *anyone* can see from the most recent photo of Trayvon released by the media, he was barely even a child.

(Photo only hours before be executed for being black)

Child... Yup...

LOL! Stop it, Spank - yer killin' me!

Whoops! Just a note - I am NOT Trayvon, so it's OK, you don't have to worry about a Just-Us Department-Lefty Media lynch mob...

testosterone poisoning --hmmm...if adult males call it that in any form, maybe kids need to be taught more about that before puberty?

Cuz I agree the surges of hormones at that age and even into the early 20's for many make a lot of behavior worse than once they mellow out.

I bet the 17yr olds HATE to hear him called a child. Heck, he probably would have punched someone calling him that.

Added: oh but guys? To all us old farts and even the moms and dads who are 35 with a 17 yr old, in many ways, you ARE seen as still a child. I guess it's hard if they change someone diapers and have their spit up on your shirts and not still see them as a child even after they are much older than 17.

As a 17 yr old child, Lebron James was one of the better basketball players on the planet, makes perfect sense.

I thought you are now a child until you are 26? WudI miss?

Every time they talk about him on TV, they put up 8-12 years old pics of him... freaking ridiculous.

So... You watch TV why again? I long ago got tired of them spitting in my face... F them.

Imagine calling him a boy?

Don't go hatin' on the murdered little boy.

aka TM™ or TM˛

IMO y'all certainly entitled to your opinions, however it is due process (thank goodness that still exists to an extent) that will weigh the innocence or guilt of the two unfortunates who had their lives permanently changed that night.

To judge before all the evidence is presented is by definition prejudice.

Raftermanfmj : I don't... but once in a while, I see clips of news about this and they only show pics of him when he was young...

Nanna, in theory you are 100% correct. I have two things to say about that.

1. "It would be a fascinating and exciting technical exercise in the theory of the law, but like most such exercises, it would have little to do with right and wrong, less to do with what had actually happened..., and nothing at all to do with justice" - Tom Clancy in Clear and Present Danger

2. I am afraid that no matter what the outcome of this event, the only "justice" that will satisfy a certain portion of society will be street justice from mobs.

Heh, while I'm sort of a permabear on the markets, I tend to the optimistic on truth being revealed :)

ETA: I guess that's just my inner contrary, in both respects!

I admire your optimism. I wish I shared. it. :)

Nanna wrote..

Heh, while I'm sort of a permabear on the markets, I tend to the optimistic on truth being revealed :)

You're correct about the truth being revealed; however, when it comes to politics, sometimes the revealed truth doesn't mean a pinch of used dogfood.

Witness former President Bill Clinton perjuring himself in the face of a federal judge.

How many years did Clinton go to prison for?

A peasant doing the same thing would be looking at ten years in the pokey, aka Federal PMITA prison.

I'm not sure the revealed truth is going to help the peasant Zimmerman. The same media that lied to help Clinton won't stop lying to hang Zimmerman.

Don't know for sure what you mean by Clinton purjuring himself about.

If it's about "having sex" that to me is highly subject to interpretation~

If it's about something else, please do say.

The media are generally speaking propagandists, IMO. Like 1984.

When I say revealed, I mean really exposed, naked like.



ETA: is sex a mind crime?

The left still thinks it was lying about "having sex" it was actually lying under oath re: a sexual harassment case, him being the accused. So in that regard the constant lying by the press about what the case was about has a goodly portion of the public convinced that it was "just about sex" yea, just innocent sex between consenting adults. So in this regard we should have a good idea about how this case will be perceived by the camel swallowing public after the "free press" has their way.

Nanna wrote..

Don't know for sure what you mean by Clinton purjuring himself about.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/pol....

Quote:

A federal judge yesterday held President Clinton in contempt of court for giving "intentionally false" testimony about his relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky in the Paula Jones lawsuit, marking the first time that a sitting president has been sanctioned for disobeying a court order.

In a biting, 32-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright of Arkansas said Clinton gave "false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process" in Jones's sexual harassment lawsuit. She specifically cited Clinton's assertions that he was never alone with Lewinsky and that he did not have a sexual relationship with the former White House intern...

...In finding that Clinton deliberately lied in the Jones deposition and his written answers to questions posed by her lawyers, Wright ordered Clinton to pay "any reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees, caused by his willful failure to obey this court's discovery orders." Wright also said Clinton should repay the $1,202 she incurred in traveling to Washington at Clinton's request to oversee the deposition and said she was referring the matter to state judicial authorities in Arkansas who could disbar Clinton for violating the legal profession's rules of conduct...

See, when a peasant "deliberately lies" in the face of a federal judge, the peasant goes to jail, goes directly to jail, does not pass GO, does not collect $200 (or book contracts for My Life).

Royalty like Clinton, Corzine and many others (see Janet Napolitano for this week's Washington winner!) don't have to worry about such trivialities. The fix is in.

I suspect that the resignations of Newt Gingrich & Bob Livingston at the time were a message sent by the other side to "leave it alone", kind of like the horse's head in The Godfather.

Just like with TM™, the media did that hand-waving thingee so that most people didn't catch the fact that Clinton perjured himself, obstructed justice, and witness-tampered.

Quote:

IMO y'all certainly entitled to your opinions, however it is due process

This is due process? What happens when they decide to pick you up and throw you in jail for a month for your kangaroo trial?

Sin City++

Nanna
Due Process requires probable cause in order to make an arrest. The affidavit that the special prosecutor delivered was a travesty and failed to state probable cause for the crime being charged.

I don't think you understand the extent of George Zimmerman's cooperation with the cops. It went WAY above and beyond - far beyond what was prudent. He was questioned for 5 hours the night of the shooting. He waived counsel to tell his story. Then after being medically treated, he went with the cops to the scene and walked them through the entire incident. Someone lying is guaranteed to slip up under that much questioning. Even an innocent person might say something inconsistent if he says that much. And that's why you should have a lawyer present when answering any questions.

Even after all of that, there was not enough evidence to arrest Zimmerman. And when I look at all of the media lies vs what I've been able to determine of what actually happened, there is a world of difference between the actual events and what the media wants you to believe. What is publicly available not only fails to give probable cause but actually tends to exonrate Zimmerman by a preponderance of evidence. To the extent that the media has hidden things from us, they have tended to be favorable to Zimmerman. I'm confident they are not sitting on a bombshell that would destroy him.