Monday, July 8, 2013
Trayvon Martin
On February 26, 2012, 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman. Up until this moment there has been non stop commotion about whether or not the defendant is guilty. Many factors such as the racial tension and the character of both Martin and Zimmerman play a key role in the final verdict. On July 7, 2013 the courtroom gathered in Sanford, Florida to make the final desicion. It all came down to who was really crying for help on that night. Who did start the fight? Did the fact that Trayvon Martin had weed in his system effect his ability to be violent. After many were called to the witness stand to identify the voice crying for help in the background of the 911 call made that night, the jury had to make a desicion. Was the incident self-defense or murder? Families of both the Martin and Zimmerman claim that is was
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Travyon Martin case is interesting for a number of reasons, some of which you point out in your post. I'm unsure why the identity of the person who cried for help that fateful evening is of important. Does the article make mention of this? Further, I'm curious as to your own stance on the issue. I wonder if the language you use suggests an unconscious belief as to guilt. You write, "Travyon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman." Was there a conscious decision to make Travyon Martin the subject of that sentence rather than George Zimmerman? Notice if it makes a difference: "George Zimmerman shot and killed Travyon Martin." Notice one uses the passive voice versus the active voice.
ReplyDeleteAs a note, your commentary is a bit short (and it's not much of a commentary). Further, please attach the link to the article.
I think you summarized the article into your own words. I am not really sure what your own input is on this issue. Which side are you taking? Do you think that the accusations made against Zimmerman were out of racial preferences? Furthermore, I think your commentary is a bit short.
ReplyDeleteI also think that your summary was suffice. However I couldn’t find a demonstrate knowledge of the article. Furthermore, your article’s url isn’t available. It is hard to understand on which position you are supporting, because you used too many question marks that later on makes the readers confusing. Overall, you did a nice job summarizing the article, but need to show more commentary about the knowledge of this article.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't tell what position you supported because you never made a stance. You just inserted questions which was the closest thing to a stance. Your commentary also was somewhat short, but good job summarizing the article. The url would have made it more useful to understand what's going on.
ReplyDelete