Re: 2012-13 English Premier League Thread
what I honestly think? context matters. how terry said it made a difference. and by the sound of things, anton instigated the problem
Now, the question if Terry said the racial slur as an insult is a whole different problem. IGNORING all preconceived judgements on John Terry, its quite possible he could have done it and meant it as a slur. however its also possible it was indeed a miscommunication. and trust me, these things happen. I read a story recently that stated that the creators of Puma and Adidas were brothers who dedicated their lives to an angry rivalry over ONE miscommunication that continuously escalated.
unfortunately, only one man knows for sure what happened that day, and thats John Terry. Simply put, we dont know. Its fairly likely that he did indeed mean it in that way. what i have a problem with, is everyone acting like they KNOW exactly what happened, and john terry is a criminal who should be locked up, despite the fact that the judge clearly pointed out, they dont know. there isnt enough evidence. apparently hating john terry for whatever imaginary reason doesnt count as evidence.
the fact this went to court is borderline retarded. in no universe should saying a few words go so far. it shoulda been sorted out between the players, and maximum by the FA.
simply put, everyone is letting their own bias get ahead of them. from the wacko holding a life sized john terry outside the court to the thousands online who think john terry is the antichrist. its little surprise that the way its set up
chelsea fans: not guilty angel
everyone else: satan
but we're all ignoring the key fact. We. Dont. Know. And neither does Anton, and neither does the lip reader. The words were said and the context of it can make quite some difference. The only man who does was the defendant in court today. And more or less, thats for him to live with.
Snrub said this racism sets a dangerous precedent about racism. I beg to differ, personally, i think if he was found guilty it would have set even more of a precedent. It would have essentially implied that depending on personal bias, we can convict someone if not 100% sure of their guilt. I asked several of my friends who study law in the UK and they agree. She had no idea who John Terry was and only followed the trial and read the reports. And she stated, there was no way Terry could be convicted. Because luckily, we dont live in a world where a man can be tried based on insufficient evidence and personal bias. Innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt.