So the short fat Latino dude ...
whom Martin pounded on until said short fat Latino dude (Zimmerman), drew his pistol and shot him, has been found not guilty of murder, by a jury of 6 women.
From this we can learn:
1) Don't pound on guys who have weapons. It's always a bad idea to swing your fists at somebody with a loaded gun at hand.
2) Our President is *weird*. WTF does this comment from Obama convey:
"If I had a son, he'd look like Treyvan Martin"
Huh?? :(
Talk about trying to shape the public's perception before the trial even began, and increase the pressure to prosecute!
3) The jury used a bit of common sense: when a guy is beating the crap out of someone, he won't be the one screaming for help. The guy screaming for help, will *ALWAYS* be the guy who's getting pounded. Neither Einstein nor Hawking assisted me in formulating this concept.
[COLOR="Red"]Duh![/COLOR]
And sadly:
4) If there wasn't a lot of national attention and pressure to prosecute Zimmerman, the district attorney would have used the common sense of #3 above, and never prosecuted Zimmerman.
Of course, the ridiculous Jesse Jackson stated after the verdict that Obama's Justice Dept. needed to do something, to fix this injustice.
Sure thing, Jesse. We'll just throw out our Constitution, Florida state laws, and our legal system, so you can get whatsoever you want.
I wish Treyvan was still around, and decided to pound the shit out of Jackson. It would be a YouTube viral video of the decade.
... Of course, the ridiculous Jesse Jackson stated after the verdict that Obama's Justice Dept. needed to do something, to fix this injustice.
Sure thing, Jesse. We'll just throw out our Constitution, Florida state laws, and our legal system, so you can get whatsoever you want. ...
He'll probably be a thorn in the President's side, using whatever issues he can, unless he gets pardons for his son and daughter-in-law.
Well, what I've learned, is that a private citizen can follow and confront another citizen, scare him so much as to start a fight, then fatally shoot him, and legally, all is okay.
Martin did NOTHING at all illegal or threatening until Zimmerman initiated the confrontation.
If that is legal, your laws are messed up.
Well, what I've learned, is that a private citizen can follow and confront another citizen, scare him so much as to start a fight, then fatally shoot him, and legally, all is okay.
Martin did NOTHING at all illegal or threatening until Zimmerman initiated the confrontation.
If that is legal, your laws are messed up.
i get that you see americans as a complete group of fools, ignorant and violent.
did you watch the trial at all? do you understand the concept of 'reasonable doubt'? the prosecution failed, and as a liberal who hates guns, i think the jury got it right. surprise!
i won't even start with public reaction over other high profile trials. you're smart enough to get where i'm going with this.
btw, the painting of treyvon as a 9 year old who was just saving kittens isn't reality, as you may have seen in your 'learning' of the subject.
it's not a race issue. black and hispanic. the media cried 'white man.' where? that was another creation to confuse us all with our (honorable) desire to not take race into account in ANY trial, except for obvious hate crimes.
Hi Infi, nice to see you back ... wish it was on slightly happier terms.
No, I know that not all Americans are assholes. But it seems to me that some of your rules and norms foster assholishness.
well, not ALL americans, just our general policies foster such racist crap, from all sides. i can agree with that. :)
oh i'm ok, just a huge thing going on right now so i am dealing with that as best i can.
... If that is legal, your laws are messed up.
Let me 'splain how it works here Zen. There's a camp that believes guns kill people; but, when somebody gets killed and there's a gun involved they arrest and charge some person who may simply have fallen in with a bad gun. When that person goes to trial, there's automatically reasonable doubt about which was really the perpetrator ... the person or the gun. The person is therefore acquitted and the gun, which was only taken into protective custody without ever actually being arrested or charged, goes free.
People say that alcohol kills; so, we have laws that make doing things like driving under the influence of alcohol illegal. People say that guns kill; but, there are no laws making doing anything under the influence of a gun illegal!
So you see, it's not that our existing laws are messed up. It's just that the current culture is lagging in enacting laws that hold guns responsible for the people they kill; also, laws to hold people who partake of demon guns responsible for (the lesser offense) of acting under the influence of a gun. We just need a little more time to even things out.
:grouphug: to you, Infi.
Sexobon ....
:lol2:
Although a very good point in amongst all that.
Mind you, it is worth noting ...
The GUN was BLACK!!!
Well, what I've learned, is that a private citizen can follow and confront another citizen, scare him so much as to start a fight, then fatally shoot him, and legally, all is okay.
Martin did NOTHING at all illegal or threatening until Zimmerman initiated the confrontation.
If that is legal, your laws are messed up.
Zimmerman didn't "confront" Martin. Martin saw Zimmerman following him, (this is inside a private gated community, so there aren't many people out and about). Anyway, Martin tells his gf he's going to "take care of this guy" following him, and doubles back to Z's position.
Now Zimmerman starts questioning Martin. Zimmerman has already called 911 for backup, and was advised to not confront M, and he's also been advised to not bring his firearm while in a community watchman role. Zimmerman disregards that advise. He knows his rights, and he knows he has no partner, and no fast backup is available. The gated community has no police department, so the response time for the sheriff is rather long.
Shortly afterward, the taller guy has the shorter guy on his back, astride his chest, and is pounding shorty's face with his fists.
Someone is yelling for help. It attracts a witness, but the witness can't say for sure who is yelling for help, because he has a bad angle, and is too far away.
The taller guy continues to pound on the shorter guy, who can't get up. Other calls to 911 are made. Then a shot is heard. Treyvan has been mortally wounded, by Zimmerman.
Zimmerman is taken in for questioning. He has a gashed and reportedly broken nose, a swollen face, and a scalp laceration where Treyvan had bounced Zimmerman's head against the ground several times, while beating on him.
The newmedia get the picture of Zimmerman getting out of the cruiser at the station. They photoshop the picture so Zimmerman has no injuries at all, and publish it as factual.
Zimmerman's Mom and relatives claimed in court that it was Treyvan yelling for help - after first saying it was not Treyvan yelling for help, when interviewed by detectives.
Like fun! Guys who are winning fights, don't scream for help from anyone nearby.
Treyvan was 4 inches taller than Zimmerman, and at 17 years old, was on his high school football team. Zimmerman was no match for Treyvan in a fight. He's heavier, but not an athlete, and decidedly "well nourished" as they say. ;)
Zimmerman could not have retreated to safety at any time after the fight broke out, even if he wanted to, because Treyvan quickly took him down, and sat on Zimmerman, while repeatedly punching him in the face, bouncing Zimmerman's head against the concrete beneath him.
I don't believe Treyvan intended to kill Zimmerman, but he might have killed him anyway. He certainly wasn't stopping, even after Zimmerman started screaming for help. He kept on pounding away.
It's a huge loss of life, for something as trivial as being questioned by the community watchman. Treyvan's real shortfall, was failing to stay civil, when talking with Zimmerman. There was no need for a fight to ever start. Maybe a heated argument or lively discussion, but not a fight.
The fight was Treyvan's idea, and Zimmerman had every right to defend himself, in that situation.
I don't believe Treyvan intended to kill Zimmerman, but he might have killed him anyway. He certainly wasn't stopping, even after Zimmerman started screaming for help. He kept on pounding away.
According to FL law, Martin had every right to beat the crap out of Zimmerman. He was stalked and confronted. And had every reason to fear for his life. We now know what he did not. Martin had more reasons than he knew to fear for his life.
Nobody knows who was calling for help. But we do know who the aggressor was. 'Shorty' created the entire problem. And deserved to have the crap beaten from his body.
Martin died because he was doing what FL laws says he should do. Use as much force as possible when one fears for their life.
If Zimmerman was not carrying a gun, would he have acted intelligently? Probably. Instead he foolishly did what he had done so many times previously. So many times, he saw a black man and reported him as a suspect criminal. Zimmerman repeatedly acted on his emotions. Assumed based only on observation and speculation rather than think rationally like an adult.
Zimmerman's previous actions imply he saw black men as criminals. Is that illegal? If not, then we have one example of reasonable doubt.
I'm not exactly sure which part constitutes 'reasonable doubt'. Jurors are not talking. Required details are not specific. Not even listed here. We really need to hear the jurors interviewed. Curiously, they all have refused.
It's no longer a question of what is fair. Fair (and legal under FL law) is for Martin to seriously harm or even kill Zimmerman. Fair is irrelevant. Only relevant question is what is legal. Will Federal charges be filed against the gun for violating a human's civil rights?
Meanwhile, on 4-chan:
[ATTACH]44727[/ATTACH]
According to FL law, Martin had every right to beat the crap out of Zimmerman. He was stalked and confronted. And had every reason to fear for his life.
If someone is following you, at a distance, and you are worried for your safety, you should call the cops, or go to the nearest open business, and ask them to call the cops.
You don't try to beat the shit out of the community watchman, because he asks you what you're doing.
We now know what he did not. Martin had more reasons than he knew to fear for his life.
Martin had no fear for his life. If he knew Zimmerman was armed, he would never have started the fight, unless he could take away Zimmerman's gun, first.
Martin wasn't suicidal or dumb. Just violent and very unlucky, on that day.
Nobody knows who was calling for help. But we do know who the aggressor was. 'Shorty' created the entire problem. And deserved to have the crap beaten from his body.
Neither I nor the jurors agree with you. I've never seen or heard the guy winning the fight, screaming for help. Neither have you, because it never happens - and proves you're a blatant liar.
Martin died because he was doing what FL laws says he should do. Use as much force as possible when one fears for their life.
Another lie. Nonsense comment, totally lacking in reason.
So glad you aren't a juror. :cool:
I've never seen or heard the guy winning the fight, screaming for help. Neither have you, because it never happens.
I have. When the guy winning knew without help it couldn't end without him hurting or being hurt badly. Remember this wasn't a drunken brawl outside a bar, no posturing for the chicks or bros.
Neighborhood WATCH, not neighborhood guard.
I for one think Mr. Zimmerman was guilty but having served as a juror I believe in our justice system as a whole even if it failed here.
The fault in the outcome lies at several different levels; the Florida SYG law is flawed as it goes far beyond the "castle doctrine" of protecting your property or yourself against intruders.
How on earth does the Florida judicial code only call for 6 jurors in a capital murder trial???
Our jury selection system allows for picks and strikes from both sides but 6 white women hardly represents the parties involved, a black man and a caucasian-latino.
Sadly, every trial comes down to the lawyers on both sides. In my opinion the proscecution failed when they chose the charge of 2nd degree murder when it should have been manslaughter. The charge they chose was harder to prove. Also, trial outcomes depend on the judge, who blocked evidence the proscecution was depending on to win.
We can speculate all we want but what if the outcome had been reversed and Mr. Martin had had a gun and stood his ground and killed Mr. Zimmerman? Based on statistics Mr. Martin wold have been arrested on the spot and charged and found guilty!
The jury found Mr. Zimmerman not guilty based on the facts that the judge allowed and the legal arguments but the verdict does not exonerate him. I have a feeling he will be living in hiding and looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life, so maybe there is some justice.
Chris, I like your post. Well thought out, and expresses everything I feel about this issue.
I keep thinking, 'what if it had been my son'. I have a couple the same age, and I am almost certain that if they felt someone was threatening them, they'd confront the person, simply because their powers of reasoning out these sorts of problems are not fully developed yet. It's a medical fact. KIDs, are not equipped to deal with these sorts of situations rationally - plenty of adults are not either, which perhaps might explain why Zimmerman made such a bad decision.
This is bloody brilliant:
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeIAmA/comments/1icsag/explain_the_zimmerman_trial_like_i_am_kyle/cb39la5
Read up until
And there's the closing line.
"Oh my god, you killed Kenny!"
Sharpton looks at the crowd, at Kenny's body, back at the crowd.
"He was wearing a hoodie."
Closing credits
Was it Zimmerman who was getting his face (and back of his head), pounded on, in the fight with Trayvon?
Photo's say, YES!
(Note: these are unaltered photo's, not the lying touched up so Zimmerman is unharmed, photos that the media, have been showing.)
[ATTACH]44739[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH]44740[/ATTACH]
Seeing these photo's, the juror says, she was sure that Trayvon was on top, beating on Zimmerman - NOT the other way around:
and that it was Zimmerman who was calling for help, before the fatal shot was fired.
Her interview was on CNN today, with Anderson Cooper. Story and video of the interview with the juror, is widely available.
I have. When the guy winning knew without help it couldn't end without him hurting or being hurt badly. Remember this wasn't a drunken brawl outside a bar, no posturing for the chicks or bros.
Neighborhood WATCH, not neighborhood guard.
I don't see where I called Zimmerman a guard. I called him a watchman, and a community watchman.
There was a very old (about 80 year old) Japanese karate master - not just ANY master, this was one of the greatest masters (of Goju iirc). Anyway, he was attacked by 5 Japanese young thugs, and refused to even hit back. (He was still teaching Karate at that time, and was definitely able to defend himself quite well.)
His reasoning was that he would kill them if he did start fighting, but that they would not kill him. He was right, but they did beat him savagely, and in fact, nearly killed him, in a long bout of hard punching and kicking by the young men.
Reading about this in the newspaper, the young men each came to apologize to the Karate master, thoroughly ashamed.
Which probably was a very good idea, because the master had several thousand students, who would like to have met these young thugs, up close and personal. Possibly give them a free karate lesson. ;)
I've seen victors in minor physical disagreements, ask for help (for the loser, or to even end the fight), but they were just "minor physical disagreements", not a full on fight like Martin and Zimmerman were having.
I have never seen such concern in a full on fight - ever.
Ah well, if you personally have never seen such a thing, then surely such a thing cannot be.
Interesting piece in the Guardian:
One of the six female jurors who acquitted the Florida neighbourhood watch leader George Zimmerman of murdering Trayvon Martin has revealed that three of the panel originally wanted to convict him.
The middle-aged woman, who is white and has grown-up children, said she and her fellow jurors believed that Martin, an unarmed black 17-year-old, threw the first punch in the fatal confrontation, leaving Zimmerman in fear of his life. That, she said, was the determining factor in why the three changed their minds.
The woman, with her face blacked out and identified only as juror B-37, insisted that justice had been served. "George Zimmerman is a man whose heart was in the right place, but just got displaced by the vandalism in the neighbourhood and wanting to catch these people so badly that he went above and beyond what he really should have done," she told CNN's Anderson Cooper on Monday night.
"It just went terribly wrong," she said. "Things just got out of hand. I think he's guilty of not using good judgment."
The panel deliberated for more than 16 hours before all of them accepted that Zimmerman acted in self-defence, she said. In their first poll, one juror thought he was guilty of second-degree murder and two of manslaughter.
But this same juror expresses confusion over the evidence she heard. As well as a gross tendency to make assumptions:
She pointed to two pieces of evidence that were key to the case: the screams heard on a recording of a 911 call made by a resident of Sanford's Retreat at Twin Lakes gated community on 26 February last year, and the instructions of a police dispatcher whom Zimmerman called on a non-emergency line to report a "suspicious male".
"It was George Zimmerman's. Because of the evidence that he had gotten beaten," she said when Cooper asked her whose voice the jury believed it was. She said the conflicting testimony of Martin's mother, Sybrina Fulton, and Gladys Zimmerman each claiming it was their son cancelled the other out
She insisted that the race of the two parties – Martin was black, Zimmerman of mixed white-Hispanic parentage – never came up in the jury room.
"The circumstances caused George to think he might be a robber or do something bad because of what had gone on," she said, referring to a recent series of burglaries in the development.
"If there was another person, Spanish, white, Asian, if they came in the same situation Trayvon was in, I think George would have reacted in the exact same way. We never had this discussion. I think he just profiled him because he was the neighbourhood watch, he profiled anyone who came in who did something strange.
other statements the juror made highlighted the difficulties of processing so much information to try to reach a verdict. She referred several times to a 911 call that she said Zimmerman made, even though his call was to a police non-emergency line.
She was confused when asked who she thought was the most credible witness. "The doctor, and I don't know his name," she replied. "He was awe-inspiring, the experience he had over in the war, I never thought somebody could recognise somebody's voice yelling, a terrible, terror voice."
Cooper asked if she meant a friend of Zimmerman's, a man named John Donnelly who served as a combat medic in Vietnam and who testified that he recognised the defendant's voice on the tape. The juror, however, said no, she was referring instead to the "defence medical examiner". That witness, Dr Vincent DiMaio, gave evidence about Martin's gunshot wound, not the recording
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/16/george-zimmerman-jurors-trayvon-martinAh well, if you personally have never seen such a thing, then surely such a thing cannot be.
I notice that you did NOT say YOU had ever seen the winner of a knock down drag out fight, calling for help, either. :rolleyes:
Well, have you?
No, of course not. So if you were on the jury, would you say Zimmerman was guilty beyond a reasonable double, because it's always statistically possible that he:
ripped off Martin's hoodie, and put it on (so he looked like Martin, in the fading light).
Called 911, and then shot Martin, with just the right angle of his pistol, and replaced Martin's hoodie, back onto Martin.
Laid down on the ground and pulled Martin's body over the top of him, to get the right blood stains on clothing, then beat his face with his fists, and slammed the back of his own head repeatedly on the concrete beneath him.
Because the above is what would have had to happen, for the prosecution's case to be true and in agreement with sworn testimony, from both the coroner, and the one witness (who could see clothes and general arm movements (punches going downward), but not faces, due to the dim light and distance.
I'm not saying it NEVER has happened in the world, someplace, sometime, but it's rare, VERY rare. In gentle physical altercations, I've seen the victor ask the loser to stop, etc., but never in a vicious knock down drag out street fight. It just doesn't happen.
The prosecution should have tried for manslaughter, not murder.
A year or so ago someone posted a video here of a big kid who had been regularly bullied by a little kid. Big kid was a gentle giant. Little kid was a cocky little gobshite. On this particular occasion the big kid snapped, grabbed the little kid, spun him up and over in wrestling move and slammed him back onto the ground, where he apparently broke his leg (that part of the story was later questioned).
On the evidence of the injuries, the big kid was unscathed, the little kid injured: take away the video camera and close standing witnesses that evidence points to the big kid as the aggressor.
And incidentally, I have seen one streetfight in which the winner/aggressor was yelling for help. Specifically yelling to 'get her off me!' because it was a fight between two groups of lads and lasses and he really didn't want to injure the girl.
I'd like to say I played my part in that fight, but I was just a gobby cow....never really had the fists to back it up :p
I recognise this is a different scenario, and I really haven't seen enough real fights to know what is or is not 'common' or usual in this regard.
I'm not saying it NEVER has happened in the world, someplace, sometime, but it's rare, VERY rare.
It just doesn't happen.
Which is it?
Wow. I mean, seriously, wow.
Fellow defence attorney West proved the most colourful and controversial character during the trial, opening his case with a questionable knock-knock joke about Zimmerman's notoriety and clashing frequently with the judge.
He also appeared in a photograph posted to Instagram by his daughter Molly showing the family enjoying a "celebration" ice cream after opening statements. The accompanying caption "we beat stupidity" and hashtag #dadkilledit prompted the state attorney's office to demand an inquiry
Ta Nehisi Coates, at the Atlantic, and Jelani Cobb, at the New Yorker, have done an amazing job breaking down why the entire story -- from the kid's death, to the police's reluctance to investigate, to the smearing of the kid, to the exoneration of his killer -- is a quintessentially American tragedy, entirely rooted in the color of the kid's skin. In short: it wasn't murder, and that's the problem.
I'm having a hard time writing anything that isn't just paraphrasing one or the other of them. So instead of stringing together a bunch of decontextualized quotes that end up hacking apart their stellar writing, here's a few of the pieces that stood out:
Ta Nehisi Coates, "Trayvon Martin and the Irony of American Justice" -- in which he argues that "the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman is not an error in programming. It is the correct result of forces we set in motion years ago and have done very little to arrest."
Jelani Cobb, What The Zimmerman Trial Was About -- on fear and correlations.
Ta Nehisi Coates, "How Stand Your Ground Relates to George Zimmerman" -- on the fact that 'stand your ground' and 'self defense' in Florida are one and the same.
Jelani Cobb, "Zimmerman, Everyman" -- "This apparent contradiction—the prevalence of racist attitudes, the disavowal of actual racism—is key to understanding the way Zimmerman has been received. His actions are understandable, even reasonable, because it doesn’t take a racist to believe black males equal danger."
"This apparent contradiction—the prevalence of racist attitudes, the disavowal of actual racism—is key to understanding the way Zimmerman has been received. His actions are understandable, even reasonable, because it doesn’t take a racist to believe black males equal danger."
That's powerful.
L'Oreal need to bring out a lipstick called Zimmerman Blood.
I'm not saying whether the photo is doctored or not... but damn his blood is bright.
And meanwhile most conservative news sources and commentators/talking heads are rallying behind the not guilty verdict and outcome, some going so far as to accuse Martin of being a dope smoking adict, and a punk thug, etc. I doubt the GOP will pick up any black voters in the near future which will only hasten their demise. And they sure aren't endearing themselves to Hispanics. :cool:
Which is it?
In the history of civilization, I'm sure it's happened - but it's VERY rare. In my experience, it has never happened in any serious fight. Not only have I never seen a winner calling for help in a serious fight, but I've never heard of such a thing.
It's a totally different mind-set, when the fight is serious. Obviously, this was a *very* serious fight. Less than serious fight behavior, would not have been present.
Ten black guys shot and killed in Philly since Saturday.
Philly definitely needs a lot of help to stop these killings. Damn shame that's going on.
I’ve been giving the trial and associated larger issues a lot of thought in the past few days and my conclusion is that this trial is a reflection of two clashing perspectives whose narratives are routinely marginalized by society and/or the media. Since both narratives have been suppressed and this trial directly addressed both perspectives, the amount of attention and the emotions attached to this trial were extremely high. Also, taking power dynamics into account, it is no surprise that Zimmerman, and his narrative, wins the case.
For an initial note, I am doing my best to explain my view of the two narratives in a more or less unbiased manner. I attempt to be brief and many issues are much more complicated than how I explain them. My personal views, thoughts, and experiences can be saved for a later post.
The first narrative is, stereotypically, a particular sub-group of the white middle-class (male) community. This group is fairly well off, prefers to live in safe (possibly gated) communities, and is increasingly worried about safety and crime. I don’t believe that the majority in this group are racists like people were in the 50’s and 60’s, but they notice that a disproportional amount of crime is committed by young black males. Along with being immersed in a racist social environment (we all have) which naturally exaggerates the young black male threat, there is large cultural clash between this group and the young black community. Due to a lack of understanding of the stereotypical young black culture’s dress, music, and mannerisms, it is difficult for them to recognize the small proportion of young black males that are a threat and therefore are much more cautious and fearful around all young black males. This, in my opinion, explains the racial stereotyping that occurs and the “justification” for laws such as ‘stop and frisk’.
This narrative is marginalized because any attempt to justify racial stereotyping, whether valid or not, is considered racist. Since the term racist is essentially equivalent to ‘Nazi’ in the US and the vast majority of white people will not embrace that label, for many legitimate reasons, the push for laws that racial profile are often done quietly and the reasons are often not publically defended.
The second perspective is that of the young black male. Due to some of the reasons stated above, the majority of young black males suffer racial profiling and discrimination due to the inability to differentiate the problematic young black males from the rest of the population due to mannerisms and dress. Therefore, this group routinely gets mistrusted by the general population, get guns pointed at them by police when stopped, and are largely at risk to being sent to prison (largely due to non-violent drug related crimes). This group feels threated by the police and other institutions that are set up to protect the first group because it is largely designed, purposefully or not, to indirectly target them.
This narrative is marginalized from what seems like a combination of typical minority status, annoyance of complaints from the rest of the population, and mistrust.
The Martin-Zimmerman case reflects both narratives because the first group can sympathize partly or fully with Zimmerman while the second group can sympathize with Martin. There were various burglaries in the area, committed by young black men, so Zimmerman was more vigilant of young black men that may be committing these crimes. Martin had relatives that lived in the area and was minding his own business and felt targeted due to his skin color and dress. The fear and misunderstanding from both parties led to a fight that resulted in the death of Martin. Obviously, people from both groups will naturally defend their narrative and this explains why this case became so important to many groups.
While I will strongly argue that both narratives are marginalized, although not necessarily to an equal degree, it is clear that one narrative has complete power over the other. There is a fairly simple reason why these laws exist and why one group has essentially complete control over the other: power. It is the people in the first narrative that control politics. It is people in the first narrative that design police tactics and the ‘Stand your ground’ laws. I do not believe that, in general, the people in the first group purposely create racists laws but they design these laws around their narrative and in their best self-interests. Since they have a monopoly on the power to design and control these laws, the laws will naturally be a reflection of that.
This is obviously not an ideal situation and is an obvious injustice toward the second group. However, since this is based on power and not morals, pointing out this injustice will not solve the problem because people in the first group will not sacrifice their safety for the sake of another group. Also, the targeting of their narrative by liberals will only cause them to be more set in their views. In order for young black men to defend themselves on an institutional level, they need representation.
Philly definitely needs a lot of help to stop these killings. Damn shame that's going on.
Same for Chicago.
When Zimmerman gets his gun back, he should demand the return of his bullet too. He can keep the gun and put the bullet up for sale on eBay.
No, that's his lucky bullet. He should have Tonto recycle that into a fresh shell, for the next hoodie that tries to sneak into the shire.
What size notch do you recommend for the handgun grip?
I wouldn't weaken it with notches if he's going to use it as a bludgeon too.
The history of "Stand Your Ground" laws, is not something I've studied in detail, but my take on it is this.
Going back before the industrial revolution, people moved at the speed of a horse (usually pulling a wagon or buggy), a sail or rowed boat, or at a walking pace. People moved very slowly, down bumpy and generally unpaved roads, carrying their food, water, and usually, what they were selling, or using as barter, that day: produce, animals, perhaps wood or iron works.
Point is, they had someplace they HAD to get to, and they couldn't just "run away" from any threat they encountered on the way. They had STUFF that would seriously slow them down. A man who felt threatened had little chance of running away to escape the threat, and would lose a substantial amount even if he succeeded, since his animals, cart, wagon, stock in trade, would have to be left behind, to make a quick get away (on just the horse, or by simply running).
Also, there were centuries in England and Europe, where wars were about as common as rain in the Spring. Men were expected or required, to fight in these wars, from time to time. Any man refusing to fight, would be dealt with severely - by his "Lordship", and possibly, by his village peers. If your neighbors had to go and fight, they don't want to have you enjoying home and hearth, instead of fighting with them.
And by God, no man would want to be labeled a COWARD, who ran away from every threat. We may all be sinners, but NOBODY wants to accept the label of COWARD.
[I mention the case of England, because our laws in the US, are based mostly on English Common Law.]
So I believe (and I have not studied this in detail), that "Stand Your Ground" laws WERE the ancient laws or customs, of England. This idea that you are required to run away from every threat, if you can, is a very modern legal requirement.
So Eric Holder is very likely a liar when he says otherwise, to the NAACP convention in Orlando, Florida, this week. He told them what they wanted to hear, just like a good little lying politician would.
If you have info on this, please enlighten me.
I thought this was a good annalysis of some of the reasons the jury reached the decision they did, that being based on the way the judge explained the law and her instructions.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alafair-burke/george-zimmerman-jury-instructions_b_3596685.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopularAdak, I think you are misunderstanding what is known as "the castle doctrine" which most "stand your ground" laws are based on. I believe it had more to do with protecting one's home or "castle." I don't follow your connection to people being conscripted to serve in battle. I also think it worth noting that current UK laws have no such provision and that a home owner defending his/her home with a weapon is most likely breaking the law!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/6957682/Myleene-Klass-warned-by-police-after-scaring-off-intruders-with-knife.html
I also don't understand your claim that AG Holder is a liar. I thought his speech was pertinent and extemely personal as to his experinces as a black man.
Origin of Castle Doctrin laws from Wikipedia:
According to 18th-century Presbyterian minister and biblical commentator Matthew Henry, the prohibition of murder found in the Torah contains an exception for legitimate self-defense. A home defender who struck and killed a thief caught in the act of breaking in at night was not guilty of bloodshed. “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the thief owes no blood-debt to the home-defender; but if the thief lives, he owes a blood-debt to the home-defender and must make restitution.”[7][8]
The American interpretation of this doctrine is largely derived from the English Common Law as it stood in the 18th century. In Book 4, Chapter 16[9] of William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, he states that the laws "leave him (the inhabitant) the natural right of killing the aggressor (the burglar)" and goes on to generalize in the following words: And the law of England has so particular and tender a regard to the immunity of a man's house, that it stiles it his castle, and will never suffer it to be violated with immunity: agreeing herein with the sentiments of ancient Rome, as expressed in the works of Tully;[10] quid enim sanctius, quid omni religione munitius, quam domus unusquisque civium?[11] For this reason no doors can in general be broken open to execute any civil process; though, in criminal causes, the public safety supersedes the private. Hence also in part arises the animadversion of the law upon eaves-droppers, nusancers, and incendiaries: and to this principle it must be assigned, that a man may assemble people together lawfully without danger of raising a riot, rout, or unlawful assembly, in order to protect and defend his house; which he is not permitted to do in any other case.
—William Blackstone,*Commentaries on the Laws of England
To the juror who said Zimmerman's heart was in the right place:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/15/george-zimmerman-shouldnt-have-had-a-gun/
In July 2005, he was arrested for“resisting officer with violence.” The neighborhood watch volunteer who wanted to be a cop got into a scuffle with cops who were questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking. The charges were reduced and then waived after he entered an alcohol education program. Then in August 2005, Zimmerman’s former fiance sought a restraining order against him because of domestic violence. Zimmerman sought a restraining order against her in return. Both were granted. Meanwhile, over the course of eight years, Zimmerman made at least 46 calls to the Sanford (Fla.) Police Department reporting suspicious activity involving black males.
Violence against women
violence against authority
alcohol problem
paranoia of African Americans
It's no wonder Martin is dead. If Trayvon had the gun that night, and killed Zimmerman, I think the outcome would have been different.
The case last year of a black woman, in the same state, being sentenced to 20 years for firing her gun into the air to frighten away her abusive husband, with the judge saying SYG didn't apply, suggests you may be right.
As I understand that case, the DA convinced the jury that they were both abusers, her shot "into the air" was aimed at the husband and narrowly missed him and the children going through the kitchen wall. Stand your ground was not allowed by the judge because she went back into the house with a gun for her car keys after leaving. She refused a three year plea bargain was convicted and got ten years plus ten for using a gun in the commission of a crime. This is gleaned from the net, I don't have a good source. Much like the current case it is tried in the press under different terms than the court case. Our judicial system is a mess but our entertainment based press is as much problem as solution.
For as long as I can remember, there has been racial violence ending in death. It doesn't matter which country you're from, the law sides with the police. If you're black, you're guilty until proven innocent. In Canada, the targets have been the Native American communities. The RCMP have much to answer for in the northern parts of Alberta. It's disgusting. There's probably an actual # somewhere, of incidents like this one. I'm willing to guess the # stands around 2,000.
Tangential to the Zimmerman trial, but two really great articles that I read today:
Ta Nehisi Coates on why stop and frisk is a natural product of white supremacy:
An capricious anti-intellectualism, a fanatical imbecility, a willful amnesia, an eternal sunshine upon our spotless minds, is white supremacy's gravest legacy. You would not know from reading Richard Cohen that the idea that blacks are more criminally prone, is older than the crime stats we cite, that it has been cited since America's founding to justify the very kinds of public safety measures Cohen now endorses. Black criminality is more than myth; it is socially engineered prophecy. If you believe a people to be inhuman, you confine them to inhuman quarters and inhuman labor, and subject them to inhuman policy. When they then behave inhumanely to each other, you take it is as proof of your original thesis. The game is rigged. Because it must be.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/the-banality-of-richard-cohen-and-racist-profiling/277871/
And, from the NYTimes, a profile of a group of people taking a different tack in Los Angeles:
Crime has fallen for the past 10 years in Los Angeles. In Watts, violent crime is down nearly 30 percent since 2011. But it’s not just Watts. Angelenos are now as safe as New Yorkers, statistically speaking, despite the fact that L.A. has just under two-thirds as many police officers per capita as New York City. Moreover, a 2009 survey showed that 83 percent of Angelenos believe that the department is doing a good or excellent job, and majorities of every major ethnic group in the city said that most L.A.P.D. officers treat them with respect.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/magazine/what-does-it-take-to-stop-crips-and-bloods-from-killing-each-other.htmlAdak, I think you are misunderstanding what is known as "the castle doctrine" which most "stand your ground" laws are based on. I believe it had more to do with protecting one's home or "castle." I don't follow your connection to people being conscripted to serve in battle. I also think it worth noting that current UK laws have no such provision and that a home owner defending his/her home with a weapon is most likely breaking the law!
I also don't understand your claim that AG Holder is a liar. I thought his speech was pertinent and extemely personal as to his experinces as a black man.
Since being outside your home is central to the Martin/Zimmerman case, I don't see any relationship to a "Castle Doctrine", which pertains directly to those who are inside their homes.
Frankly, I don't care WHAT his personal experiences are - whether he's white or black, or brown or purple. What Holder is DOING is the only thing I care about - and so far, it's been a lot on the negative side, and damn little on the positive side.
Holder has withheld documents required by law, from Darryl Issa's investigation committee. He's also lied about it, and had some of the whistleblowers, fired. Fast and Furious was a line item in his departments budget, and a special program designed and approved by retards (which includes him, since he ultimately approves everything in his department).
What is Holder's department doing to investigate and prosecute the federal crime committed by the IRS, in suppressing the conservative 501c/501c[3] applications, prior to the last election?
This was #2 on the impeachment actions taken against Richard Nixon. But under Holder, -- it's crickets singing in the night.
The Black Panthers were stationing teams of men armed with clubs, outside voting sites in Philly. Documentation and pics were made of it, by reporters.
But under Holder, -- no investigation, and no prosecution.
I haven't seen anything good come out of the DOJ, since Holder took over. Have you?
If so, what?
Adak, I'm sure you have been too busy following the Zimmerman case,
and just overlooked a previous posting about Darryl Issa's self-generated "scandals", etc.
But
this was my summary in a different thread just a few days ago.
According to FL law, Martin had every right to beat the crap out of Zimmerman. He was stalked and confronted. And had every reason to fear for his life. We now know what he did not. Martin had more reasons than he knew to fear for his life. ...
You've got to know when to hold ground, know when to give ground
Know when to walk away and know when to run
You never turn on a watchman in a gated community
There'll be time enough for protest when the day is done
Every hoodie knows that the secret to survivin'
Is knowin' who is posturing and who is packin' heat
'Cause every brawl's a winner and every brawl's a loser
And the goal is to live long enough to die in your sleep
Adak, I'm sure you have been too busy following the Zimmerman case,
and just overlooked a previous posting about Darryl Issa's self-generated "scandals", etc.
But this was my summary in a different thread just a few days ago.
I actually have tried to avoid the Zimmerman case details. After Martin's girl friend said Martin told her he was going back and would "fix that cracker following me", I had a very good idea of the incident, as far as intent goes.
There were a lot of mistakes made by Zimmerman and Martin, but it was Martin who made the incident into a fight.
I agree that there is some political posturing on Obama's every perceived shortfall, but that has been the way of Washington, since Nixon's impeachment. I equate that with stock cars "swapping paint" on the track.
But, the IRS scandal rises up FAR above the level of political posturing. THAT is a federal crime. The Benghazi incident was a real "I will lie to your face, and you must believe it", act by Obama. That's right up there with Bush's "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" bullshit.
One reason why several of these scandals seem blown out of proportion (in addition to the political posturing of the Republicans), is that the mainstream media gives Obama (and his administration), a nearly perfectly free pass on all of them. There's almost no heat directed back at Obama - which is quite the change, hearkening back to the days of the Kennedy's, when the media just looked the other way on a lot of Presidential mis-deeds.
You've got to know when to hold ground, know when to give ground
Know when to walk away and know when to run
You never turn on a watchman in a gated community
There'll be time enough for protest when the day is done
Every hoodie knows that the secret to survivin'
Is knowin' who is posturing and who is packin' heat
'Cause every brawl's a winner and every brawl's a loser
And the goal is to live long enough to die in your sleep
Wrong. Martin wasn't "stalked". Zimmerman was keeping an eye on him, as a neighborhood watch guy/gal might be expected to. The name - neighborhood WATCH" means just that. They try to keep an eye out on people in their neighborhood.
Martin was never threatened. He told his girl friend, just before he turned back to meet with Zimmerman, that he was going to "fix that cracker following me".
To spell is out for the gentrified folk, that means Martin was the one who confronted Zimmerman, with violent intentions.
Either that, or Martin was a doctor, and Zimmerman was his patient. :rolleyes:
Wrong. Martin wasn't "stalked". Zimmerman was keeping an eye on him, as a neighborhood watch guy/gal might be expected to.
So Zimmerman got out of his car. Followed Martin by foot. Did exactly what a neighborhood watch person is NOT supposed to do. Got so close as to create a physical confrontation. And yet did not stalk Martin? Did not create the confrontation?
Not even Zimmerman would believe that.
And OJ Simpson was home watching TV when Nicole was murdered - using your logic. Wacko extremist rhetoric is alive and well.
Adak, are you responding to tw or to me. You quoted my response to tw in which I was addressing tw's notion that Martin was standing his ground. When I parodied Kenny Rogers' song The Gambler, I was implying that Martin needed to know when to hold or give ground. Even when someone is in fear for their life, standing ground just because one can isn't always the prudent course of action. Martin is now the poster child for that mistake.
I question whether any judge would apply the Stand Your Ground law to Martin as he had not yet reached the age of majority. It would set a president for all minors to perpetrate violence against adults by simply claiming they were in fear for their lives. This, even though minors as a group are generally considered to not have the skill sets, experience and maturity, to make an accurate determination like those inadequacies personified by Martin. There are many laws on the books that minors can't avail themselves of for that reason.
Additionally, the courts have routinely upheld that once someone turns and closes on an antagonist, rather than just remaining in place (standing their ground), their action demonstrates that they were not in fear for their life. The courts have also upheld that in a confrontation the first one to lay hands on another, in the absence of demonstrable serious threat to their physical self, becomes the aggressor. Many have resisted police arrest claiming that they did it in self defense while in fear for their lives 'cause the police had guns. The courts have routinely upheld that the mere presence of police officers' legally carried guns does not constitute a threat and the courts are extending that to all legally armed citizens.
Right or wrong, Zimmerman provoked only a verbal confrontation. The verdict implies that Martin initiated a physical confrontation, without adequate justification, and escalated it to such a level that his actions forfeited his right to life. Zimmerman was talking on the phone with police. Martin was talking on the phone with his girlfriend. Who intended to proceed within the limits of the law is clear. Childlike interpretation of the facts secondary to emotionally dysfunctional hoplophobia is alive and well.
So Zimmerman got out of his car. Followed Martin by foot. Did exactly what a neighborhood watch person is NOT supposed to do. Got so close as to create a physical confrontation. And yet did not stalk Martin? Did not create the confrontation?
Not even Zimmerman would believe that.
And OJ Simpson was home watching TV when Nicole was murdered - using your logic. Wacko extremist rhetoric is alive and well.
I'll tell you what I know, from statements of witnesses:
1) The community (a small gated apartment community)was being burglarized "frequently".
2) Martin was walking around, at about sunset, and appeared suspicious to Zimmerman. People claim this is a sign of racism, but the vast majority of burglars are young males, between the age of 14 and 34 years old. Certainly, burglars operate at night, under cover of darkness, as well as in the daytime.
Although the prosecution dug deep for ANY sign of racist speech, posts, or acts in Zimmerman's past, they found absolutely NOTHING. Since that was the case, the judge ordered that no reference to racial profiling, could be used, by either side in the trial. The judge was a black woman, btw.
3) Martin became aware of Zimmerman following him, by the time he got back to his girl friends house. He handed her the candy he'd bought at the local store, and told her he was going "to fix that cracker", that was following him.
Note that Zimmerman is 4 inches shorter than Martin, and "well marbled" (a bit fat). In appearance, he looks a lot more like the Pillsbury dough boy, than any kind of an athlete.
4) Martin then doubled back to "fix" Zimmerman. What their verbal interaction was, I have no idea.
5) A fight breaks out between them. The witness could only see due to the fading light and distance, than the guy with the hoodie on knocked the other guy to the ground, and was punching the guy on the ground, repeatedly.
6) Zimmerman had a concealed weapons permit, and although advised not to wear it, he had brought it with him. Martin broke Zimmerman's nose, and was hitting his head hard enough to slam the back of his head against the ground. Someone was heard calling out for help, repeatedly.
Shortly afterward, Zimmerman shot Martin one time, killing him.
This may shock you, but as a Neighborhood watcher, Zimmerman is SUPPOSED to watch people, in the neighborhood. Remember, this is a rather small gated apartment community, and Martin didn't live there - he was just visiting for the weekend.
By induction, it should be elementary that Zimmerman should be watching this non-resident young male walking around inside the gated community, at sunset.
By the statement of the gf, it was MARTIN who confronted Zimmerman, not the other way around. In any case, the confrontation SHOULD have stayed VERBAL, and non-violent, but it clearly did not.
Now, do you think this Pillsbury doughboy, acting as a Neighborhood watcher, attacked a high school football player who was 4 inches taller than he is?
Or do you think that Martin tried to "fix that cracker", by breaking Zimmerman's nose, and then slamming his head against the ground a few times?
If Zimmerman had no injuries, I'd say it was the former, and Zimmerman was guilty of murdering Martin - but Zimmerman had significant injuries. Half a dozen more head slams and it might well have been Zimmerman who was killed.
Since there was no video of it, we will never be 100% certain of just how this tragedy unfolded. Given the info I have, I have to say it was Martin who was pounding on Zimmerman, and Zimmerman was defending himself.
Wendy Dorival was the civilian member of the police department who set up that particular neighborhood watch program.
Dorival testified that in fall 2011, she visited Zimmerman and other residents at the housing complex to discuss setting up a watch program. During her testimony, prosecutor Guy focused on her instructions to residents about how to behave when they spotted a suspicious person.
“Their duty is to be the eyes and ears. Report crime as they see it,” said Dorival, adding that she provided handouts stressing this and also explained it verbally during the meeting. Zimmerman was there as the neighborhood watch coordinator, a role he told Dorival had been assigned him by the president of the homeowners' association.
Guy asked Dorival what the handouts and her instructions tell volunteers to do if they begin following a suspicious person.
“We tell them they don’t do that. That’s the job of law enforcement,” she replied.
The same instructions apply to confronting a suspicious person, Dorival said. She said her presentation would advise people, “Not to confront, to let … the police department do the job.
“They’re not supposed to take matters into their own hands. … Let law enforcement take the risk of approaching a suspect,” Dorival said.
Now, do you think this Pillsbury doughboy, acting as a Neighborhood watcher, attacked a high school football player who was 4 inches taller than he is?
Of course he did. He had a gun. That makes fools of anyone inspired by 'more power'. If thinking intelligently (ie without a gun), then Zimmerman would have done what cops told him to do. Stayed in the car rather than challenge someone who was larger. Would have done what all Neighborhood Watch are supposed to do. Only watch. Stay in the car and only watch. He had a gun which explains his confrontational attitude. An attitude only further confirmed by his exact words at 7:13.
An exact quote from Zimmerman before he goes off to confront Martin:
These assholes, they always get away.
Did Martin go inside his girlfriend's house, say that, double back, and then go out to confront Zimmerman? Of course not. Another myth generated to distort reality. We know what Martin said to his girlfriend *** on the phone - not inside her house ***. Martin told her that a “creepy-ass cracker” was following him but that he thought he had evaded him. But she said a short time later, Martin let out a profanity followed by him dropping the phone. Is that Martin stalking Zimmerman? Of course not.
We also know what Zimmerman said when he did exactly what the cops told him to not do and what is an absolute and fundamental violation of Neighborhood Watch. He took off after Martin at 7:13. By 7:17, police arrived and Martin was already dead.
If Martin had killed Zimmerman, well, according to Florida law, he was justified. Some creepy-ass cracker was following him. That means he had every right to attack Zimmerman. But we know he dropped his phone suddenly when Zimmerman suddenly confronted and somehow surprised Martin.
Somehow we know Zimmerman got out of his car to *not* follow Martin? Nonsense. How ridiculous is that assumption? How could anyone be that naive? But again, cited is where such nonsense and distortion comes from. Wacko extremist rhetoric.
Zimmerman's attitude was quite clear from his own words. Martin was the asshole who always gets away. Martin, on the other hand, had every reason to fear. Because Zimmerman was an adult acting like a child. And doing so because he was doing what nobody can do on Neighborhood Watch - carry a gun. Martin had every right, under Florida law, to kill Zimmerman. Even described Zimmerman's actions: a creepy asshole who was following him. Zimmerman was not acting as an adult on Neighborhood Watch. And was acting as a threat to Martin.
Martin was not in his girlfriend's house. However extremist rhetoric needs to distort reality.
Zimmerman was undoubtedly being a douchbag, perhaps to appease his own ego. Unfortunately, Martin responded to that by being a punk, perhaps to impress his girlfriend. Both showed serious lapses in judgment. Martin paid for it with his life; because, he was too naïve to live. Zimmerman will pay for it one way or another for the rest of his life; because, he was the adult in that situation and responsible for controlling it which he failed to do. But there are right ways and wrong ways to hold Zimmerman accountable and many are upset 'cause they can't take matters into their own paranoid hands, perhaps they're not all that much unlike Zimmerman themselves.
But, the IRS scandal rises up FAR above the level of political posturing. THAT is a federal crime.
Every hearing Issa holds on that "scandal" ends up making it less and less scandalous.
Of course he did. He had a gun. That makes fools of anyone inspired by 'more power'. If thinking intelligently (ie without a gun), then Zimmerman would have done what cops told him to do.
Wrong. It was the dispatcher who told him to not go outside. Dispatchers are not cops, they are not sworn officers, at all. They have no authority to order anyone, to do anything. They advise only.
Stayed in the car rather than challenge someone who was larger. Would have done what all Neighborhood Watch are supposed to do. Only watch. Stay in the car and only watch. He had a gun which explains his confrontational attitude. An attitude only further confirmed by his exact words at 7:13.
Wrong. There is no requirement that a neighborhood watcher stay in a car - or even use a car at all. The apartment community Zimmerman and Martin were in, made cars almost useless for watching anyone.
Did Martin go inside his girlfriend's house, say that, double back, and then go out to confront Zimmerman? Of course not. Another myth generated to distort reality. We know what Martin said to his girlfriend *** on the phone - not inside her house ***.
I didn't say Martin was inside the gf's house. I said he told her that.
Martin told her that a “creepy-ass cracker” was following him but that he thought he had evaded him. But she said a short time later, Martin let out a profanity followed by him dropping the phone. Is that Martin stalking Zimmerman? Of course not.
I don't know what Martin's profanity was about, but somewhere early in the struggle, he broke Zimmerman's nose, and knocked him to the ground.
Sounds to me like Martin wanted to punch with both fists, not hold his cell phone in one hand, and punch with the other hand.
We also know what Zimmerman said when he did exactly what the cops told him to not do and what is an absolute and fundamental violation of Neighborhood Watch. He took off after Martin at 7:13. By 7:17, police arrived and Martin was already dead.
Wrong. Cops didn't tell him not to follow Martin. That was a dispatcher, who has zero authority (and never went to the police academy, either). Dispatchers are NOT cops.
Zimmerman made a mistake by following Martin on foot, without having backup. That much is perfectly correct.
If Martin had killed Zimmerman, well, according to Florida law, he was justified. Some creepy-ass cracker was following him. That means he had every right to attack Zimmerman.
Absolutely WRONG! People are perfectly free to follow you in public. Later on, that COULD be construed as stalking, but then you have to get into perceived intent, etc.
And frankly, I don't believe Zimmerman is a creepy - ass, scary dude. He's a lot more like the Pillsbury doughboy.
But we know he dropped his phone suddenly when Zimmerman suddenly confronted and somehow surprised Martin.
Or when Martin decided to fight in earnest, with both fists swinging.
Somehow we know Zimmerman got out of his car to *not* follow Martin? Nonsense. How ridiculous is that assumption? How could anyone be that naive? But again, cited is where such nonsense and distortion comes from. Wacko extremist rhetoric.
So your opinion is that Zimmerman murdered a stranger he'd never met before, who had committed no crime. Then he broke his own nose, and slammed his own head into the ground several times, and somehow got the only eye witness, to see Martin on top, punching downward with his fists, into the smaller guy?
Yeah! That makes a lot of sense! :rolleyes:
Zimmerman's attitude was quite clear from his own words. Martin was the asshole who always gets away. Martin, on the other hand, had every reason to fear. Because Zimmerman was an adult acting like a child. And doing so because he was doing what nobody can do on Neighborhood Watch - carry a gun.
If you have a private concealed carry license, you can carry a gun. They don't like you to, but it's your right to do so.
Martin had every right, under Florida law, to kill Zimmerman. Even described Zimmerman's actions: a creepy asshole who was following him. Zimmerman was not acting as an adult on Neighborhood Watch. And was acting as a threat to Martin.
Being watched by the neighborhood watch, is not a threat. That's neighborhood watch doing what they're supposed to do.
Martin was not in his girlfriend's house. However extremist rhetoric needs to distort reality.
I didn't say he was IN her house. I understood that he walked over TO her house, and was talking to her outside. Then called her later just before confronting Zimmerman.
I'm not saying Zimmerman is a saint here, but there is no way you can say he committed murder, beyond a reasonable doubt. There simply is not enough evidence to support that, and strong evidence to indicate that Zimmerman was beaten up first, and shot Martin only later, after Martin was slamming his head into the ground.
Those injuries are FACTS, not my theories, or your theories. They tend to show that Zimmerman defended himself.
Of course, Obama can't wait to weight in on this:
[COLOR="Red"]Obama:[/COLOR] [COLOR="Blue"]Trayvon Martin could have been me[/COLOR]
He wants to just ratchet up the racial hatred, one little bit more. He knows there are already people on the net, calling for Zimmerman to be killed, ASAP.
He couldn't care less.
Every hearing Issa holds on that "scandal" ends up making it less and less scandalous.
May seem like it, but it's winding it's way upward. Started as a few "rogue" IRS agents, then it went to a Cincinnati IRS manager who got off the rails a bit, but now it's up to Obama's own appointee.
We'll have his name before long.
Winding its way downward. It seemed pretty bad when first reported, when it seemed like they were doing it to only the right, but that turned out to be false. The guy who initially reported that they were targetting the Tea Party turned out to have been told to find any bad treatment of the Tea Party, and failed to report that the list of keywords was across the board.
Who "it's up to" doesn't matter much if "it" isn't actually a scandal.
Conversely, if they "who it's up to" has already been decided, the "it" is merely a placeholder.
Adak, only one story got told because only one person walked away. Let's say that Trayvon turned and noticed that Zimmerman had drawn a gun. Even without Stand Your Ground, it's not possible to outrun a bullet. So he closes and attempts to disarm Zimmerman, which might include tackling him into the concrete. It was never clear how Zimmerman could have gotten to his gun lying on his back. Unless he already had his gun already drawn. After all, isn't that what real cops do when approaching a dangerous suspect? So wouldn't a wannabe follow the same procedure?
If Zimmerman drew his weapon before being attacked, then "Stand Your Ground" was with Trayvon. Not that it would have done him any good if he'd been the sole survivor.
3) Martin became aware of Zimmerman following him,
[COLOR="DarkRed"]by the time he got back to his girl friends house.
He handed her the candy he'd bought at the local store,[/COLOR]
and told her he was going "to fix that cracker", that was following him.
@Adak, this is a statement I have not heard before,
and have not been able to find via my Google searches.
What I have found are sequences of events that speak to phone calls
between Martin and his girl friend, both before and at the time of the shooting.
[ATTACH]44856[/ATTACH]
What I have also found is the following statement in this link,
and that agrees with what I had heard reported over the course of these events...
At the time of his death, the teenager is unarmed and carrying a small amount of cash,
[COLOR="Navy"]a bag of Skittles candy and a can of iced tea. [/COLOR]
These seem to me to be significant enough to affect people's opinions about the jury finding.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Adak, Will you please document or cite a link
to support your statement that Martin actually arrived at his girl friend's home,
and then went back to "fix that cracker". [/COLOR]
I'll take a wild stab in the dark and say someone on Fox News said it?
Lamplighter, you should go outside, *now*, and check your hubcaps.
Is that why rims are so popular? Much harder to steal?
... Let's say that Trayvon turned and noticed that Zimmerman had drawn a gun. Even without Stand Your Ground, it's not possible to outrun a bullet. So he closes and attempts to disarm Zimmerman, ...
It's entirely possible to avoid being shot if you don't give someone a reason to shoot at you by closing on them. Police draw down on suspects all the time without shooting them. Even Martin would have known that. He would also have known that if Zimmerman wanted to shoot him at that time, there was opportunity to do it before he could react.
... It was never clear how Zimmerman could have gotten to his gun lying on his back. Unless he already had his gun already drawn. After all, isn't that what real cops do when approaching a dangerous suspect? So wouldn't a wannabe follow the same procedure? ...
If Zimmerman had been imitating police procedure by having his gun already drawn, he would have done so from a safe distance and shot at Martin when Martin closed on him before Martin reached him. That's what the police would do. I've not heard any claim that more than one shot was fired.
A plausible explanation would be a combat handgun technique called the rock back draw. It can be performed standing or as one is being taken down to the ground. The shooter uses one arm to push off from an assailant at point blank range, the shooter bending backwards at the waist, creating more distance for the other arm to draw and fire unimpeded from the waist. Zimmerman could have drawn his gun just before he hit the ground and then waited until he felt he couldn't recover before firing. Of course, this would've had to have happened without Martin realizing what Zimmerman was up to it since there doesn't seem to have been an ensuing struggle for the weapon between when it was drawn and when it was fired.
The more likely explanation is that Zimmerman was able to arch the small of his back or twist his body just enough to create a space to draw the gun. All it takes is a hand-on-gun thickness of space to free the gun and very little maneuvering to get it into firing position, especially when an assailant doesn't realize it's there. That Zimmerman was unable to better protect his head using both of his arms to block Martin's thrusts and blows indicates that Zimmerman may have been using one arm for retrieving the gun while he was on the ground and that Martin, concentrating on battering Zimmerman's head, simply didn't have a clue as to why he was having such an easy time of it until he was shot.
Hypothetically speaking of course.
It's entirely possible to avoid being shot...
... just don't wear a hoodie.
All the rest is hypothetical. Right ?
@Adak, this is a statement I have not heard before,
and have not been able to find via my Google searches.
What I have found are sequences of events that speak to phone calls
between Martin and his girl friend, both before and at the time of the shooting.
[ATTACH]44856[/ATTACH]
What I have also found is the following statement in this link,
and that agrees with what I had heard reported over the course of these events...
These seem to me to be significant enough to affect people's opinions about the jury finding.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Adak, Will you please document or cite a link
to support your statement that Martin actually arrived at his girl friend's home,
and then went back to "fix that cracker". [/COLOR]
Unfortunately, no.
That was reported by the media, immediately after the incident. Of course, I was interested in the case, and began perusing several media sources - on the net, and several radio stations, including KNX 1070 (a CBS Affiliate), out of Los Angeles, and a local FOX radio station, among others.
Then everything started changing:
The DA found nothing to charge Zimmerman with, after several hours of questioning, after the shooting, but in the wake of pressure from the community, a new prosecutor miraculously found Zimmerman should be charged with murder!
Martin's dad changed his opinion of the voice screaming for help on the 911 calls (to the dispatcher), but nobody could agree, even the "experts" and the FBI.
Some sources are saying Zimmerman changed his story as well. The witnesses changed theirs. Quite the mess.
I did find this, very interesting though:
Martin had been suspended from school at the time of his death.[22] He had been suspended twice before. One suspension was for tardiness and truancy.[23] Another suspension in October 2011 was for graffiti, when Martin was observed by a security camera in a restricted area of the school marking up a door with "W.T.F."[23]
When he was later searched by a Miami-Dade School Police Department officer, looking for the graffiti marker, the officer found several pieces of women's jewelry in his backpack, which Martin said a friend had given to him. A screwdriver was also found, which was described by the school police investigator as a burglary tool.
The jewelry was impounded and given to the police, but no evidence ever surfaced to indicate that the jewelry was stolen.[23] Martin's third suspension involved a marijuana pipe and an empty bag containing marijuana residue.[22] Martin was not charged with any crime related to these incidents and did not have a juvenile record.[24] Judge Nelson ruled that the defense may have access to Martin's records, including the details of these suspensions, as well as access to Martin's social media sites,[25] but ruled they will not be admissible as evidence during the trial unless they can be shown to be relevant.[26]
Also this:
Crimes committed at The Retreat (the name of the gated community, inside the larger Twin Lakes development apparently), in the year prior to Martin's death included eight burglaries, nine thefts, and one shooting.[61] Twin Lakes residents said there were dozens of reports of attempted break-ins, which had created an atmosphere of fear in their neighborhood.
Other burglaries by young black males in the recent past, in the community, and Zimmerman got a pistol (rather than a pepper sprayer), because he was advised to do so by Animal Control, after a vicious pit bull cornered his wife.
In the actual call to the PD, Zimmerman says Martin is approaching him, while he's still in his truck. "With his hands in his waistband".
You can hear the entire call to the PD (not a dispatcher on this call), and read all the above quoted info, on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
Zimmerman doesn't sound like a racist, to me. Listen for yourself. There's a ton of other info on this - what evidence was allowed at the trial, and what evidence was not allowed, and why.
Zimmerman's description of Martin "he's just walking around, looking into houses..."
does strike me as suspicious, in light of Martin's previous possession of several pieces of women's jewelry, and a screwdriver.
I have never heard of a teenage guy walking around, carrying several pieces of womens' jewelry, and a screwdriver.
That is a burglar.
Was he "casing" homes when Zimmerman found him? I have no idea. But he definitely was a burglar when he was caught earlier with the womens' jewelry and screwdriver.
Ask any cop.
Martin didn't deserve to be shot over a burglary, but it shows why Zimmerman wanted to confront Martin.
Hmm, jewelry and a screwdriver... must have been looking for the white women. :rolleyes:
I'll take a wild stab in the dark and say someone on Fox News said it?
Yes, very likely it was Fox News I have a fox radio station very close to me, and listen to it a lot.
The gf testified Martin said:
"creepy ass cracker"
in describing the man who was following him.
I can't find any reference to Martin using the term "fix", in that phrase.
I'll take a wild stab in the dark and say someone on Fox News said it?
I heard it on one of those wacko extremists talk radio shows. It may have been on broadcast on the shortwave bands. Don't remember. But I do remember what it was. Extremists telling their brainwashed brethren how to think and what to know.
I used to listen to early 1960s Radio Moscow. Fox News today is similar. So your guess is based in good statistical probability.
I lived the 60s. Adak claims and denials sound very much like closet racists of that era.
... just don't wear a hoodie. ...
hoo .............. die?
Trayvon Martin is standing his ground, he's just doing it horizontally six feet under. The worms are standing their ground too, they think it's Thanksgiving because they got a turkey!
Definitely lame :redcard:.
I won't pretend Trayvon was a saint. My son certainly wasn't at his age. But nothing he did earned him the death penalty.
He's dead because an armed cop wannabe ignored advice and stalked him. What actually happened after that is open to question because only person walked away. I'm sure some people now take away the lesson from this case if that it's just the two of you, instead of wounding, shoot to kill and bang your head on the sidewalk a few times until the cops get there.
If there's a turkey in the story it's the pudgy sad loser playing T.J. Hooker.
... He's dead because an armed cop wannabe ignored advice and stalked him. ...
He's dead because he was too stupid to live. He could have lived to fight another day ... AND WON. He chose not to. Bet he won't make that mistake again! How easily you advocate that kid having unnecessarily thrown his life away. Makes people go - Hmmmm?
... If there's a turkey in the story it's the pudgy sad loser playing T.J. Hooker.
Better a live turkey than a dead poster child.
I heard it on one of those wacko extremists talk radio shows. It may have been on broadcast on the shortwave bands. Don't remember. But I do remember what it was. Extremists telling their brainwashed brethren how to think and what to know.
I used to listen to early 1960s Radio Moscow. Fox News today is similar. So your guess is based in good statistical probability.
I lived the 60s. Adak claims and denials sound very much like closet racists of that era.
Right after the incident, it was a friend of Trayvon's, who was saying that Trayvon went to the store, and made it to her house, and was "sitting on the porch".
Here is the video of it, and the media that found it again, plays it slowly so you can catch it word for word.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVirVLp47oY
So Martin clearly made it to his friend's home, or the friend's explanation to Trayvon's father, is a lie.
And you can stuff your racist theories. I was raised for a couple years as a child, by a black woman, who was very kind to me. Didn't grow up with this "hate races other than your own", type of attitude.
The kid got shot. I probobly would have been shot too, being stalked by some guy through the neighborhood.
Pretty damn sure half the lads I know would have been shot. How many 17 year old lads wouldn't have a problem with being stalked and menaced?
Reverse the roles and everybody would be talking about how brave he was to confront his stalker, and how tragic that such bravery (or bravado - kid was 17 after all) cost him his life.
The kid got shot. I probobly would have been shot too, being stalked by some guy through the neighborhood.
My job is not to die for my country; but, to give the enemy the maximum opportunity to die for his.
Superior tactical thinking is to apply that concept to any confrontation in conjunction with the concept in my reply to Dana below.
Pretty damn sure half the lads I know would have been shot. How many 17 year old lads wouldn't have a problem with being stalked and menaced?
Reverse the roles and everybody would be talking about how brave he was to confront his stalker, and how tragic that such bravery (or bravado - kid was 17 after all) cost him his life.
Discretion is the better part of valor.
It seems that half the lads you know had parents who failed to teach them not to be too stupid to live in that regard.
My job is not to die for my country; but, to give the enemy the maximum opportunity to die for his.
Superior tactical thinking is to apply that concept to any confrontation in conjunction with the concept in my reply to Dana below.
Discretion is the better part of valor.
It seems that half the lads you know had parents who failed to teach them not to be too stupid to live in that regard.
Right. Because 17 year olds are well known for their life experience and ability to foresee the consequences of their actions. And young lads are of course also well-known for having no bravado or pride.
He wasn't a soldier. He wasn't trained to fight another day. He was a kid who got followed and harassed by a grown man as he was innocently walking back from the shop with his sweets.
You seriously believe that this child brought his death upon himself? That the blame lies with him? That he was 'too stupid to live'?
I am disgusted by this attitude.
Discretion may be the better part of valor, but that's a lesson to be learned in life. You are an adult and therefore understand that lesson.
I am disgusted by this attitude.
An attitude that extremists promote to encourage their supporters. Same extremists also said we want America to fail so that Obama will not be reelected. That 'blame the victim' attitude, inspired by Limbaugh and other extremists, was obvious and predictable. 'Blame the victim' accusations are posted by the usual suspects.
One even posts lies that Martin was in his girlfriend's house when he said he was going to get that guy. Extremist such as Limbaugh remain popular and rich because they preach such lies to inspire hate. Hate inspires their disciples. Their attitude and resulting 'blame Martin' posts were predictable.
Everybody on both sides has a narrative that they start with and MUST follow
- Most people decided on the correct narrative without having many facts. They put the story into their picture of the world so that it confirms their views. Their views on race, Florida's "stand your ground" gun laws, how cops behave, gated communities, how black teenagers behave, how juries work, etc. The story must fit into everyone's notions of these things. Even though it didn't happen in a gated community, "stand your ground" was not really relevant to the case, standard black teen behavior has nothing to do with anything at all here, etc.
- When the facts are not consistent with someone's narrative, those facts are ignored, or even changed. People actually rewrite the information so that it fits, and use colorful, emotional language that has nothing to do with the case.
- At some point, almost everyone's information about the case is basically wrong, because everyone they listen to has rewritten the facts to fit.
- For example, in the first 3 days following the event, we heard that "A black man was killed by a white man and the cops just let him go for no reason." This narrative was pushed early and often, and it should give people pause that this opening story was factually wrong and oversimplified. Already the facts are mangled in order to maximize outrage. Many people made up their mind at that point, and everything they've heard since then has been run through their narrative filtering, their opinion left unchanged.
Shhhh... Reason has no place in the politics of race, guns, or news cycles.
My take: We'll never know how it really went down, so I'll place my hopes in the trial by jury. A young man (not biologically a child, minor would be a less loaded term) is dead, that is a tragedy. A wrongful conviction would also be a tragedy. Sometimes people go free who shouldn't. Too few guilty imprisoned is a far better outcome than too many wrongfully convicted.
Sometimes people go free who shouldn't. Too few guilty imprisoned is a far better outcome than too many wrongfully convicted.
I completely agree with this.
I don't necessarily think that the guy should have been convicted of murder. Had the prosecution gone for a manslaughter charge they may have got a conviction, and that would probably have better reflected what actually happened.
What I find appalling is the notion, expressed by several people in this thread, that this kid brought about his own death. That he was 'too stupid to live'.
Had the prosecution gone for a manslaughter charge they may have got a conviction, and that would probably have better reflected what actually happened.
Manslaughter was in fact one of the charges. The jury seemed to
consider it closely, but still found him innocent.
What bothers me most about Zimmerman is that he's not a cop or authority of any kind. He was told by the cops twice (once when he signed up for the watch group, and once when on the phone that night) not to confront suspicious people.
Because he got himself into a situation when he had no training or business someone ended up dead. In my mind, that's negligence. It would be like if I wired the electricity for my neighborhood pool and winded up electrocuting a bunch of swimmers because I'm not an electrician. Zimmerman deliberately went into that situation against the wishes of the police. He fucked up and killed an unarmed guy who wasn't doing anything wrong before Zimmerman got involved.
I don't think it was murder. He was probably defending himself from a guy who thought he was defending himself. But is was gross incompetence on Zimmerman's part that resulted in a death.
I think it would be just and reasonable to find him guilty of manslaughter or negligent homicide.
Oh, and you can't trust a damn word Zimmerman says. Don't forget that he lied under oath to the judge about his assets during the bail proceedings.
Ahh, I hadnt realised that.
One thing that puzzles me is that it was a jury of 6 people. Is that normal?
Seems like those on the right defend Zimmerman and the verdict and those on the left feel it was a sham of justice. I'm fairly independent in my political beliefs so while I don't like the jury's decision I realize it was based on their belief in what both sides legal teams told them and what the judge allowed them to consider, only what they heard at the trial and the law and how it pertains to the charges against Mr. Zimmerman.
I find it tragic that Mr. Martin got killed for the reasons he did, despite what idiots like Ted Nugent claim and justify his death that he was a kid who was a criminal dope smoking racist gangster punk! While his actions in defending himself may have led to his being killed, he was not in the act of a crime when he was initially stalked, just walking home from the store.
And I agree that not enough is being done to address inner city crime, black on black homicides in places like Chicago. But the causes of the high rate of homicides there is caused by different reasons. The inner city parts of Chicago have a high rate of gang participation among teens and young adults. High unemployment rate among the same group. A poorly run educational system combined with a lack of desire among students (and parents) for kids to complete high school (50% drop out rate). High rate of single parent families combined with too few youth programs allowing youth to wander without adult supervision. They also have one other key factor, it is very easy to obtain guns and plenty of them. Ofcourse the NRA would not see this as a problem but a solution and more guns would somehow make better!
I'm going to unsubscribe from this thread, in my opinion it is getting a bit to partisan, kind of like a trolling. I respect the views of other Cellar dwellers, that is why I have been a member here long before other social networks got popular. But when I read a post on how Congressman Darrell Issa is some kind of hero and Eric Holder is liar and that all of these scandals have so much more to them when the facts show that Mr. Issa is more of an Inquisitor searching for crimes that don't exist. Next I'll be reading that the President is not really a US citizen!
Have fun folks and see you elsewhere! :Flush:
Everybody on both sides has a narrative that they start with and MUST follow
- Most people decided on the correct narrative without having many facts. They put the story into their picture of the world so that it confirms their views. Their views on race, Florida's "stand your ground" gun laws, how cops behave, gated communities, how black teenagers behave, how juries work, etc. The story must fit into everyone's notions of these things. Even though it didn't happen in a gated community, "stand your ground" was not really relevant to the case, standard black teen behavior has nothing to do with anything at all here, etc.
- When the facts are not consistent with someone's narrative, those facts are ignored, or even changed. People actually rewrite the information so that it fits, and use colorful, emotional language that has nothing to do with the case.
- At some point, almost everyone's information about the case is basically wrong, because everyone they listen to has rewritten the facts to fit.
- For example, in the first 3 days following the event, we heard that "A black man was killed by a white man and the cops just let him go for no reason." This narrative was pushed early and often, and it should give people pause that this opening story was factually wrong and oversimplified. Already the facts are mangled in order to maximize outrage. Many people made up their mind at that point, and everything they've heard since then has been run through their narrative filtering, their opinion left unchanged.
This is the most sweeping generalization I've ever seen you post. Your use of absolutes and imperatives make it practically unreadable.
Everybody has...
MUST follow ?!?! Really? You speak for Everybody now? Do you include yourself among that number? Are you helplessly following *your* narrative? If that's the case, then we're all predestined to just talk past each other, right? And if it's not, I'd love to hear how you managed to rise above all of this and see all these different sides from outside the frame of reference we all use down here.
It seems your definition of "facts" is different than the one I use. How can facts be changed, say, in the example where they're not consistent with my narrative?
I think the conflict and arguing surrounding this case is much less about facts, and much more about judgements, decisions, feelings, opinions, and attitudes. Facts are objectively knowable. The fuel for the arguments is far more subjective, and when lit with a spark of right or wrong, burns with a righteous fire. THAT'S what's generating the heat here.
I also take issue with your implication that there are only two sides, that there are only two narratives. I do like your use of the term "narrative", I think is very appropriate. There are as many narratives as there are observers, and those narratives can include or exclude all kinds of facts, important and unimportant. Discussion about these narratives, defending them, attacking others, changing them (I do believe a person's narrative/opinion can change) is important, is imperative for our community and our society as a whole. Striving for a "correct" narrative is important for most people, though "correct" can be defined in different ways. Factually correct? That's a standard that our judicial system strives toward, and one that many people have an interest in. Emotionally correct, or to use your image, a set of circumstances and descriptions that conform to the conclusion I've already settled on? I think far more people give this kind of correctness the highest priority. Perhaps this is a point we agree on. But I don't agree that everyone picks their conclusion first never changes it, then finds "facts" that support the conclusion, disregarding all the others. There are people who try to let the facts lead to the conclusion.
I don't think that the facts were mangled to maximize outrage, I'm not that much of a cynic. I agree that the facts in cases like this, or Benghazi ffs, are often mangled, especially at the outset and especially when the shape of the story is highly emotional or dramatic. These are the kinds of situations that much media newscasting makes their bank on, "
Flashy,
breathless,
jumpcut! Stay tuned for more after this message!!!11" Ok, consider the source. There can be facts embedded in the dross of commercial news/opinion/media. It takes effort and discernment to suss them out, but it's possible. I can't be on the scene(s), so I depend on reporting to help me gather the information, then I try to assess which parts are actually factually correct, which are not, which are opinion, useful or not, which are hyperbole, which are salesmanship to get me to pay (attention) for something the speaker's selling. It *is* work, but it's the only way I know how to get at what really happened.
I also take issue with your implication that there are only two sides, that there are only two narratives.
show me where I implied that please
Everybody on **both** sides has a narrative that they start with and MUST follow
--snip.
show me where I implied that please
To me, "both" implies just two.
Interesting little piece in the guardian about an interview given by one of the jurors:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/25/george-zimmerman-juror-got-away-murder
a second juror in the trial of George Zimmerman has given a TV interview saying the former neighborhood watch volunteer "got away with murder" when he was acquitted earlier this month in the shooting death of black, unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin.
The woman, identified in court as juror B29, who is part Hispanic, said she would have liked to convict Zimmerman of murdering Martin but said her hands were tied by a lack of evidence.
"You can't put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty," she told ABC's Robin Roberts in an interview due to be aired on Friday morning. "But we had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence," the woman said
-snip-
a white Hispanic man, was found not guilty of murder and manslaughter on July 13 after a racially charged trial. The verdict triggered demonstrations across the United States.
The jurors have remained anonymous under a judge's order. Juror B29 allowed her face to be shown, but used only the name Maddy. ABC said the 36-year-old woman is Puerto Rican and that she recently moved to Florida from Chicago. She is a nursing assistant and mother of eight.
Juror B29 is the second juror to speak in a televised interview, and the first to show her face.
Juror B37, a mother of two who grew up in a military family, appeared last week on CNN with her face obscured. She said she believed Zimmerman, 29, was "justified" in shooting Martin, 17, during a confrontation in a gated community in central Florida in February 2012.
She said she did not think Zimmerman racially profiled Martin and believed Martin attacked Zimmerman first.
-snip-
Juror B29 agreed with B37 that the case was never about race, despite accusations by the prosecution that Zimmerman had profiled Martin when he called police to report someone acting suspiciously in the community near Orlando.
The prosecution accused Zimmerman of profiling Martin and following him in the manner of a vigilante. Zimmerman's lawyers said he acted in self-defense after Martin started beating his head against a concrete sidewalk.
Whatever the truth, juror B29 said Zimmerman had a lot to answer for.
"George Zimmerman got away with murder, but you can't get away from God. And at the end of the day, he's going to have a lot of questions and answers he has to deal with," Maddy said, "the law couldn't prove it."
When the jury began deliberations, she said she initially favored convicting Zimmerman. "I was the juror that was going to give them the hung jury. I fought to the end," she said.
On the second day of deliberations she realized there was not enough proof to convict Zimmerman of murder or manslaughter under Florida law, she said.
When asked by Roberts whether the case should have gone to trial, the juror said, "I don't think so." She added, "I felt like this was a publicity stunt."
She said that after the trial had ended, she wrestled with her decision and had a hard time sleeping and eating. She said she feels she owes Martin's parents an apology.
"I'm hurting as much as Trayvon Martin's mother because there's no way that any mother should feel that pain," she said.
My thoughts when I read this, were that a) the jury system worked: they didn't go with what their gut told them, they went with what was or was not proven, and b) having reached that decision they need to stfu about him being guilty and 'getting away with murder'.
By all means say the decision was based on insufficient evidence, or poor practice on the part of investigators or prosecutors. And the implication that had the quality of that investigation or prosecution been better, then there
might have been a different outcome seems valid and fair. But to suggest that there
would have been a different outcome, without knowing what different evidence could have been brought to bear is a very different matter.
... What I find appalling is the notion, expressed by several people in this thread, that this kid brought about his own death. That he was 'too stupid to live'.
If you've read my previous posts, then you know I've said Zimmerman was the adult responsible for controlling that situation and he failed to live up to his responsibility. That Zimmerman killed Martin doesn't change the fact that Martin was too naïve (I did use the word naïve in a previous post) to act with the discretion necessary to save his own life. It's not an either - or situation and that you are appalled by anyone saying, in the vernacular, that Martin was too stupid to live reflects your home bred ignorance of reality in a country that sanctions private firearms ownership and carry.
We have another deadly implement here. Perhaps you've heard of it, it's called the automobile. We have people who learn to drive at an early age (16 y.o.), pass a test, then they're out on the street. Some learners and even experienced drivers also take a Defensive Driving Course in which they learn how to go out of their way to avoid collisions EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY! The purpose of that mindset is to save lives and prevent egregious bodily injury, especially to the young ones who may fall victim to the failings of older more experienced drivers.
The times they are a changing. All 50 states in the USA now have concealed carry laws. Whether it's guns or knives, legal or illegal, if parents aren't teaching their children that discretion is the better part of valor then THEY'VE FAILED AS MISERABLY AS ZIMMERMAN TO CONTROL A POTENTIALLY LETHAL SITUATION THAT MINORS MAY FACE.
I'm not a particularly religious man; but, at times like this I thank God that people like you and tw don't have children. They'd be no better off than Trayvon Martin.
What bothers me most about Zimmerman is that he's not a cop or authority of any kind. He was told by the cops twice (once when he signed up for the watch group, and once when on the phone that night) not to confront suspicious people.
Because he got himself into a situation when he had no training or business someone ended up dead. In my mind, that's negligence. It would be like if I wired the electricity for my neighborhood pool and winded up electrocuting a bunch of swimmers because I'm not an electrician. Zimmerman deliberately went into that situation against the wishes of the police. He fucked up and killed an unarmed guy who wasn't doing anything wrong before Zimmerman got involved.
I don't think it was murder. He was probably defending himself from a guy who thought he was defending himself. But is was gross incompetence on Zimmerman's part that resulted in a death.
I think it would be just and reasonable to find him guilty of manslaughter or negligent homicide.
Your line of reasoning is good up to the point that if the neighborhood expected the police to satisfy their needs, they wouldn't have implemented a neighborhood watch in the first place. The police always advise others to let them handle it. The problem is that there's always a conflict of interest between them being the best qualified and them just saying others should let them handle it because it's their job security. The police know very well that they are reactive while the neighborhood watch is proactive. The neighborhood knows that too. Zimmerman was a product of that disparity. To his shame he became over zealous in his proactive role; but, to say he's not an authority of any kind is a bit over the top:
[Gomer Pyle]CITIZEN'S ARREST! CITIZEN'S ARREST![/Gomer Pyle]
If poor judgment was a crime, he'd be guilty.
I'm not a particularly religious man; but, at times like this I thank God that people like you and tw don't have children. They'd be no better off than Trayvon Martin.
Fuck you Sexobon, you arrogant piece of shit.
Done with this place.
K. Been for a walk with carrotchops and calmed down a bit. I'm not 'done with this place' at all. That was an overreaction. Take it as an indication of real hurt.
Attack ... insult ... intimidate
When all else fails, make reference to "sheep"
Merc used these tactics, too.
They seem to be common among the CCL folk.
...I've said Zimmerman was the adult responsible for controlling that situation and he failed to live up to his responsibility. That Zimmerman killed Martin
--snip--
if parents aren't teaching their children that discretion is the better part of valor then THEY'VE FAILED AS MISERABLY AS ZIMMERMAN TO CONTROL A POTENTIALLY LETHAL SITUATION THAT MINORS MAY FACE.
--snip
sexobon, I think you're a smart man, you've lots of life experience. There are areas where our opinions are similar, other areas where they're farther apart, like most pairs of people. However, on this point, I'll say definitively that you are completely wrong to suggest that Travon Martin's parents are equally responsible for his death as George Zimmerman is.
I don't know why you'd suggest this, except that it's an extension of your argument that both sides share responsibility for what happened, but taken to the useless extreme of absurdity.
Your analogy of cars and drivers and training and the right of way doesn't justify your argument. If I drive through a green light and am hit from the side by someone running the red light, I bear *no* responsibility for the collision. That's what it means to have the right of way, that I have the right to be there, or move that way. Just as Martin had the right of way. It's a poor analogy providing no support for your point.
Martin's parents are entirely blameless in his death and suggesting otherwise is an uncharacteristically *stupid* statement by you.
Your line of reasoning is good up to the point that if the neighborhood expected the police to satisfy their needs, they wouldn't have implemented a neighborhood watch in the first place. The police always advise others to let them handle it. The problem is that there's always a conflict of interest between them being the best qualified and them just saying others should let them handle it because it's their job security. The police know very well that they are reactive while the neighborhood watch is proactive. The neighborhood knows that too. Zimmerman was a product of that disparity. To his shame he became over zealous in his proactive role; but, to say he's not an authority of any kind is a bit over the top:
[Gomer Pyle]CITIZEN'S ARREST! CITIZEN'S ARREST![/Gomer Pyle]
If poor judgment was a crime, he'd be guilty.
You know, authority is a lot like the right of way--it can not be seized, it can only be yielded to. You can't take the right of way in an intersection, any more than I can. One of us can yield the right of way to the other, one of us is (probably) entitled to the right of way according to the rules of the road, but if neither of us yields, there will be conflict.
Authority is like that, unless it is recognized by both parties, there is no authority. In a situation where the rules for authority are clear, say with a policeman and a civilian and the policeman is acting within his authority by the rules, it is only the acceptance by the civilian of the authority of the policeman that makes the authority real. When that authority is challenged, there can be conflict, possibly fatal results. The policeman might have been due the authority, but he'd be (could be) dead right. That's not authority.
But Zimmerman's role doesn't even rise to this level, there's no formal set of rules granting any kind of authority to him, certainly no authority greater than what Martin was entitled to. Unless you cite the law of the jungle or might makes right. We live in a society that has explicitly rejected those frames of reference though. In our civil society, all appeals to that kind of justification are attempted are rejected.
The only basis for Zimmerman's "authority" came from his confidence that he could shoot his way out of any situation he might find himself in. If you have other evidence of some other authority granted to him, I'd like to hear it.
Martin's parents are entirely blameless in his death
It's pretty much impossible to know this.
Thus, both Sexobon and you have now drawn conclusions that you couldn't actually draw, based on your faulty narratives of the events of that night.
a white Hispanic man
Yeah, this may have confused some of you who haven't been following this trend. "White" is now officially defined as any race or culture that is one shade lighter than Samuel L. Jackson, that becomes successful. Asians, Hispanics, you name it, if they get jobs and educate their children, they can now achieve that wonderful dream of being called white.
By this rule, Puerto Ricans and domesticated Cubans are now white, but Mexicans remain Mexicans. Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans (South only please) are also now officially white, and the Vietnamese, Thais, and Filipinos have completed their applications and are awaiting the media's decision.
Hawaiians are also white, although they are angry at the decision and would prefer to remain Hawaiian.
It's pretty much impossible to know this.
Thus, both Sexobon and you have now drawn conclusions that you couldn't actually draw, based on your faulty narratives of the events of that night.
Let's take a look at the two positions.
sexobon says the parents are equally responsible for Martin's death as Zimmerman is.
I say Martin's parents bear no responsibility for his death.
What can we agree on here? I say Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. Do you agree? What else, rather, who else had a part in his death? I say Martin also had a part, certainly he was there, he was a direct party to the interactions that led to his death. What else, no, who else was involved in his death? What was that involvement and how did it contribute to Martin's death?
You're telling me my narrative here is faulty, what are the faults you see and what is the correct narrative?
I'm saying that based on what we can't possibly know about the event, neither you nor sexobon can possibly say to what degree Trayvon's parents played a role in what decisions may or may not have led to his death.
Can we agree on that? You don't know what occurred between the points in time that hard evidence confirms facts. All you have is witness accounts and Zimmerman's own story, any of which may be faulty or incomplete.
And yet the two of you, with this lack of information, have developed narratives on the opposite extremes on the parents roles. Completely at fault or completely not at fault.
I am talking about what we do know. What we can know. What reasonable people can agree to.
What I'm not talking about is some unknown and unknowable "butterfly effect". Let's talk about what we do know now, and keep an open mind as to what we may learn in the future. That's not a stretch for you or me or sexobon or most anyone.
Another point I suggest we agree on is that making an affirmative assertion, such as sexobon has (granted he prefaced his all-caps statement with "if...then". Perhaps he'll try to hide behind that fig leaf), requires some evidence. But that a statement of the absence of something, like my position, doesn't, indeed can't be definitively proved. Importantly, it can be disproved.
There is the difference between our positions. I reject sexobon's statement that Martin's parents are equally responsible for his death, notwithstanding his caveat about teaching discretion and valor. Show me the evidence, I say. To you, who challenges my point that they're blameless, I ask you to show me what blame they DO have, to support your opposition.
Your assertion that "you are completely wrong to suggest that Travon Martin's parents are equally responsible for his death as George Zimmerman is." ...is not challenged by your unprovable counter "Martin's parents bear no responsibility for his death."
We can't show your statement to be true, and if we show your statement to be false, it doesn't mean that sexobon's statement is true or false. So you're not really challenging his point.
To really work this, the word "responsibility" has to be defined. What would constitute parental responsibility in this case?
Now guys, don't go putting words in my mouth. I said neither that the responsibility for Martin's death was 50/50 for Zimmerman vs. Martin; nor, Zimmerman vs. Martin's parents. I didn't assign any proportions at all.
I'll say definitively that you are completely wrong to suggest that Travon Martin's parents are equally responsible for his death as George Zimmerman is.
I didn't. I was speaking of parents in general. For all I know, Martin's parents may have taught him that lesson and he chose to ignore it.
Thus, both Sexobon and you have now drawn conclusions that you couldn't actually draw, based on your faulty narratives of the events of that night.
BigV doesn't speak for me, toadstool.
If I drive through a green light and am hit from the side by someone running the red light, I bear *no* responsibility for the collision.
Tell that to the family of your passenger who was killed if the collision could have been avoided by you driving defensively.
You know, authority is a lot like the right of way--it can not be seized, it can only be yielded to.
That's part of the victim profile.
Take it as an indication of real hurt.
I'm so sorry. Stiff upper lip, babe.
My point, often overlooked here, is that a young man named Trayvon Martin could have saved his own life if he had used more discretion in his interaction with an errant George Zimmerman. That deficit, regardless of source or relative proportion, was the only aspect of his predicament that Martin had any control over. Many of you are not ready to accept that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure in life or death situations outside of healthcare. I hope that you and your loved ones never have to pay the price for such narrow-mindedness as Martin did.
Edited for accuracy, that should be written as...
My point, often overlooked here, is that a young man named George Zimmerman could have saved a life if he had used more discretion in his interaction with an peripatetic Martin Travon. That deficit, regardless of source or relative proportion, was the only aspect of his predicament that George had any control over. Many of you are not ready to accept that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure in life or death situations outside of healthcare. I hope that you and your loved ones never have to pay the price for such narrow-mindedness as George did.
... To really work this, the word "responsibility" has to be defined. What would constitute parental responsibility in this case?
Undertoad appears to be the only one who kinda, sorta, maybe gets it. My saying that parents can fail their children by not teaching them to go out of their way to avoid hostilities is not the same as saying that parents are
responsible for the occurrence or outcome of hostilities. People have free will to become combatants and some hostilities cannot be avoided.
Both domestic and international law differentiate between combatant and noncombatant status whether civilian, police or military. Those who still want to hold Zimmerman accountable for murder in consideration of the totality of his actions, rather than just his actions as a combatant, are essentially ignoring those conventions. Ignoring them on a larger scale would allow police and military personnel to use any level of retaliation against anyone who tried to kill them, even after their opponents surrendered or are otherwise rendered noncombatant, by simply taking the totality of their opponents actions into consideration.
It has already been determined by law and the jury which applied the law that Zimmerman acted responsibly in killing Martin while both were in combatant status. Therefore, when I said "Whether it's guns or knives, legal or illegal, if parents aren't teaching their children that discretion is the better part of valor then THEY'VE FAILED AS MISERABLY AS ZIMMERMAN TO CONTROL A POTENTIALLY LETHAL SITUATION THAT MINORS MAY FACE." The key is "POTENTIALLY." I was not only referring to parents in general; but, limiting parental responsibility to pre-hostilities. After people become combatants, they're pretty much on their own barring intervention by anyone else willing to enter combatant status. The gist of the idea is to keep minors and others ill prepared for hostilities from entering combatant status in the first place. Your children can live; but, they don't have to live. You may be able to influence that outcome by having a conversation with them about discretion being the better part of valor.
Edited for accuracy, that should be written as... :blah:
[paraphrasing mine]
OK Lamp, I give up, you've convinced me that Trayvon Martin is worth more to you as a dead martyr than as a living human being. You should've asked that club to give you a membership card to present here so you wouldn't have had to do so much writing. :p:
. . . and as a liberal who hates guns, i think the jury got it right. surprise! . . .
Once you lose the gun-hatred, IM, you will no longer be genocide-friendly.
That's a good place to be, morally.
Sexobon, proceeding through the green light -- with a glance around to see if somebody else is driving like he's on crack and he stole the car -- is driving defensively. You're straining perhaps more than is called for, even with this crowd.
His point, which doesn't seem to register with you, was that not all tragedies are legally actionable. Some are just tragic.
His point, which doesn't seem to register with you, was that not all tragedies are legally actionable. Some are just tragic.
True enough. But generally, if the tragedy involved the deliberate shooting dead of another person that's more than just a tragic accident :p
It has already been determined by law and the jury which applied the law that Zimmerman acted responsibly in killing Martin while both were in combatant status.
Long before preaching legal concepts, you should first learn basics. 'Not guilty' is not 'innocent'. Not guilty only says proof of his guilt was insufficient. We know Martin did nothing wrong. That is a fact. We also know Zimmerman did action after action that violated his responsibilities and the rules.
1) Neighborhood Watch means only observe. He did not do that. He got out of his vehicle.
2) The police told Zimmerman to not follow. An order from an authoritiy. He ignored the order.
3) Neighborhood Watch says to stay away from a suspect. So as to not create a confrontation. Instead Zimmerman got closer. He foolishly acted as if he had some authority. He clearly did not.
4) Neighborhood Watch says no guns. Zimmerman violated that gun rule. That alone says he could never be innocent.
Zimmerman was wrong for multiple reasons. Is that sufficient for a guilty verdict? Apparently not. Especially when law enforcement did no investigation for a full month. Does that prove he was innocent? Not by a long shot. You should have known that. Obviously you have no grasp of two completely different terms - "not guilty" and "innocent".
Requirements for being responsible increases significantly once one carries. The consequences of being irresponsible should also increase. Unfortunately, Florida's 'stand your ground law' does not encourage that always required increase responsibility. Florida legalized killing only because an adult acted like a child - was emotional.
We know Zimmerman was so irresponsible as to violate four rules - and more. He was not innocent. But the flawed investigation could not prove enough guilt for a prison sentence. He was far from innocent for four and more reasons. But extremist rhetoric, a binary world, only sees the world in black and white. Therefore assumes 'not guilty' is same as 'innocent'. It isn't.
Tw, I don't know what country you grew up in or what country you live in now; but, in these United States of America a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Zimmerman was found not guilty; therefore, he is still presumed to be innocent. Foreigners like you who try to apply their second world ethics to pontificate on American law crack me up. :lol2:
Tw, I don't know what country you grew up in or what country you live in now; but, in these United States of America a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Zimmerman was found not guilty. That does not mean, say, or imply he is innocent.
In a real world, not guilty does not mean innocent. You use word association and binary logic to confuse this issue. The real world is ternary. Binary logic is often used to justify extremist rhetoric.
Zimmerman violated so many rules. Especially one that demands - no way around this - that he never carry a gun. Facts you must ignore to blame the victim for his own death. In the entire event, only Zimmerman was irresponsible.
Not guilty does not and never meant innocent. However you will never understand that if using binary logic.
Zimmerman violated four rules. How many did Martin violate? None. And still you blame the victim for his own death.
Sexobon - xenophobic much?
Zimmerman even looked bad on Dr Phil you know. Just saying. And Zimmerman was interviewed, and so was his best friend. That was where I heard the most info I have acquired, and most of it came from the horses mouth.
Tw, it's plain for anyone with open eyes to see that Martin committed suicide by community watchman (it's like suicide by cop, only for people who don't like the police); therefore, he was a self made victim. Zimmerman only accommodated him. That's the kind of guy Zimmerman is. Just four days after his trial, this same good Samaritan helped a family get out of their overturned SUV:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/22/us/florida-zimmerman-vehicle. He's so modest that he didn't even tell his attorneys the next time he met with them ... a true hero. Zimmerman, like the Pope, is Hispanic and probably well on his way to becoming a saint. Selflessness like that is probably incomprehensible to your second world mind. BTW, what good deeds did Martin ever do?
Sexobon - xenophobic much?
Hmmm, such an intriguing question from the primitives who still need royalty.
[COLOR="Silver"]No, I just play a xenophobe in the Cellar. It brings out the court jesters who entertain me.[/COLOR]
What chance has Martin to ever commit a good deed now?
The part that seems to escape you sexo, is that Martin was very young. If you don't want to call him a kid (maybe to help yourself feel better about your views) then so be it, but my son is the same age, and he's a kid, just like most other people that age. Martins life was extinguished because some over excited neighbourhood watch man decided to play vigilante after being warned not to carry a weapon.
Personally, I'd like to slam his head into the sidewalk myself. He got a free pass this time. I'm sure your good samaritan will show his true colours sooner or later. Maybe he needs to go get some of those fliers going around in Missouri!
Pssssst Ali.... Don't feed the troll.
I haven't heard that he even offered to share his Skittles with anyone ... obviously a delinquent on his way to a life of crime.
Sexo is a shit stirrer of the first order thats for sure V. ;).
I dont share my skittles either. I hope no one tells Zimmerman.
It seems that Martin has incited others not to share their Skittles, he was a bad influence.
I'm much older than he'll ever be. I never share my skittles.
Do you pull your hoodie up over your head when you're eating them so others won't know you have 'em?
Yeah. One of these days i could get shot, except its more difficult for vigilantes to arm themselves over here.
OTOH, over here we have a good family men like Zimmerman who don't do much fishing.
I know this is a "comedy news show", but I found only news, and no comedy in this segment.
[YOUTUBEWIDE]JRDFlScd4E8[/YOUTUBEWIDE]
Sexobon is having a fire-sale on targeting people using knowledge gleaned from what we've posted on the Cellar.
I'm lucky he only mentioned the monarchy in my case.
People once cfiticised me for not 'being real' here, and this is exactly why it took me so long to do so. Oh well, cant help bad luck i guess. ;)
Just four days after his trial, this same good Samaritan helped a family get out of their overturned SUV:
Good Samaritans are never so dumb and irresponsible as to carry a gun. But he carried a gun and wore a white hat. That proves he must be a good man.
Anthony Weiner smiled and confessed. It proves he will be a good mayor?
Zimmerman got away with killing an innocent kid. No facts to dispute that. Only wild speculations blames the victim for his own death.
Zimmerman got away with killing in self defense, the jury affirmed that. The facts are that in both word and deed the kid was belligerent. Only ignorant second world mentality believes that belligerent kids are innocent.
So now he was shot because he was belligerent? Sounds like an aweful lot of other teenagers need shooting too.
Maybe we should line them up for Zimmerman to practice on.
I know why your husband loves you: you're like a fish that keeps coming back for the bait.
Keep going sexo. You're doing a fine job of representing who you are and where you've come from.
Just like the jurors who acquitted Zimmerman, true Americans.
LOL I'm OK, you're OK, we're all OK ... OK? ... OK!
Except Martin, because he was too stupid to live.
Mammas don't let your babies grow up to be hoodies.
I just wonder how the other Americans on this site feel about you representing yourself as a 'true American'. ;) Personally, I get the feeling that quite a number of them probably wouldn't consider you as their role model.
I'm so sorry; but, that failed to bring Martin back to life.
No, and I'm sure you're glad he's still dead.
I'm so sorry; but, that failed to bring Martin back to life and it won't keep others like him from needlessly throwing their lives away too.
I'm sure all the black hoodie wearing teenagers will be sure to look out for dickheads like Zimmerman in future.
Oh, actually, they've been looking out for dickheads like him all their lives because the world is full of ignorant, racist arseholes and kids like Martin have been their victims since the first slave trader opened up shop.
Be careful where you go with this sexo. Your true colours are starting to show.
I'm so sorry; but, that didn't bring Martin back to life and it won't keep others like him from needlessly throwing their lives away too including your children.
Sex?
Shut up.
If the only reason people posted was to bring other people back to life then I think the Cellar would be a creepy place to start.
Won't somebody please think of the dead hobos?
Be careful where you go with this sexo. Your true colours are starting to show.
I don't follow these heated argument threads too closely, but I know one thing for goddamn sure, and that's when I see someone throwing the "you're a racist, etc." card because someone dares to have an unpopular or dissenting opinion, that person can go fuck themself. Be careful my ass.
The only true colors I see showing here are the "we all have to think the same thing and say the same thing" hive-mind, cowardly bullshit colors.
In general you may be right. But in this instance you're dead wrong.
Sexobon is being deliberately provocative to the point of outright trolling. Bugger all to do with having a different opinion and everything to do with finding the most annoying and offensive thing to say to any poster who gets in his way.
I told you, I haven't followed the thread too closely. Can't say either way.
But my gut instinct, and I stick by this one, is that anyone using the term "true colors" or the like can fuck right off.
Oh, now you're showing your true colors.
'cause you're beautiful. Like a wainbow.
In general you may be right. But in this instance you're dead wrong.
Sexobon is being deliberately provocative to the point of outright trolling. Bugger all to do with having a different opinion and everything to do with finding the most annoying and offensive thing to say to any poster who gets in his way.
He pretty much said outright that he's just trolling:
I know why your husband loves you: you're like a fish that keeps coming back for the bait.
Oh, now you're showing your true colors.
lol, yes, the opinionated tail-poster, that is my colors
btw, can you remember any words except for the chorus? I can't
People that form opinions on conversations without bothering to inform themselves of the facts can just 'fuck right off' too. :)
Facts are dumb. Talking very loudly is what matters.
I can see that our work here is done. C'mon Tonto, we're needed elsewhere.
*leaves behind silver bullet*
I can see that our work here is done. C'mon Tonto, we're needed elsewhere.
Wow. He even invents a mythical poster.
I wonder if he left behind a real can of beer, or a virtual (mythical) one.
No, just the lingering odor of an alternate spelling of horse dung.
Not THAT kind of silver bullet, shit-for-brains. "Silver bullet" is a euphemism for "suppository"; because, they're often bullet shaped and packaged in silver colored foil. For those of you who are so full of crap that you need to have the virtual shit knocked out of you, there's a virtual silver bullet with your name on it:
[ATTACH]45033[/ATTACH][ATTACH]45034[/ATTACH]
Once again Sexobon is doing his impersonation of Humpty Dumpty,
and come the end of the month he will surely owe a pretty penny.
I just wonder how the other Americans on this site feel about you representing yourself as a 'true American'. ;) Personally, I get the feeling that quite a number of them probably wouldn't consider you as their role model.
I'll answer this.
sexobon is being an asshole, tormenting you and anyone else that draws his attention. as a "true American" myself, I can assure you we have lots of other "true Americans" here that are just as ignorant, belligerent, antagonistic, cruel and stupid with their remarks as sexobon is. a central tenet of being a "true American" is freedom of expression, including the freedom to be wrong, mean, close-minded, etc. the beauty is that just as he demonstrates his impenetrable resistance to reason and reasonableness, neither do you (or I) have to listen to his vileness. His freedom works equally well for me, he can say what he likes, and I don't have to listen it, much less like it.
do I consider him a "role model"? No. He speaks his mind, and that's admirable, but what he says, and how he says it, how he conducts his dialog is not worthy. he's deliberately antagonistic, with zero interest in an exchange of ideas, only in stirring the shit, drawing attention. that doesn't interest me. sadly, in other threads, I've heard him speak (read posts of his actually) that are articulate and engaged, where he does share in a dialog, nothing like is behavior here. to me, that shows that he's capable of being a reasonable adult, but is choosing not to--fine--his choice. but I'm not gonna get down in the shit pit with him. that takes two, and I decline.
*****
tl;dr
Pssssst Ali.... Don't feed the troll.
Ali, obsessed with labels much?
Who labelled the suppositories?
people who ask about labels
I'm certain that what I've said doesn't require further explanation, for anyone who is willing to put forth the effort.
Ffs Flint. Read the thread then comment. If you have something to add to the actual topic then do so, otherwise just take your own advice and fuck off. You are being a bore.
Alternatively, if you have something personal to say, then come to the point instead of making smart remarks.
In response to your question about lables, no i am not and i fail to see how you could come to that conclusion even if you had read this thread in its entirety.
V, yes you are correct. On all points in fact.
Thought I was pretty clear.
Thought I was pretty clear.
I don't get the joke.
...--fine--his choice. but I'm not gonna get down in the shit pit with him. that takes two, and I decline. ...
YOU weren't invited.
Who libelled the suppositories?
FIFY.
unreal. 3 black teenagers were bored so they shot a young man from australia in his back as he was training/running, as a college baseball player. most news agencies have failed to call out the black murderers, for fear of being called racist.
how does this fit with your trayvon narrative, the whole 'think of the children" bandwagon for you, ali and zen?
time to acknowledge this problem. the 15, 16, and 17 year old boys were 'bored.'
One was white, one was biracial, and one was black.
This has been all over the news here. It all seems pretty cut an dried to me, with not a whole lot of doubt about the circumstances, so imo, with the knowledge I have at hand, it's another shocking, senseless crime ending in a loss of life. These kids should have their trial, but I think the jury should remember they're kids. I don't agree with the death penalty, so I don't think that should be an option. I don't think it should have any bearing on where the victim came from. He's a person like any other victim and deserves justice to be served. I hope it is.
unreal. 3 black teenagers were bored so they shot a young man from australia in his back as he was training/running, as a college baseball player. most news agencies have failed to call out the black murderers, for fear of being called racist.
how does this fit with your trayvon narrative, the whole 'think of the children" bandwagon for you, ali and zen?
time to acknowledge this problem. the 15, 16, and 17 year old boys were 'bored.'
yes. That whole 'think of the children' bandwagon, when a 17 year old was killed and then blamed in the national media for his own death. How dare anybody feel outraged by that.
Jesus fucking Christ.
And the fact the three lads have been characterised here as 'black' when actually they were a mixed group kind of underlines the point somewhat.
Not that this case has any bearing on the Trayvon Martin case (where a kid was killed and nobody paid any kind of a price for it, least of all the incompetant (in the kindest analysis) self-important little hitler with a gun who created the situation by doing the exact opposite of what he had been told by the authorities to do.
Again, Jesus fucking Christ.
What point are you making?
Ok, reading that last post back, it's a bit aggressive. Sorry.
... most news agencies have failed to call out the black murderers, for fear of being called racist.
Is there any evidence that fear of being called racist is the reason?
how does this fit with your trayvon narrative, the whole 'think of the children" bandwagon for you, ali and zen?
I'll be outraged if the three aren't charged due to "stand your ground" laws, or if they're acquitted.
This is just more payment for the second amendment.
I'll be outraged if the three aren't charged due to "stand your ground" laws, or if they're acquitted.
This is just more payment for the second amendment.
Do they have Stand your ground and a second amendment down under???The victim was Australian, but he was murdered in Oklahoma.
And the fact the three lads have been characterised here as 'black' when actually they were a mixed group kind of underlines the point somewhat.
It's a tragedy, but in another sense, it's a display of racial unity and the sharing of different cultures.
It's true, teen boredom knows no racial boundaries.
What about the guy that walked into a school in Georgia and fired shots? No mention of his racial characteristics in any news reports I've seen. Is that racism? White privilege?
Do they have Stand your ground and a second amendment down under???
Our laws are very different to yours buster. For one thing, very few people, particularly in urban areas actually own firearms. Usually, if someone shoots someone, it's with an illegal weapon anyway, so there's lots of other issues. As to stand your ground, most people don't do it because they don't have a gun, but I suppose if you did have one you could, but you might be in trouble in the end anyway.
eta: That being said, some people do still 'stand their ground' and have been successful in overthrowing their attacker at the expense of the attacker. I don't know what the legal ramifications have been, but I don't think too many home invaders get much sympathy in courts here if they try to sue through the civil courts for damages etc.
Ali, some of my facebook right wing repubs are posting about how gun violence is out of control in Australia despite strict Australia laws. Can you comment and confirm or deny these allegations?
There's no doubt gun crime is on the rise, but so are other crimes too. I would say one gun crime could be called out of control because any crime signifies a loss of control. As always, its the criminals causing the problems though. Most of the gun crimes seem to be related to other initial crimes such as robberies etc. Drug issues and gang related violence. The usual suspects in other words. It would be happening regardless of our laws imo.
This is just more payment for the second amendment.
Bitch bitch bitch, Spexx.
The Second Amendment is the physical -- not a mere legal -- rampart against genocides, a benefit of enormous importance, and one to which you are utterly blind, which blindness leaves you personally acquiescent to genocides -- any genocides, including those of people who look and sound exactly like Spexxvet -- before the fact.
Paraphrasing Orwell, one has to be a member of the hoplophobe order to hold to genocide facilitating; no ordinary man can afford to be so foolish.
And of course there's the idea that it's possible to keep a Government honest this way too, using arms, along with the not-suffer-crime bennie, which has been roughly quantified at an estimated 2.5B dollars US in savings each year. It is highly beneficial that any government be honest and kept so, by something external to it.
I wonder how many municipalities there are in the US where
this guy would have avoided arrest?
The victim, who is a minor, was going door-to-door selling cookies. When the victim knocked on the suspect’s door, he opened the door and pointed a gun at her.
Well, if more [COLOR="Red"]p[/COLOR][COLOR="Blue"]a[/COLOR][COLOR="Red"]t[/COLOR][COLOR="Blue"]r[/COLOR][COLOR="Red"]i[/COLOR][COLOR="Blue"]o[/COLOR][COLOR="Red"]t[/COLOR][COLOR="Blue"]s[/COLOR] like John Dodrill and Urbane Guerrilla would shoot these damn cookie pushers, it would benefit the nations health and support the local Bodegas... um, I mean 7-11s, who pay taxes to support the political system, and finance truth, justice, and the American way.
Paraphrasing Orwell, one has to be a member of the hoplophobe order to hold to genocide facilitating; no ordinary man can afford to be so foolish.
He was firing his 155 mm howitzer again without proper ear protection.