Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Trayvon Martin]'s Violent Attack on George Zimmerman

18485878990147

Posts

  • SicariiSicarii The Roose is Loose Registered User regular
    Yar wrote: »
    I also want to point out the false equivalency here on whom we believe.

    As far as I can tell, no one is trying to claim that Zimmerman is obviously telling the truth and obviously innocent.

    There are a lot of people claiming that he is obviously a liar, obviously a racist, and definitely committed cold-blooded murder.

    And to them, I am only suggesting doubt. I am suggesting that they have read more into the facts than was there. That they have jumped to unsubstantiatied conclusions, and in particular that they have been misled by a highly unethical media blitz. That there are a lot of possibilities, even probabilities, that don't exactly fit the story of the shot-in-the-back hate crime.

    So there is no need to ask me why I believe Zimmerman so much, or want to defend him so much. I don't. There's no need to ask me if I can prove my claims. I'm just pointing out an irrational lack of skepticism about what you want to believe.

    The only thing I'm certain of is that he said punks, not the other word that the media tricked you into hearing. The rest of it, I don't know, I'm just saying that there are a lot of possibilities.

    You're constructing a straw man here. Most people are extremely doubtful and examining all facts of the case (there are a few notable exceptions). Everyone is approaching with their bias intact of course but most people are not jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions.

    But hey, when you believe that, it's easier to feel smug about being so much more right about everything than everyone else.

    gotsig.jpg
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    My only issue is that people are jumping to conclusions with the lack of evidence proving a positive and completely negating the possibility the lack of evidence proves the negative just because lolbias.

    The same reason I pretty vehemently denied the whole racial nonsense some 30-40 odd pages ago. It wasn't that it was right or wrong but the evidence to the contrary proved he pretty much gave 0 shits about race, but people were using that for justification for him being a guilty fuck. A little doubt can go a long way.

    Let me say it again, and I'm sure mcdermott and yar agree with me here, I think this guy is guilty as all fuck. But the evidence we have pretty much leaves this huge window of possibilities that there's no way we can say one way or another what happened or who is at fault. This dude is a nutty scumbag who probably jumped the gun and committed murder, but I just don't know. That's enough to get exonerated too.

  • SicariiSicarii The Roose is Loose Registered User regular
    I can't believe you guys are so closed minded, you should be more open like me.

    But you're all wrong for not agreeing about this thing I believe in.

    gotsig.jpg
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    I like how some channels are playing him off as a crazy racist nutbag and others as a repenting innocent manchild, though.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Sicarii wrote: »
    You're constructing a straw man here. Most people are extremely doubtful and examining all facts of the case (there are a few notable exceptions). Everyone is approaching with their bias intact of course but most people are not jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions.

    But hey, when you believe that, it's easier to feel smug about being so much more right about everything than everyone else.

    I think, though, that a lot of people are doing this even in regards to what they think the legal outcome should be. However, legally that bias is unacceptable; the system's "bias" is that the accused is innocent, and only when there is sufficient evidence to overcome that bias should he be found guilty.

    You don't get to say "yeah, I thought he was guilty, and I've found enough evidence to reinforce this" and apply that to what should happen in a courtroom.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    bowen wrote: »
    Let me say it again, and I'm sure mcdermott and yar agree with me here, I think this guy is guilty as all fuck. But the evidence we have pretty much leaves this huge window of possibilities that there's no way we can say one way or another what happened or who is at fault. This dude is a nutty scumbag who probably jumped the gun and committed murder, but I just don't know. That's enough to get exonerated too.

    Pretty sure I was calling him a trigger-happy asshole back on page one.

    EDIT: But sometimes trigger-happy assholes get acquitted.

    mcdermott on
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    So Sean Hannity is involved in this for some reason.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    What is Sean Hannity not involved in

    Edit: why does it not surprise me Zimmerman is a Hannity fan. I guess it's because the kind of person who drives around their neighborhood with a loaded gun looking for thugs would be a Fox News bro

    override367 on
    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Jackson-local-leaders-call-for-end-to-Stand-3478856.php
    "Let's not forget that Mr. Zimmerman represents a first down, not a touchdown - the beginning of a process. But far beyond him, the victory is not in how long he stays in jail; the victory is in repealing these draconian, Stand Your Ground, self-defense, vigilante laws," Jackson told reporters along with others attending a church conference. "These laws incentivize vigilantism, take-the-law-into-your-own hands, kill or be killed. That's beneath the civility of a great nation."

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    ...

    Acting as though we've seen, at this point, sufficient evidence to substantiate either claim is foolish.

    And acting like they require the same level of evidence is foolish.

    ...

    Shaking your head and acting like both sides have some kind of equality in burden of proof is craven.

    Went ahead and cut out a lot of crap in the middle, because you missed the big picture. You are absolutely correct, both sides don't have some kind of equality in burden. The burden on the prosecutor is much, much higher. While it might seem initially that the unlawfulness of Zimmerman's actions would be easier to prove than the alleged attack against him, for the various reasons you state (which I do not dispute), the prosecution has to prove it "harder." Beyond reasonable doubt. Zimmerman has no such burden.

    Because of this, I think the two claims might be more equivalent than you might think. The claims are not, no their face, equally plausible. But one has a higher standard of evidence than the other because of how our criminal justice system works.

    Might want to consider that I'm being pragmatic rather than craven. Which is why I'll probably be a lot less disappointed if/when Zimmerman is acquitted. And/or receives no jail time beyond time served.

    And you're missing that this is not a court of law. The burden of proof for conviction in a court of law is beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not the burden of proof in normal discourse or debate. It is elevated beyond what would be otherwise reasonable in order to not deprive an individual of his or her rights unless there is something as close to certainty as can be obtained.

    We are not bound by such constraints and pretending we are is the missing the big picture. We are discussing

    A- what happened,
    B- what should have occurred as a result and what did
    C- what will occur as a result.

    You claimed "Acting as though we've seen, at this point, sufficient evidence to substantiate either claim is foolish." That's false. You're claiming because of the restrictions put in place to control the criminal justice system in B and C, we ourselves lack supporting evidence regarding whether Zimmerman lawfully killed Martin OR whether Martin attacked Zimmerman.

    That's false. We do have substantial supporting evidence indicating Zimmerman's killing of Martin was murder. Indeed, Zimmerman's arrest and charging is legal proof that we do have sufficient evidence to substantiate this claim. This does not prove we have enough legal proof to convict, or of his ultimate guilt. But the evidence is fairly strong that he was not engaging in legally protected self defense either by either initializing an altercation or provoking a confrontation by following Martin and/or by not being in what a reasonable person would consider serious danger when he shot Martin. There is no evidence beyond Zimmerman's unsubstantiated claim that Martin attacked him. Its a false equivalence to put them on the same "we don't know" level.

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    Sicarii wrote: »
    You're constructing a straw man here. Most people are extremely doubtful and examining all facts of the case (there are a few notable exceptions). Everyone is approaching with their bias intact of course but most people are not jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions.

    But hey, when you believe that, it's easier to feel smug about being so much more right about everything than everyone else.

    It's not a straw man. The "white-knighting" for Zimmerman has always been in response to your few notable exceptions. And sure, bias all around, but when someone is merely suggesting alternative possibilities in contrast to "obviously racist murder," they seem to be jumped on by all (not just the notable exceptions) as "white-knighting" and trying to defend Zimmerman for no reason. That's the false equivalency.

    bowen wrote: »
    Let me say it again, and I'm sure mcdermott and yar agree with me here, I think this guy is guilty as all fuck. But the evidence we have pretty much leaves this huge window of possibilities that there's no way we can say one way or another what happened or who is at fault. This dude is a nutty scumbag who probably jumped the gun and committed murder, but I just don't know. That's enough to get exonerated too.

    I guess I'm the white-knighter then, because I wouldn't even go that far. My intial reaction when I first heard about it was "OMG how do crazy dangerous people like this even exist, get his ass in prison or in a chair with a power cord" but since then most of my opinions have been about the gross miscarriage of justice in the media, and how the facts actually leave open a lot of possibilities. Right now the evidence that we know (despite much of it being obviously questionable) points to Zimmerman being innocent and not necessarily even that bad of a guy. The most likely scenarios I can imagine about what happened, even if I narrow them down by making a lot of assumptions, still leave open a number of possibilities that range from at least murder-2, to justifiably not guilty. A lot of it hinges on whether Zimmerman instigated assault of any sort (even just trying to grab his arm or anything), and I have no idea on that other than that the 911 call seems to indicate that he kept his distance and returned to his car.

  • Form of Monkey!Form of Monkey! Registered User regular
    What is Sean Hannity not involved in

    Edit: why does it not surprise me Zimmerman is a Hannity fan. I guess it's because the kind of person who drives around their neighborhood with a loaded gun looking for thugs would be a Fox News bro

    When trouble troubles you, you've got to trouble trouble right back. But if trouble is running away from you, then you've got to pursue trouble and trouble it that way. The rules get complicated fast.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Ah, yes. A lot of people here are in fact talking in terms of what they think should happen to Zimmerman in a court of law, though.

    Yeah, if you're just asking me personally I'm fairly comfortable saying Zimmerman is likely guilty of manslaughter. I'm unconvinced that the danger he was in was sufficient to warrant deadly force, nor that he was not the aggressor. Additionally, it's still at least possible (and not a remote possibility) that he may have conveyed some threat (or used any amount of physical force) to Martin to try and detain him, which then leads to false imprisonment, and maybe some felony murder.

    That's what I think, based on what facts we have.


    That has almost certainly gotten lost at some point, based on my arguments against people suggesting legal outcomes, and also arguing against "even if" scenarios trying to suggest that there's zero way Zimmerman could have been justified.

    The most likely scenarios I can imagine about what happened, even if I narrow them down by making a lot of assumptions, still leave open a number of possibilities that range from at least murder-2, to justifiably not guilty. A lot of it hinges on whether Zimmerman instigated assault of any sort (even just trying to grab his arm or anything)...

    Yeah, this is me. But my gut says he acted unreasonably.

    mcdermott on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    I'll be dead honest, that he'd even think to call Hannity is just another strike against, too.

    Does Hannity even have a first name anymore? Or is he like Madonna now?

  • Form of Monkey!Form of Monkey! Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I'll be dead honest, that he'd even think to call Hannity is just another strike against, too.

    Does Hannity even have a first name anymore? Or is he like Madonna now?

    He still invokes the "Sean" on occasion, but he has become such a spin artisan that he needs to investigate alternate spellings to reflect those sensibilities.

    I would suggest "Chan" with the "ch" making an "sh" sound. Also put an umlaut over the 'a.' Can't ever have enough umlauts.

  • SicariiSicarii The Roose is Loose Registered User regular
    Yar wrote: »
    Sicarii wrote: »
    You're constructing a straw man here. Most people are extremely doubtful and examining all facts of the case (there are a few notable exceptions). Everyone is approaching with their bias intact of course but most people are not jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions.

    But hey, when you believe that, it's easier to feel smug about being so much more right about everything than everyone else.

    It's not a straw man. The "white-knighting" for Zimmerman has always been in response to your few notable exceptions. And sure, bias all around, but when someone is merely suggesting alternative possibilities in contrast to "obviously racist murder," they seem to be jumped on by all (not just the notable exceptions) as "white-knighting" and trying to defend Zimmerman for no reason. That's the false equivalency.

    bowen wrote: »
    Let me say it again, and I'm sure mcdermott and yar agree with me here, I think this guy is guilty as all fuck. But the evidence we have pretty much leaves this huge window of possibilities that there's no way we can say one way or another what happened or who is at fault. This dude is a nutty scumbag who probably jumped the gun and committed murder, but I just don't know. That's enough to get exonerated too.

    I guess I'm the white-knighter then, because I wouldn't even go that far. My intial reaction when I first heard about it was "OMG how do crazy dangerous people like this even exist, get his ass in prison or in a chair with a power cord" but since then most of my opinions have been about the gross miscarriage of justice in the media, and how the facts actually leave open a lot of possibilities. Right now the evidence that we know (despite much of it being obviously questionable) points to Zimmerman being innocent and not necessarily even that bad of a guy. The most likely scenarios I can imagine about what happened, even if I narrow them down by making a lot of assumptions, still leave open a number of possibilities that range from at least murder-2, to justifiably not guilty. A lot of it hinges on whether Zimmerman instigated assault of any sort (even just trying to grab his arm or anything), and I have no idea on that other than that the 911 call seems to indicate that he kept his distance and returned to his car.

    Everyone's opinion is evolving alongside of the case and as new evidence is being brought forward.
    I find this to be a very unusual case, one that of course stirs up a lot of deep-seated racial prejudice, gun laws and the right to protect yourself and your property, and the role of media in kingmaking events.

    I have the privilege of thinking that George Zimmerman's actions are completely strange and foreign. I can not view him as anything other than a man who makes very strange and possibly dangerous decisions. Others might be more understanding but I have a harder time sympathizing with someone who shot an unarmed kid when the situation could have been easily avoidable.

    My privilege does not allow me to put myself in Zimmerman's shoes. I do not understand this man.

    gotsig.jpg
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Really feels less and less to me like Zimmerman was racially motivated (at least consciously, unconsciously most of us make prejudiced decisions without realizing it unless we actively try to avoid it), I really don't hear the coons thing. As I said before he's just the mall cop from observe and report. He drives around looking, nay, hoping he gets to engage someone in a confrontation knowing he's backed up by his gun

    override367 on
    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    I can understand as someone who moved from rural bumfuck to a less rural city area that if I had grown up here I wouldn't be a paranoid nelly. But shit teenagers here, I'd probably straight up shoot them for looking at me just because most of them look like they'd rob me and leave me for dead if they could get away with it.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Sicarii wrote: »
    Everyone's opinion is evolving alongside of the case and as new evidence is being brought forward.
    I find this to be a very unusual case, one that of course stirs up a lot of deep-seated racial prejudice, gun laws and the right to protect yourself and your property, and the role of media in kingmaking events.

    I have the privilege of thinking that George Zimmerman's actions are completely strange and foreign. I can not view him as anything other than a man who makes very strange and possibly dangerous decisions. Others might be more understanding but I have a harder time sympathizing with someone who shot an unarmed kid when the situation could have been easily avoidable.

    My privilege does not allow me to put myself in Zimmerman's shoes. I do not understand this man.

    See, and I can. I live in a pretty shit neighborhood, so I can understand wanting to take an active role in trying to watch it. I can even understand trying to actively follow somebody that appears suspicious, to increase the odds that the police are able to actually deal with it. I can also understand carrying a weapon on my person to defend myself, if necessary.

    Combining the three seems more than a bit foolish to me, and likely to cause some kind of issue, but it's not a huge leap to me. None of the individual parts are foreign to me. Combining them possibly shows poor judgment, but not necessarily malice.

    I also put less stock in "the situation could have been easily avoidable." Lots of situations are. Especially in hindsight.

  • SicariiSicarii The Roose is Loose Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I also put less stock in "the situation could have been easily avoidable." Lots of situations are. Especially in hindsight.

    It's unfortunate that some mistakes are too big for you to learn and grow from.

    gotsig.jpg
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Sicarii wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I also put less stock in "the situation could have been easily avoidable." Lots of situations are. Especially in hindsight.

    It's unfortunate that some mistakes are too big for you to learn and grow from.

    Some are, yes.

    There really aren't many within the criminal justice system, though. Usually to really end your life forever requires malice, not a "mistake." Hell, a "mistake" is often not even a crime, though if it elevates to recklessness it can be. Even then, most crimes of negligence don't tend to carry life-ending sentences.

    It's possible that even if convicted, Zimmerman could eventually still learn and grow from this. He's still pretty young, and depending how the trial goes a conviction could still lead to a pretty short sentence.

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Really feels less and less to me like Zimmerman was racially motivated (at least consciously, unconsciously most of us make prejudiced decisions without realizing it unless we actively try to avoid it), I really don't hear the coons thing. As I said before he's just the mall cop from observe and report. He drives around looking, nay, hoping he gets to engage someone in a confrontation knowing he's backed up by his gun

    See I do hear the coons thing and I usually give the benefit of the doubt the other way. I heard it immediately when asked "what do you think he's saying here." Maybe I'm just weird like that (I'm also white-as-fuck in case people believe this is relevant).

    Do I think Zimmerman left his house planning on finding a black guy to kill? No.
    Do I think he thought Martin was suspicious because he was black? Yes.

    Do I think it that makes it racially motivated? Yes.

    A lynch mob that killed a black man for "raping a white girl" because he was found having sex with a white girl is still racially motivated even if they claim they're going after a rapist. Anti-Muslim rhetoric is often presented as "anti-terrorist" but that doesn't make it not religious/cultural prejudice. When Reagan railed against "Welfare Queens" it was a strategy to get the energy of racial prejudice.

    Zimmerman chased and eventually killed Martin based on the idea that he was suspicious, a criminal. I have little doubt he based this in substantial part due to Martin's race. Zimmerman explicitly said that people in the community should be on the look out for black teenagers and had falsely accused at least one of the black teenage residence of theft in the past. Another black man in the gated community didn't walk in his own neighborhood because he worried he'd be targeted as a criminal.

    That doesn't mean it qualifies as a federal hate crime. But if Martin had been a white boy, I strongly suspect he would not have been shot dead by Zimmerman. Or that Zimmerman would have walked away until there was a national uproar.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Really feels less and less to me like Zimmerman was racially motivated (at least consciously, unconsciously most of us make prejudiced decisions without realizing it unless we actively try to avoid it), I really don't hear the coons thing.

    I've sort of been of the opinion for a while that even if we assumed that Zimmerman was a horrible, horrible racist (I don't) and that it was these racist attitudes which lead him to believe that Martin looked suspicious and/or drugged out of his mind, it doesn't necessarily follow that this also was his motive for pulling the trigger. The question for me has been whether Zimmerman was justified in his shooting by a reasonable fear of imminent death, and my gut says that the answer is probably going to be no.

    I do think that the members of the jury will have to ask themselves why, in the moments leading up to the shooting, Zimmerman told the 911 dispatcher that he believed that Martin was "up to no good" and "on drugs or something," and whether or not these were reasonable assumptions to make given the information he had at hand on the night of the incident; if the jury concludes that Zimmerman was making all sorts of unreasonable assumptions leading up to the confrontation which resulted in Martin's death, they might also reject the reasonableness of his justification for the shooting itself. If they think that Martin's race informed his suspicion, then they might decide that race is important after all. But it won't be important in a Hate Crime kind of way, it'll be important in a "we're trying to understand what you were thinking when you were thinking it" kind of way.

    Edit -- but you don't have to assume that Zimmerman had racial attitudes which colored his suspicion in order to believe that the assumptions which Zimmerman brought into the confrontation were unreasonable. Which is why I haven't spend very much time at all considering it.

    SammyF on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Imminent death OR great bodily harm. It's important.

    EDIT: pretty much agreed on the rest.

    mcdermott on
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    I still think the answer is going to be "no."

  • Form of Monkey!Form of Monkey! Registered User regular
    That's one of the chief concerns with all of this. The presence of the gun in this situation emboldened George Zimmerman.

    Ideally, a gun owner is intelligent enough to produce the weapon only as a last resort, and to identify situations in which producing the weapon may save a life rather than take one.

    But using it as insurance as you go around stalking neighborhood kids like some sort of self-appointed superhero? What *is* that?

  • Shado redShado red Registered User
    SammyF wrote: »
    why, in the moments leading up to the shooting, Zimmerman told the 911 dispatcher that he believed that Martin was "up to no good" and "on drugs or something,"

    Well Martin was on his cell phone talking to his girlfriend. I think I read that he was using a wireless headset. In this day and age, when someone is walking around and talking to themselves the first thing that "should" come to your mind is that they are talking on their phone. The thought "is this person on drugs or something?" isn't exactly a surprising thought to have, just less likely.

    I have walked past someone that was talking to himself, and the thought, "What is this guy doing? Is he nuts or something?" went through my head. I look at him for a second, and notice a bluetooth device in his ear. I then feel like an idiot for doing the zebra thing.

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    What *is* that?

    That's a good argument for repealing the second is what it is. The thinking that is everyone's a responsible gun owner (including Zimmerman) right up until they do something irresponsible needs to change.

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    Hard to notice a blue tooth headset with a hoodie up. :rotate:

  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    Though it does underscore the importance of not jumping to conclusions before killing a boy.

    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
  • azith28azith28 Registered User regular
    What is Sean Hannity not involved in
    So Sean Hannity a political pundant whos job it is to speak on social, economic, and political issues involved is not okay, but its okay for Obama/Jessie Jackson/Farrakhan to get involved in it?

    steam_sig.png

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    That's an interesting conflation you just made!

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    azith28 wrote: »
    What is Sean Hannity not involved in

    So Sean Hannity a political pundant whos job it is to speak on social, economic, and political issues involved is not okay, but its okay for Obama/Jessie Jackson/Farrakhan to get involved in it?

    Hannity's a douchetard.

    So are Jackson and Farrakhan, for that matter. I don't see a whole lot of people supporting their involvement either...I think the twitternets were doing a pretty good job shining a spotlight on this without them. But maybe I'm wrong.

    Obama is an elected representative of the people. He was also pretty careful not to say all that much of substance on the issue.

    Lastly, Hannity's a douchetard. It bears saying twice.

  • Caveman PawsCaveman Paws Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Hannity is involved because Zimmerman spoke with him (I think on the same day as he called the prosecutors office, or I just heard he had called both on the same day, whichever).

    Caveman Paws on
  • Shado redShado red Registered User
    Though it does underscore the importance of not jumping to conclusions before killing a boy.

    Your kind of skipping the fight that happens between the two events. :winky:

    I was merely presenting an alternative to the idea that Zimmerman only thought Martin was on drugs and up to something because Zimmerman was racist, and Martin was black.

    That the recent burglaries were done by "black teenagers," and that Martin fits this broad description could just as easily played a part in Zimmerman's suspicions.

    We could even put them together, and come up with: Zimmerman noticed someone acting strangely (talking to themselves, not paying attention to where they where walking). He noticed that it was a black teenager that he had not seen before in his neighborhood. This raised his suspicions further because recent burglaries in the neighborhood had been attributed to young black men. He calls police to report this, and so they can come and "check it out."

    In this scenario is Zimmerman racist? How much of a part did race play in his suspicions? Would he have ignored Martin if he had been white, or would acting strange and being new to the area have caused Zimmerman to be suspicious regardless of his race?

  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    azith28 wrote: »
    What is Sean Hannity not involved in

    So Sean Hannity a political pundant whos job it is to speak on social, economic, and political issues involved is not okay, but its okay for Obama/Jessie Jackson/Farrakhan to get involved in it?

    Hannity's a douchetard.

    So are Jackson and Farrakhan, for that matter. I don't see a whole lot of people supporting their involvement either...I think the twitternets were doing a pretty good job shining a spotlight on this without them. But maybe I'm wrong.

    Obama is an elected representative of the people. He was also pretty careful not to say all that much of substance on the issue.

    Lastly, Hannity's a douchetard. It bears saying twice.

    It seemed like there was an internet "movement" and all of a sudden Jackson and Sharpton showed up (coincidentally so did most of the cameras) and now its a clusterfuck. I said it originally, once they do show up, all their baggage shows up with them and people start to make decisions based on what their involvement represents.

    There needs to be some new faces who won't rehash yesterday's grievances.

    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    I don't think there do, Malkor. The old faces just need to die off. Like you said, there was a movement before they showed up. Once upon a time, they had to show up to get that movement started. I don't think we need a Jackson or a Sharpton anymore to get that going, though.

    You probably need some kind of mouthpiece, but nobody with near the kind of clout and profile that those guys used to bring to the table. And the baggage that goes with it.

  • DraygoDraygo Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Actually, let me try and help you out TNC.

    There are two things that you should really try to internalize. One I have been repeating over and over in this thread, because others seem as though they want to forget it. I've not bothered with the other nearly so often, because most here seem to accept it without issue.


    George Zimmerman allegedly used unlawful force in the killing of Trayvon Martin.
    Trayvon Martin allegedly attacked George Zimmerman first.


    Acting as though we've seen, at this point, sufficient evidence to substantiate either claim is foolish.

    And acting like they require the same level of evidence is foolish. We know Zimmerman killed Martin. If Martin did not attack Zimmerman AND Zimmerman reasonably feared for his life AND Zimmerman did not provoke the attack, his self defense claim fails and the killing was unlawful. There's no evidence Martin attacked Zimmerman, only Zimmerman's claim which the investigator didn't find credible before being overruled by the chief and state prosecutor. There's evidence that Martin was screaming for help when he was shot dead based on witness testimony and analysis of the 911 calls. There's evidence that Zimmerman was following Martin and that Martin was fearful for his own safety because of this based on Zimmerman's 911 call, the conversation between Martin and his girlfriend and Zimmerman's previous pattern of falsely accusing and confronting black teenagers and criminal history of violent confrontation.

    False equivalency is the sign of a lazy contrarian without supporting evidence. Throwing up your hands and saying "well we don't know what happened" is lazy, and fairly intellectually dishonest IMO. Its undisputed that a self-declared neighborhood watch captain with history of violent criminal behavior and false accusations against black teenagers followed an unarmed teenage boy who was 100 pounds lighter than him against the request of law enforcement and shot him dead. Shaking your head and acting like both sides have some kind of equality in burden of proof is craven.

    Oh dear pants, you are just way off base here. Going by facts only.

    First, the american justice system is supposedly setup that you must prove that the accused commited the crime. Assumptions are not enough, you must fill in the gaps.

    Here is what I know:
    1) Zimmerman did follow martin
    2) Zimmerman and martin did exchange words before the incident.
    3) Zimmerman killed martin
    4) Zimmerman suffered wounds on his head from the altercation with martin. From the police report: "While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and the back of his head" ( http://mit.zenfs.com/102/2012/04/69081607-29132322.pdf )
    5) Zimmerman described the race of martin only when questioned by the 911 operator.
    6) Zimmerman has not been proven as to had made any racial remarks.
    7) Zimmerman is not 100 pounds heavier than Martin, Martin weighed 160 pounds at ToD. Zimmerman was estimated by witnesses to be 170 pounds. Looks can be decieving so take that as a grain of salt. Martin was 6' 1" Zimmerman is 5' 9"
    8) Zimmermans record, including the amount of calls made to 911 was overstated by the media.
    9) The picture of Trevon martin that was used to incite the news report was when Martin was several years younger than he was when he died.
    10) Only one shot was fired.
    11) Zimmerman isnt 'white' he is Hispanic.
    12) The person screaming on the tape was more likely to be zimmerman than martin. An eyewitness confirms this. The eyewitness also claimed zimmerman was on the ground. An expert who wasnt there says it was martin. In my mind that expert made a very dodgy comparison between a calm zimmerman and a stressed zimmerman. Also the recording was from two different sources. he also did not say that it was a match to martin, only that it was 48% likely that it was zimmerman. 48% likely that it was zimmerman is pretty damn likely. Anyone doing that type of report would put down 'inconclusive'. No comparison was done between old audio of martin, and the tape to at least have a comparsion. Also when you think about it, if the voice is of 2 possible people, and your damn software says its 48% likely to be one guy, thats pretty much 50%, which is pretty damn inconclusive, ie worthless in a court of law. But let the media run with it, its all they need.

    I dont know what happened, but from what I do know - The basis for your claim is just false. You seem to want to go around saying something is 'undisputed' when in fact there is plenty of logical dispute. Your claim does not line up to the known facts.

    If they want to convict zimmerman, they will have to prove that he started the altercation, and no 'following' someone is not starting anything, that is perfectly legal (although dimm-witted) thing to do. I like how you claim that anyone who doesnt support your following ill founded claim to be 'intellectually dishonest'. Or they have to disprove the witness, and prove zimmerman self inflicted wounds.

    As I see it, it would have to be proven that zimmerman started it, and when martin was winning the fight zimmerman started, then zimmerman shot martin. But if zimmerman didn't start it, and his version of events cant be disproven, it wont matter, case closed, zimmerman walks.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    If you cite eyewitnesses, you're doing it wrong.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    azith28 wrote: »
    What is Sean Hannity not involved in
    So Sean Hannity a political pundant whos job it is to speak on social, economic, and political issues involved is not okay, but its okay for Obama/Jessie Jackson/Farrakhan to get involved in it?

    I'd be amazed if you could highlight which post of mine exactly said anything to the contrary, or that it wasn't okay for Hannity to be involved?

    Edit: although it really isn't okay for him, as a talking head, to be involved in the particular manner that he is in my opinion, he of course has every right to be involved. I was just pointing out that he tends to involve himself in everything. You apparently agree with me!

    override367 on
    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
This discussion has been closed.