On March 23 2012 18:29 swiftazn wrote: dont know if this has been mentioned recently or not but i'm sick and tired of people saying that getting punched over and over and attacked by an unarmed 140lb teenager isn't worth enough of a reason for self defense. FIRST OF ALL you can easily kill someone with your fists. there are stress points on the human body that one can injure. how about collapsing a windpipe eh?
No. You can't murder a person, especially not a child, because they are hitting you. Let alone if you have been following them around and harassing them. Maybe in the states this reasoning somehow makes sense at the time but it's incredibly shortsighted and if everyone thought like that the human race would exterminate itself in a matter of decades. Us Europeans can't even fucking believe it. Here, anyone carrying a gun in public is normally considered a lunatic and a potential murderer.
You don't "defend" yourself by killing an unarmed person.
Kids get into fights all the time. An average high school yard sees several fights a month. The purpose of a fight isn't to kill someone, most of the time it's not even to injure them it's just to settle a score or put them in their place. The purpose of firing a gun is exclusively to end a person's life.
This is a grown man who shot an unarmed child. Everything else is moot and the SYG law in itself is ridiculously retarded.
You can't solve violence by legalizing murder. How does this stop anyone from harassing a person constantly until they flip out and then killing them in "self defense"? I'd like a honest answer because this seems completely feasible under such laws and a foolproof way of getting away with premeditated murder.
"Child"? Are you kidding me? He was a 6'2" football playing young man who sold cannabis. Seriously, "child"? It's almost like you are aware you have no argument and have to resort to this emotionally charged absurdity.
Here are some more recent photographs than what the media has been showing: + Show Spoiler +
In a way you are right. You can't murder someone who has you pinned to the ground and is beating you in the face because that is clearly self defense, not murder.
On March 23 2012 11:55 Slaughter wrote: I really don't care if Zimmerman was on the ground at one time. He probably scared the shit out of that kid and then he either provoked him or he kid tried his own preemptive strike but then got shot. Basically Fuckers like Zimmerman should CALL THE FUCKING POLICE and not go off doing shit he shouldn't be doing.
He did call the "fucking police" and did nothing outside of his rights that we have any evidence of. You are taken a biased stance based on assumed information and cherry picked witnesses and/or news report that agree with you and completely dismissing the witnesses/news reports that don't.
No not really, my stance is he shouldn't have been doing this shit in the first place. If he hadn't went after some kid the kid wouldn't be dead period.
On March 23 2012 18:29 swiftazn wrote: dont know if this has been mentioned recently or not but i'm sick and tired of people saying that getting punched over and over and attacked by an unarmed 140lb teenager isn't worth enough of a reason for self defense. FIRST OF ALL you can easily kill someone with your fists. there are stress points on the human body that one can injure. how about collapsing a windpipe eh?
No. You can't murder a person, especially not a child, because they are hitting you. Let alone if you have been following them around and harassing them. Maybe in the states this reasoning somehow makes sense at the time but it's incredibly shortsighted and if everyone thought like that the human race would exterminate itself in a matter of decades. Us Europeans can't even fucking believe it. Here, anyone carrying a gun in public is normally considered a lunatic and a potential murderer.
You don't "defend" yourself by killing an unarmed person.
Kids get into fights all the time. An average high school yard sees several fights a month. The purpose of a fight isn't to kill someone, most of the time it's not even to injure them it's just to settle a score or put them in their place. The purpose of firing a gun is exclusively to end a person's life.
This is a grown man who shot an unarmed child. Everything else is moot and the SYG law in itself is ridiculously retarded.
You can't solve violence by legalizing murder. How does this stop anyone from harassing a person constantly until they flip out and then killing them in "self defense"? I'd like a honest answer because this seems completely feasible under such laws and a foolproof way of getting away with premeditated murder.
"Child"? Are you kidding me? He was a 6'2" football playing young man who sold cannabis. Seriously, "child"? It's almost like you are aware you have no argument and have to resort to this emotionally charged absurdity.
Here are some more recent photographs than what the media has been showing: + Show Spoiler +
In a way you are right. You can't murder someone who has you pinned to the ground and is beating you in the face because that is clearly self defense, not murder.
where did you hear that trayvon sold cannabis?
His friend is trying to contact him to purchase weed in that facebook conversation.
On March 23 2012 18:29 swiftazn wrote: dont know if this has been mentioned recently or not but i'm sick and tired of people saying that getting punched over and over and attacked by an unarmed 140lb teenager isn't worth enough of a reason for self defense. FIRST OF ALL you can easily kill someone with your fists. there are stress points on the human body that one can injure. how about collapsing a windpipe eh?
No. You can't murder a person, especially not a child, because they are hitting you. Let alone if you have been following them around and harassing them. Maybe in the states this reasoning somehow makes sense at the time but it's incredibly shortsighted and if everyone thought like that the human race would exterminate itself in a matter of decades. Us Europeans can't even fucking believe it. Here, anyone carrying a gun in public is normally considered a lunatic and a potential murderer.
You don't "defend" yourself by killing an unarmed person.
Kids get into fights all the time. An average high school yard sees several fights a month. The purpose of a fight isn't to kill someone, most of the time it's not even to injure them it's just to settle a score or put them in their place. The purpose of firing a gun is exclusively to end a person's life.
This is a grown man who shot an unarmed child. Everything else is moot and the SYG law in itself is ridiculously retarded.
You can't solve violence by legalizing murder. How does this stop anyone from harassing a person constantly until they flip out and then killing them in "self defense"? I'd like a honest answer because this seems completely feasible under such laws and a foolproof way of getting away with premeditated murder.
"Child"? Are you kidding me? He was a 6'2" football playing young man who sold cannabis. Seriously, "child"? It's almost like you are aware you have no argument and have to resort to this emotionally charged absurdity.
Here are some more recent photographs than what the media has been showing: + Show Spoiler +
In a way you are right. You can't murder someone who has you pinned to the ground and is beating you in the face because that is clearly self defense, not murder.
where did you hear that trayvon sold cannabis?
His friend is trying to contact him to purchase weed in that facebook conversation.
link to facebook conversation? I must have missed it
On March 23 2012 18:29 swiftazn wrote: dont know if this has been mentioned recently or not but i'm sick and tired of people saying that getting punched over and over and attacked by an unarmed 140lb teenager isn't worth enough of a reason for self defense. FIRST OF ALL you can easily kill someone with your fists. there are stress points on the human body that one can injure. how about collapsing a windpipe eh?
No. You can't murder a person, especially not a child, because they are hitting you. Let alone if you have been following them around and harassing them. Maybe in the states this reasoning somehow makes sense at the time but it's incredibly shortsighted and if everyone thought like that the human race would exterminate itself in a matter of decades. Us Europeans can't even fucking believe it. Here, anyone carrying a gun in public is normally considered a lunatic and a potential murderer.
You don't "defend" yourself by killing an unarmed person.
Kids get into fights all the time. An average high school yard sees several fights a month. The purpose of a fight isn't to kill someone, most of the time it's not even to injure them it's just to settle a score or put them in their place. The purpose of firing a gun is exclusively to end a person's life.
This is a grown man who shot an unarmed child. Everything else is moot and the SYG law in itself is ridiculously retarded.
You can't solve violence by legalizing murder. How does this stop anyone from harassing a person constantly until they flip out and then killing them in "self defense"? I'd like a honest answer because this seems completely feasible under such laws and a foolproof way of getting away with premeditated murder.
"Child"? Are you kidding me? He was a 6'2" football playing young man who sold cannabis. Seriously, "child"? It's almost like you are aware you have no argument and have to resort to this emotionally charged absurdity.
Here are some more recent photographs than what the media has been showing: + Show Spoiler +
In a way you are right. You can't murder someone who has you pinned to the ground and is beating you in the face because that is clearly self defense, not murder.
where did you hear that trayvon sold cannabis?
His friend is trying to contact him to purchase weed in that facebook conversation.
link to facebook conversation? I must have missed it
On March 23 2012 11:55 Slaughter wrote: I really don't care if Zimmerman was on the ground at one time. He probably scared the shit out of that kid and then he either provoked him or he kid tried his own preemptive strike but then got shot. Basically Fuckers like Zimmerman should CALL THE FUCKING POLICE and not go off doing shit he shouldn't be doing.
He did call the "fucking police" and did nothing outside of his rights that we have any evidence of. You are taken a biased stance based on assumed information and cherry picked witnesses and/or news report that agree with you and completely dismissing the witnesses/news reports that don't.
No not really, my stance is he shouldn't have been doing this shit in the first place. If he hadn't went after some kid the kid wouldn't be dead period.
the kid wouldn't be dead if he wasn't there, period
and so forth onto that absurd train of thought
we don't know enough information and this story is naturally becoming more complicated than the rallying protesters or the super emotional people would like.
Zimmerman follows Martin in his truck, Martin is aware he is being followed.
(Assuming Martins phone contact isnt lying). Zimmerman left his truck. Martin asked Zimmerman why he was following and Zimmerman asked what he was doing here.
Now the phone contact says it just went into a fight from there, which I have a hard time believing. I think there was some more dialogue exchanged.
Fight happens.
Zimmerman ends up on the ground getting beaten by Martin. Zimmerman shoots Martin. Zimmerman ends up hospitalized.
Now neither of those questions are fighting words nor does it say who started the fight. Until we have a time machine, its impossible to know who did what or who started the fight.
On March 23 2012 19:36 Zaqwe wrote: "Child"? Are you kidding me? He was a 6'2" football playing young man who sold cannabis. Seriously, "child"? It's almost like you are aware you have no argument and have to resort to this emotionally charged absurdity.
Here are some more recent photographs than what the media has been showing: + Show Spoiler +
In a way you are right. You can't murder someone who has you pinned to the ground and is beating you in the face because that is clearly self defense, not murder.
I'm not gonna waste any more time with you because it's clear you are trolling, but just to show you you can do better:
The age of majority in the USA is 18. Martin was 17. Therefore, he was a child. Maybe you're in high school yourself and those pics seem intimidating to you but I'm middle aged and when I look at them I see a child. When your parents look at them they see a child, too. When the law looks at them it sees a child. So much for having an argument and spewing absurdities
On March 23 2012 19:36 Zaqwe wrote: "Child"? Are you kidding me? He was a 6'2" football playing young man who sold cannabis. Seriously, "child"? It's almost like you are aware you have no argument and have to resort to this emotionally charged absurdity.
Here are some more recent photographs than what the media has been showing: + Show Spoiler +
In a way you are right. You can't murder someone who has you pinned to the ground and is beating you in the face because that is clearly self defense, not murder.
I'm not gonna waste any more time with you because it's clear you are trolling, but just to show you you can do better:
The age of majority in the USA is 18. Martin was 17. Therefore, he was a child. Maybe you're in high school yourself and those pics seem intimidating to you but I'm middle aged and when I look at them I see a child. When your parents look at them they see a child, too. When the law looks at them it sees a child. So much for having an argument and spewing absurdities
A child is someone between birth and puberty. The word you are thinking of is "minor". Someone below the age of majority is a minor.
On March 23 2012 19:36 Zaqwe wrote: "Child"? Are you kidding me? He was a 6'2" football playing young man who sold cannabis. Seriously, "child"? It's almost like you are aware you have no argument and have to resort to this emotionally charged absurdity.
Here are some more recent photographs than what the media has been showing: + Show Spoiler +
In a way you are right. You can't murder someone who has you pinned to the ground and is beating you in the face because that is clearly self defense, not murder.
I'm not gonna waste any more time with you because it's clear you are trolling, but just to show you you can do better:
The age of majority in the USA is 18. Martin was 17. Therefore, he was a child. Maybe you're in high school yourself and those pics seem intimidating to you but I'm middle aged and when I look at them I see a child. When your parents look at them they see a child, too. When the law looks at them it sees a child. So much for having an argument and spewing absurdities
in Florida we've tried 12 year olds as adults before, so I don't know if the law sees a child
Trayvon Martin was carrying a bag of skittles and a can of iced tea. Seems unlikely he would go attack someone then, especially someone twice his size almost.
Some Ese with a gun is following him while the cops tell him not to pursue. He did anyways, which would make it no longer self defense. It would be self defense if Martin was the one following him, but that's not what happened.
And he also calls him a "coon" on the phone with the police...
On March 23 2012 19:36 Zaqwe wrote: "Child"? Are you kidding me? He was a 6'2" football playing young man who sold cannabis. Seriously, "child"? It's almost like you are aware you have no argument and have to resort to this emotionally charged absurdity.
Here are some more recent photographs than what the media has been showing: + Show Spoiler +
In a way you are right. You can't murder someone who has you pinned to the ground and is beating you in the face because that is clearly self defense, not murder.
I'm not gonna waste any more time with you because it's clear you are trolling, but just to show you you can do better:
The age of majority in the USA is 18. Martin was 17. Therefore, he was a child. Maybe you're in high school yourself and those pics seem intimidating to you but I'm middle aged and when I look at them I see a child. When your parents look at them they see a child, too. When the law looks at them it sees a child. So much for having an argument and spewing absurdities
in Florida we've tried 12 year olds as adults before, so I don't know if the law sees a child
yes, florida has passed laws to try "children" as adults. also the laws about who can be tried under juvenile law or who is a minor and when they meet the criteria for those terms (and under what circumstances) can change from state to state.
On March 23 2012 20:29 nalgene wrote: Trayvon Martin was carrying a bag of skittles and a can of iced tea. Seems unlikely he would go attack someone then, especially someone twice his size almost.
Some Ese with a gun is following him while the cops tell him not to pursue. He did anyways, which would make it no longer self defense. It would be self defense if Martin was the one following him, but that's not what happened.
And he also calls him a "coon" on the phone with the police...
Its not proven he said 'coon' nor does it matter.
"Some Ese with a gun is following him while the cops tell him not to pursue. He did anyways, which would make it no longer self defense." This isnt true.
You are allowed to question people in your neighborhood.
Common sense would lead to a pretty realistic interpretation of what indeed happened that night. We can't let assumptions put a man behind bars, so really all we can do is look at the facts.
- Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin who he believed was suspicious with no justifiable reason to believe so.
- Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon even with Martin spotting him. At this point, you would assume a person "upto no good" would atttempt to flee the scene. He did not.
- Zimmerman then left his vehicle in an attempt to follow Martin, who at this point decided to attempt to make distance between the two.
The above is all evidenced by Mr. Zimmerman's 911 call. At this point we can already declare Zimmerman as the aggressor and/or at the very least declare Martin as attempting to retreat. From this point on, Martin is "protected" under the Stand Your Ground law, to defend himself. The only way this can change, is if Martin is able to close the gap and overpower Zimmerman and gain control of the situation. I find it hard to imagine, that a kid roughly half the weight of Zimmerman was not only able to close the gap and overpower, but to do so against an armed man, who we can assume was prepaired based on his own previous assumption that Martin was "suspicious". You don't approach a "suspicious" individual without caution, even if you are dumb enough to leave your vehicle and pursue the "suspicious" individual in the first place. None of these assumptions really matter though because of the eyewitness accounts.
There are numerous eyewitness (as fragmented as some maybe be) accounts of Zimmerman being ontop of Martin attacking him. There is ONE account of it being the other way around with Martin on top attacking Zimmerman. The police did not canvas the area looking for witnesses immediatly after the incident. The "witness" supporting Zimmerman's story was no exception, he was not interviewed by the police.
We also have both Trayvon Martin's father and mother confirming it was their son's voice screaming for help. We also have several witnesses confirming it was a "young", "almost childish" voice screaming for help. There is ONE account claiming the voice was coming from a man. The ONE account supporting Zimmerman's story was by the same "witness" who apparently saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.
We have no witnesses which saw Zimmerman and/or Martin at the time of the shooting.
We have several witnesses which after the shooting saw Zimmerman on top of the already dead Martin. Martin was face down and Zimmerman was on top with his hands on Martin's back.
Once again all of the above can and should be considered as evidence. There are no assumptions which need to be made to paint a relatively accurate picture of the events which occured that night
There are of course some major holes in the case which should be mentioned:
- The police did not do routine drug/intoxication screening on Zimmerman. - The police did not canvas the area looking for witnesses. - The police allowed Zimmerman to leave the station in the same clothes he was wearing during the incident, which is against standard homicide procedure. This destroys/invalidates any forensic evidence which could be obtained from the clothing. - The police have attempted to "correct" a witness in favour of Zimmerman's story. - The police claim Tayvon Martin's father confirmed it was not his son's voice. - The police allowed a possible murder to leave the station and resume every day life without reviewing any evidence. They essentially took Zimmerman's story as fact and released him.
It is pretty sad when the media has done a better job of investigating the incident than the police have. As demonstarted above, the media has uncovered numerous witness accounts which create a pretty realistic and probable interpretation of what happened. I do want to note that no mention of race was considered in any of the above analysis of the evidence.
Wow that's a lot of inaccuracies.
There is only one witness to the beating and he clearly identified the shooter was the one who was pinned to the ground being pummeled in the faced with fists while screaming for help.
I realize you are just trolling but I will respond because I know many see the situation similarily.
I have been following this case quite closesly. Anderson Cooper had the mother and father and a witness on his talk show yesterday which validifies the majority of what I posted. There were several witneses to the fight not just John (the man who supports Zimmerman's story). John's eye witness account is the only one out of many; both visual and auditory that vaguely support what you believe as fact. It is unreal how many people have taken both Zimmerman and John's story as fact, when there are numerous other stories which all align and build a pretty solid case.
You have witnesses who could only hear the events; which recall a young boy/childish scream for help. Other witnesses who both saw the events and heard them also recall this. John however is once again the only one who heard otherwise, and he also apparently saw the event as well. I think it is pretty safe to atleast look at john's recollection as being improbable. His recollection of the scream could very well be led by his interpretation of what he saw. If he believed he saw Zimmerman on the ground with Martin on top then of course he would assume it was Zimmerman's cries for help. But when you have every other witness saying otherwise, this doesn't exactly support this one man's view. Also you have Zimmerman on top of a dead Martin who is face down after the shooting. How exactly is this explained? I for one know if I was being attacked and had to result to force after doing so I would get up and distance myself incase I needed to defend myself again. Rather than mount someone who apparently had already overpowered me.
Common sense would lead to a pretty realistic interpretation of what indeed happened that night. We can't let assumptions put a man behind bars, so really all we can do is look at the facts.
- Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin who he believed was suspicious with no justifiable reason to believe so.
- Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon even with Martin spotting him. At this point, you would assume a person "upto no good" would atttempt to flee the scene. He did not.
- Zimmerman then left his vehicle in an attempt to follow Martin, who at this point decided to attempt to make distance between the two.
The above is all evidenced by Mr. Zimmerman's 911 call. At this point we can already declare Zimmerman as the aggressor and/or at the very least declare Martin as attempting to retreat. From this point on, Martin is "protected" under the Stand Your Ground law, to defend himself. The only way this can change, is if Martin is able to close the gap and overpower Zimmerman and gain control of the situation. I find it hard to imagine, that a kid roughly half the weight of Zimmerman was not only able to close the gap and overpower, but to do so against an armed man, who we can assume was prepaired based on his own previous assumption that Martin was "suspicious". You don't approach a "suspicious" individual without caution, even if you are dumb enough to leave your vehicle and pursue the "suspicious" individual in the first place. None of these assumptions really matter though because of the eyewitness accounts.
There are numerous eyewitness (as fragmented as some maybe be) accounts of Zimmerman being ontop of Martin attacking him. There is ONE account of it being the other way around with Martin on top attacking Zimmerman. The police did not canvas the area looking for witnesses immediatly after the incident. The "witness" supporting Zimmerman's story was no exception, he was not interviewed by the police.
We also have both Trayvon Martin's father and mother confirming it was their son's voice screaming for help. We also have several witnesses confirming it was a "young", "almost childish" voice screaming for help. There is ONE account claiming the voice was coming from a man. The ONE account supporting Zimmerman's story was by the same "witness" who apparently saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.
We have no witnesses which saw Zimmerman and/or Martin at the time of the shooting.
We have several witnesses which after the shooting saw Zimmerman on top of the already dead Martin. Martin was face down and Zimmerman was on top with his hands on Martin's back.
Once again all of the above can and should be considered as evidence. There are no assumptions which need to be made to paint a relatively accurate picture of the events which occured that night
There are of course some major holes in the case which should be mentioned:
- The police did not do routine drug/intoxication screening on Zimmerman. - The police did not canvas the area looking for witnesses. - The police allowed Zimmerman to leave the station in the same clothes he was wearing during the incident, which is against standard homicide procedure. This destroys/invalidates any forensic evidence which could be obtained from the clothing. - The police have attempted to "correct" a witness in favour of Zimmerman's story. - The police claim Tayvon Martin's father confirmed it was not his son's voice. - The police allowed a possible murder to leave the station and resume every day life without reviewing any evidence. They essentially took Zimmerman's story as fact and released him.
It is pretty sad when the media has done a better job of investigating the incident than the police have. As demonstarted above, the media has uncovered numerous witness accounts which create a pretty realistic and probable interpretation of what happened. I do want to note that no mention of race was considered in any of the above analysis of the evidence.
Wow that's a lot of inaccuracies.
There is only one witness to the beating and he clearly identified the shooter was the one who was pinned to the ground being pummeled in the faced with fists while screaming for help.
I realize you are just trolling but I will respond because I know many see the situation similarily.
I have been following this case quite closesly. Anderson Cooper had the mother and father and a witness on his talk show yesterday which validifies the majority of what I posted. There were several witneses to the fight not just John (the man who supports Zimmerman's story). John's eye witness account is the only one out of many; both visual and auditory that vaguely support what you believe as fact. It is unreal how many people have taken both Zimmerman and John's story as fact, when there are numerous other stories which all align and build a pretty solid case.
You have witnesses who could only hear the events; which recall a young boy/childish scream for help. Other witnesses who both saw the events and heard them also recall this. John however is once again the only one who heard otherwise, and he also apparently saw the event as well. I think it is pretty safe to atleast look at john's recollection as being improbable. His recollection of the scream could very well be led by his interpretation of what he saw. If he believed he saw Zimmerman on the ground with Martin on top then of course he would assume it was Zimmerman's cries for help. But when you have every other witness saying otherwise, this doesn't exactly support this one man's view. Also you have Zimmerman on top of a dead Martin who is face down after the shooting. How exactly is this explained? I for one know if I was being attacked and had to result to force after doing so I would get up and distance myself incase I needed to defend myself again. Rather than mount someone who apparently had already overpowered me.
Martin is beating on Zimmerman. Martin gets shot and falls forward. Martin is face down. Zimmerman gets up and naturally looks down at the body.
John was able to see the color of the shirt that the man on the bottom was wearing. That was Zimmerman.
I just love the fact that because this kid was killed in a southern state and just happened to be black that the media decided to cover this. You have the NCAA, politicians, news of this scene on every channel, its own thread on TL, staged walkouts on college campuses and possible riots.
And yet, Where is the coverage about the white kid that got torched on his way to home by two black kids for "being white"?
On March 23 2012 18:29 swiftazn wrote: dont know if this has been mentioned recently or not but i'm sick and tired of people saying that getting punched over and over and attacked by an unarmed 140lb teenager isn't worth enough of a reason for self defense. FIRST OF ALL you can easily kill someone with your fists. there are stress points on the human body that one can injure. how about collapsing a windpipe eh?
No. You can't murder a person, especially not a child, because they are hitting you. Let alone if you have been following them around and harassing them. Maybe in the states this reasoning somehow makes sense at the time but it's incredibly shortsighted and if everyone thought like that the human race would exterminate itself in a matter of decades. Us Europeans can't even fucking believe it. Here, anyone carrying a gun in public is normally considered a lunatic and a potential murderer.
You don't "defend" yourself by killing an unarmed person.
Kids get into fights all the time. An average high school yard sees several fights a month. The purpose of a fight isn't to kill someone, most of the time it's not even to injure them it's just to settle a score or put them in their place. The purpose of firing a gun is exclusively to end a person's life.
This is a grown man who shot an unarmed child. Everything else is moot and the SYG law in itself is ridiculously retarded.
You can't solve violence by legalizing murder. How does this stop anyone from harassing a person constantly until they flip out and then killing them in "self defense"? I'd like a honest answer because this seems completely feasible under such laws and a foolproof way of getting away with premeditated murder.
"Child"? Are you kidding me? He was a 6'2" football playing young man who sold cannabis. Seriously, "child"? It's almost like you are aware you have no argument and have to resort to this emotionally charged absurdity.
Here are some more recent photographs than what the media has been showing: + Show Spoiler +
In a way you are right. You can't murder someone who has you pinned to the ground and is beating you in the face because that is clearly self defense, not murder.
where did you hear that trayvon sold cannabis?
His friend is trying to contact him to purchase weed in that facebook conversation.
How is getting approached by someone making you a drugdealer? If the police would ask me if i have drugs, does that make me a drugdealer? O_o
On March 23 2012 23:11 Energizer wrote: I just love the fact that because this kid was killed in a southern state and just happened to be black that the media decided to cover this. You have the NCAA, politicians, news of this scene on every channel, its own thread on TL, staged walkouts on college campuses and possible riots.
And yet, Where is the coverage about the white kid that got torched on his way to home by two black kids for "being white"?
If the young kid would have died and the two black kids would have claimed it was self defense and the police didn't do shit about it, THEN it would be discussed like this aswell. It's noch about racism here. It's about someone getting away with murder because of a law and policemen looking away.
It's kind of pathetic that people consider sensationalist bullshit such as a facebook post on "yo nigga needa plant" and a picture of middle fingers as indicative of...anything? I mean, weren't people bitching about pointing out that Zimmerman failed out of a "Citizen's" police academy, and how that's just a sensationalist item intended to paint Zimmerman in a bad light?
I mean really, what relevance does a picture of a random guy on facebook asking for weed have? I mean, so what? Does that mean Trayvon actually sells weed? No, it's just fucking irrelevant, period.
Hahhahahh. Really? Read what you just linked. The kid suffered 1st degree burns, aka, burns on the same scale of intensity as a sunburn. And you're saying people should give a fuck about that story, vs. a story in which a kid is murdered (or killed, however you want to term it)? That's not nearly as serious of a story if the boy simply got a minor injury. Don't you see the difference? Death vs. minor injury, thus they are not at all similar stories.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1w9MA.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WOFyf.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZJswb.jpg)
