Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 14

On March 29 2012 23:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:

how do you know that Zimmerman followed him and suspected him because he was black? that is a pure assumption on your part, and it's a baseless assumption at that. there is no evidence at this point to suggest that Zimmerman is a racist, so calling him one based off what "might have happened" seems totally unfair to me. maybe he is a racist, maybe he isn't. maybe he followed Trayvon because he saw a black kid in a hoodie, or maybe it was because he honestly thought that there was something legitimately suspicious about the kid. you have no idea and are just making up an explanation that sounds like it fits a narrative. what facts about him lead you to believe that he is a racist nutcase?

On March 29 2012 23:53 Crushinator wrote:


There is for example the fact that he went door to door instructing the residents to keep an eye out for black youths for example.There is also the fact that the guy drives around armed looking for people to report to the police, that is a pretty crazy thing to do. Also the fact that he expressed a desire to join law-enforcement but never actually did or was not able to. If there was something legitimately suspicious about the kid he should have been able to explain it to the police. He really does sound like a crazy racist person. It is indeed a speculative assumption, but it is hardly baseless.

On March 29 2012 23:29 Charger wrote:


As some here have already mentioned, the EMTs at the scene would certainly have cleaned and treated Zimmerman. A grainy police video is hardly evidence that Zimmerman had no injuries. Also, if people choose to believe what they see in the video and ignore all else, you are essentially accusing the police, Zimmerman, and the witnesses of a conspiracy as they have all said Zimmerman was bloodied and looked like he had been in a struggle.

On March 30 2012 00:22 Felnarion wrote:


Are you kidding? It's totally baseless. Going to neighbors and saying to look out for suspicious black kids isn't racist unless you make it. If there's some freaking suspicious kids walking around in a neighborhood with a string of robberies, then you have to identify them somehow, and black is just a feature.

Everytime someone even mentions a race, everyone takes it as offense, which is silly, if he had reason to believe black kids were behind the string of burglaries, correctly or incorrectly, then he should identify that to neighbors, there's nothing wrong with that, it doesn't suggest any kind of inferiority of black people, it doesn't single out an entire race, it's simply conveying a distinguishing feature that he has observed.

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/BurglaryReports.pdf

From prior months. Notice in most of the areas were suspects are identified (or get away) they are predominately described as black males (with a few white males in there as well).

It is not unreasonable for someone to say that there have been suspicious black males caught or seen in the neighborhood committing crimes when there have been suspicious black males in the neighborhood comitting crimes.

I, for one, think it was clearly a sexist-driven crime, given that he walked through the neighborhood prior only mentioning MALES and not including females as well. Females can commit crimes too you know.

But labeling someone as more suspicious when they are black then when they are not is racial profiling. And racial profiling is pretty fucking racist.

On March 30 2012 00:51 Potling wrote:

Unfortunately, reality is racist, sexist, etc. Groups are not equal. A young black man with a hoodie is more likely to be criminal than, say, an 80 years old Japanese woman. Treating all groups as equally suspicious is frankly, IMHO, an immensely wasteful display of moral superiority.

Here's an interesting video by ramzpaul.
WARNING: do not click if you are easily offended by political incorrectness:
+ Show Spoiler +

On March 30 2012 00:37 Haemonculus wrote:

Yes I considered that. However Zimmerman claimed to have forwent medical attention at the scene of the incident, saying he dismissed the EMTs and did not go to the hospital until the following day.

Further, there was a CNN interview with the funeral director (who prepared Trayvon's body for the service), in which he stated that there were no apparent injuries on Trayvon's hands, fingers, or anywhere else on his body for that matter which would suggest a fight. Only a single gunshot wound to the chest.

I don't mean to only pick and choose one side of the story, but evidence is starting to pile up that Zimmerman's original story just does not fit.

Unfortunately, reality is racist, sexist, etc. Groups are not equal. A young black man with a hoodie is more likely to be criminal than, say, an 80 years old Japanese woman. Treating all groups as equally suspicious is frankly, IMHO, an immensely wasteful display of moral superiority.

You are saying it's ok to keep the status quo. 'People aren't equal, and why should we strive for equality.' Let's just ignore all those civil rights movements.

You are saying it's ok to profile people based solely on appearances (or potentially trends among certain populations). Black people commit (or are just convicted of more crimes), so naturally a black person wearing a hoodie is more suspicious. When has that ever been acceptable to treat people like that?

NO ONE would suspect an 80 year old (woman, man, black, white, Japanese, anything) of being a criminal

"The latest development in the Trayvon Martin case is the leak of police surveillance footage showing a not-conspicuously-injured George Zimmerman being ushered into the Sanford police station on the night of the shooting, calling into question the account that puts Zimmerman on the receiving end of a brutal pummeling that made him fear for his life. Now we’ve got people squabbling over fuzzy tape trying to determine whether some blob on the back of his head is a wound or a shadow, how much he might have been cleaned up by medics at the scene, and on, and on…

This all seems unnecessary. When I was jumped about a year ago, the police who came to the scene took close-up photos of every visible injury—all, mercifully, quite minor—presumably so they could prove battery if they ended up catching the kids. This seems to be pretty standard procedure, and it’s unfathomable that they wouldn’t do the same in a case where those injuries are the main physical evidence backing a claim of self defense in the shooting of an unarmed teenager. I am not intimately familiar with Florida’s records laws, but it would also be pretty standard to have privacy exemptions barring the release of potentially sensitive photographs, such as those showing bodily injuries of identifiable crime victims. But in this case it would seem to be in Zimmerman’s interest to waive that protection if the photographs actually show serious injury.

At the very least, it seems as though someone should ask the obvious question: Did police take close-up photos of whatever injuries Zimmerman sustained on the night of the shooting? If they did not, it would be incredibly suspicious. Assuming there are photos, even if they can’t be released to the public, has a state medical examiner or forensic scientist at least independently reviewed them to see whether they suggest a beating of such severity that a reasonable person would think lethal force was a necessary response? If not, that sounds like an obvious first step that might go a ways toward clarifying what really happened."

now he does say he is not a forensic expert, so take with a grain of salt...but this, and, moreso those surveillance tapes, just really give me some chills. however i want to see what the medical reports and other info have to say (or what the special investigation comes up with) before i call the tape a "smoking gun" or whatever

If it's straw man, then explain yourself more

Well, in this time and this place, it isn't acceptable. Do you think in this 'day and age' that it's ok to do such things?

Ageism? Who gives a fuck

On March 30 2012 02:15 dAPhREAk wrote:
i added the funeral director's statement to the op. i think Blackwhole is correct with this statement:

On March 30 2012 02:20 Felnarion wrote:
For one, I don't think someone coming down with a hand to a face would necessarily result in damage to the hand. If knuckles hit skull, then yes, maybe, but that's far and away from the only way to injure someone's head. An elbow, a palm, or the side of a fist can do very nice amounts of damage as well.

And as I said, once the small amount of blood is wiped away, a broken nose won't always be noticable via bruising or blood, even if you look closely.