|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On June 28 2013 01:11 crms wrote:
How does she not know what he's talking about? This is unreal.
It is not a well-worded question. He needs to break it down more.
|
On June 28 2013 01:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 01:06 Klipsys wrote:On June 28 2013 00:45 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 00:40 Klipsys wrote:On June 27 2013 23:16 dotHead wrote:On June 27 2013 23:15 Klipsys wrote:
cracker isn't a racist term because no one would ever get offended by being called a snack food And fag isn't offensive because it's a bundle of sticks. Sir Sure, but the culture of the word has a much longer and evil history. Same thing with the N word. There has never been a culture of hate behind the word "cracker" We haven't renamed the snack food because of it, we don't censor it on TV, people aren't fired for saying it, and it's never been considered hate speech. Has there ever been a white person who has been called cracker and actually cared? Fag and the N word are like so much more vile and destructive as words. Cracker is about as tame as idiot or moron. All that you said as far as not firing for saying it, hate speech, etc.. is entirely because people think racism is only in one direction, that black racism toward whites isn't actually racism. Fact of the matter, when blacks refer to whites as crackers, it is the same meaning as whites calling blacks racist. It is the "response" term. On topic: This defense lawyer is really not accomplishing anything with this cross as far as I know Are you kidding? He has totally eviscerated her credibility. She is all over the place on what her testimony is.
Were you paying attention then? " I been paying attention... Sir" I really don't like being racist but i just can't really understand people when they talk so blatantly ghetto.
|
Zimmerman is gonna get off for sure because of how retarded this girl is.
|
West is reaching a little bit with his cross. He's asking questions with the intention of making points should be reserved for his closing arguments.
|
On June 28 2013 01:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I think Zimmerman is probably a free man under the law as it is written there in Florida. However I think it raises greater questions about firearm possession in general. Why are citizen vigilantes out on patrol carrying handguns in areas with kids and families? Carrying a weapon undoubtedly provides the person with the *illusion* of safety (regardless of what gun rights activists enjoy fabricating, multiple lines of evidence suggest that carrying a gun at best does nothing for safety while at worst actually causes greater danger to the carrier and those in the surrounding area).
In this case I sort of suspect that Zimmerman ended the fight decisively and unnecessarily. I don't think he was in danger of having his life snuffed out. 2 minor cuts on the head. Banged up nose. Was he sprawled out on the floor having his head beaten into submission, requiring someone else to step in? No, he was able to free himself from the struggle enough to squeeze out a round into the kid's chest. Had he not been carrying a gun he may very well have extricated himself from the mess without killing a person.
I'd not be surprised if Zimmerman goes free here. I'd also be happy if vigilantes started reevaluating their irrational need for carrying firearms in neighborhoods.
The need for firearms seems quite rational. If a thug jumps you it makes it possible to defend yourself.
It's a good thing Zimmerman had a pistol. It saved his life.
|
"U aint getting that from me" lol
|
On June 28 2013 01:06 Klipsys wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 00:45 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 00:40 Klipsys wrote:On June 27 2013 23:16 dotHead wrote:On June 27 2013 23:15 Klipsys wrote:
cracker isn't a racist term because no one would ever get offended by being called a snack food And fag isn't offensive because it's a bundle of sticks. Sir Sure, but the culture of the word has a much longer and evil history. Same thing with the N word. There has never been a culture of hate behind the word "cracker" We haven't renamed the snack food because of it, we don't censor it on TV, people aren't fired for saying it, and it's never been considered hate speech. Has there ever been a white person who has been called cracker and actually cared? Fag and the N word are like so much more vile and destructive as words. Cracker is about as tame as idiot or moron. All that you said as far as not firing for saying it, hate speech, etc.. is entirely because people think racism is only in one direction, that black racism toward whites isn't actually racism. Fact of the matter, when blacks refer to whites as crackers, it is the same meaning as whites calling blacks racist. It is the "response" term. but it doesn't have the same effect because there isn't a culture of discrimination against white people. Racism against whites is a laughable concept because there has never been a deeply ingrained culture bias against whites, nor has the government played an active role in discrimination against them. On topic: This defense lawyer is really not accomplishing anything with this cross as far as I know
Racism against whites being equalized with racism against blacks is foolish since the problem the african community has is that they literally get less stuff and are punished more often just for being black. Being accused of being white only tells the world that you are privileged, and that the system supports you just because you are white.
|
this is really getting ugly, this lady is completely losing it. The prosecution has to feel uneasy.
|
To be brutally honest, at this point, the defense is starting to lose it for me. At this point it's only bashing now, they proved the point that she is not a credible source, to me it starts to look desperate, as if they don't have anything else to "defend on".
The jury isn't stupid, at least i hope. If they continue that, the jury might start to think that alot of what she's saying is because she gets confused by him.
Edit: and without malicious intent, that girl is stupid beyond belief. So it's not unlikely to think that.
|
this is, sir, one of the most brutally awkward things, sir, I've ever watched.. SIR..
|
She'd be better off just skipping the almost sarcastic "sir's." Just makes her look worse.
|
I'm quite amazed this this only occurred to me just now, but here is one salient point that I think the defense is currently making. This girl was a close friend of Trayvon and clearly cared about him. She has testified that she was on the phone with him right up to the point where someone who had been profilng, stalking, and attacked him and she lost contact with Trayvon after a confrontation. How the fuck could she not call police or anyone after having that sequence of events, unless those are not the actual circumstances of her experience on the phone call. BIG question as to why she wasn't concerned about not being able to reach her friend any more after this incident.
|
On June 28 2013 01:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 01:06 Klipsys wrote:On June 28 2013 00:45 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 00:40 Klipsys wrote:On June 27 2013 23:16 dotHead wrote:On June 27 2013 23:15 Klipsys wrote:
cracker isn't a racist term because no one would ever get offended by being called a snack food And fag isn't offensive because it's a bundle of sticks. Sir Sure, but the culture of the word has a much longer and evil history. Same thing with the N word. There has never been a culture of hate behind the word "cracker" We haven't renamed the snack food because of it, we don't censor it on TV, people aren't fired for saying it, and it's never been considered hate speech. Has there ever been a white person who has been called cracker and actually cared? Fag and the N word are like so much more vile and destructive as words. Cracker is about as tame as idiot or moron. All that you said as far as not firing for saying it, hate speech, etc.. is entirely because people think racism is only in one direction, that black racism toward whites isn't actually racism. Fact of the matter, when blacks refer to whites as crackers, it is the same meaning as whites calling blacks racist. It is the "response" term. but it doesn't have the same effect because there isn't a culture of discrimination against white people. Racism against whites is a laughable concept because there has never been a deeply ingrained culture bias against whites, nor has the government played an active role in discrimination against them. On topic: This defense lawyer is really not accomplishing anything with this cross as far as I know Racism against whites being equalized with racism against blacks is foolish since the problem the african community has is that they literally get less stuff and are punished more often just for being black. Being accused of being white only tells the world that you are privileged, and that the system supports you just because you are white.
Maybe you should take your racist vitriol against Whites to another thread.
|
On June 28 2013 01:21 nam nam wrote:
She'd be better off just skipping the almost sarcastic "sir's." Just makes her look worse.
I don't think she cares lol
|
On June 28 2013 01:22 Kaitlin wrote:
I'm quite amazed this this only occurred to me just now, but here is one salient point that I think the defense is currently making. This girl was a close friend of Trayvon and clearly cared about him. She has testified that she was on the phone with him right up to the point where someone who had been profilng, stalking, and attacked him and she lost contact with Trayvon after a confrontation. How the fuck could she not call police or anyone after having that sequence of events, unless those are not the actual circumstances of her experience on the phone call. BIG question as to why she wasn't concerned about not being able to reach her friend any more after this incident.
You really don't understand african american culture's relationship with the police do you?
|
On June 28 2013 01:22 bugser wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 01:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 01:06 Klipsys wrote:On June 28 2013 00:45 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 00:40 Klipsys wrote:On June 27 2013 23:16 dotHead wrote:On June 27 2013 23:15 Klipsys wrote:
cracker isn't a racist term because no one would ever get offended by being called a snack food And fag isn't offensive because it's a bundle of sticks. Sir Sure, but the culture of the word has a much longer and evil history. Same thing with the N word. There has never been a culture of hate behind the word "cracker" We haven't renamed the snack food because of it, we don't censor it on TV, people aren't fired for saying it, and it's never been considered hate speech. Has there ever been a white person who has been called cracker and actually cared? Fag and the N word are like so much more vile and destructive as words. Cracker is about as tame as idiot or moron. All that you said as far as not firing for saying it, hate speech, etc.. is entirely because people think racism is only in one direction, that black racism toward whites isn't actually racism. Fact of the matter, when blacks refer to whites as crackers, it is the same meaning as whites calling blacks racist. It is the "response" term. but it doesn't have the same effect because there isn't a culture of discrimination against white people. Racism against whites is a laughable concept because there has never been a deeply ingrained culture bias against whites, nor has the government played an active role in discrimination against them. On topic: This defense lawyer is really not accomplishing anything with this cross as far as I know Racism against whites being equalized with racism against blacks is foolish since the problem the african community has is that they literally get less stuff and are punished more often just for being black. Being accused of being white only tells the world that you are privileged, and that the system supports you just because you are white. Maybe you should take your racist vitriol against Whites to another thread.
I second this.
|
On June 28 2013 01:22 bugser wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 01:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 01:06 Klipsys wrote:On June 28 2013 00:45 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 00:40 Klipsys wrote:On June 27 2013 23:16 dotHead wrote:On June 27 2013 23:15 Klipsys wrote:
cracker isn't a racist term because no one would ever get offended by being called a snack food And fag isn't offensive because it's a bundle of sticks. Sir Sure, but the culture of the word has a much longer and evil history. Same thing with the N word. There has never been a culture of hate behind the word "cracker" We haven't renamed the snack food because of it, we don't censor it on TV, people aren't fired for saying it, and it's never been considered hate speech. Has there ever been a white person who has been called cracker and actually cared? Fag and the N word are like so much more vile and destructive as words. Cracker is about as tame as idiot or moron. All that you said as far as not firing for saying it, hate speech, etc.. is entirely because people think racism is only in one direction, that black racism toward whites isn't actually racism. Fact of the matter, when blacks refer to whites as crackers, it is the same meaning as whites calling blacks racist. It is the "response" term. but it doesn't have the same effect because there isn't a culture of discrimination against white people. Racism against whites is a laughable concept because there has never been a deeply ingrained culture bias against whites, nor has the government played an active role in discrimination against them. On topic: This defense lawyer is really not accomplishing anything with this cross as far as I know Racism against whites being equalized with racism against blacks is foolish since the problem the african community has is that they literally get less stuff and are punished more often just for being black. Being accused of being white only tells the world that you are privileged, and that the system supports you just because you are white. Maybe you should take your racist vitriol against Whites to another thread.
You follow him right away please, with your gun-control discussion. Both of which are irrelevant in this thread.
|
On June 28 2013 01:22 Kaitlin wrote:
I'm quite amazed this this only occurred to me just now, but here is one salient point that I think the defense is currently making. This girl was a close friend of Trayvon and clearly cared about him. She has testified that she was on the phone with him right up to the point where someone who had been profilng, stalking, and attacked him and she lost contact with Trayvon after a confrontation. How the fuck could she not call police or anyone after having that sequence of events, unless those are not the actual circumstances of her experience on the phone call. BIG question as to why she wasn't concerned about not being able to reach her friend any more after this incident.
Yeah I had an epiphany when he went there as well.
In circumstances as she suggested, any normal person would be terrified for the safety of Trayvon. Her attitude at the time suggested she knew Trayvon was the aggressor.
|
On June 28 2013 01:17 bugser wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 01:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:
I think Zimmerman is probably a free man under the law as it is written there in Florida. However I think it raises greater questions about firearm possession in general. Why are citizen vigilantes out on patrol carrying handguns in areas with kids and families? Carrying a weapon undoubtedly provides the person with the *illusion* of safety (regardless of what gun rights activists enjoy fabricating, multiple lines of evidence suggest that carrying a gun at best does nothing for safety while at worst actually causes greater danger to the carrier and those in the surrounding area).
In this case I sort of suspect that Zimmerman ended the fight decisively and unnecessarily. I don't think he was in danger of having his life snuffed out. 2 minor cuts on the head. Banged up nose. Was he sprawled out on the floor having his head beaten into submission, requiring someone else to step in? No, he was able to free himself from the struggle enough to squeeze out a round into the kid's chest. Had he not been carrying a gun he may very well have extricated himself from the mess without killing a person.
I'd not be surprised if Zimmerman goes free here. I'd also be happy if vigilantes started reevaluating their irrational need for carrying firearms in neighborhoods. The need for firearms seems quite rational. If a thug jumps you it makes it possible to defend yourself. It's a good thing Zimmerman had a pistol. It saved his life.
It seems quite irrational when viewed through the lens of firearm injury & death research, and through the lens of studies that indicate carrying a weapon results in either injury to the carrier or bystanders more than it does to attackers.
It's too bad Zimmerman had a pistol, Zaqwe. It ended Martin's life.
|
On June 28 2013 01:22 bugser wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 01:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 01:06 Klipsys wrote:On June 28 2013 00:45 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 00:40 Klipsys wrote:On June 27 2013 23:16 dotHead wrote:On June 27 2013 23:15 Klipsys wrote:
cracker isn't a racist term because no one would ever get offended by being called a snack food And fag isn't offensive because it's a bundle of sticks. Sir Sure, but the culture of the word has a much longer and evil history. Same thing with the N word. There has never been a culture of hate behind the word "cracker" We haven't renamed the snack food because of it, we don't censor it on TV, people aren't fired for saying it, and it's never been considered hate speech. Has there ever been a white person who has been called cracker and actually cared? Fag and the N word are like so much more vile and destructive as words. Cracker is about as tame as idiot or moron. All that you said as far as not firing for saying it, hate speech, etc.. is entirely because people think racism is only in one direction, that black racism toward whites isn't actually racism. Fact of the matter, when blacks refer to whites as crackers, it is the same meaning as whites calling blacks racist. It is the "response" term. but it doesn't have the same effect because there isn't a culture of discrimination against white people. Racism against whites is a laughable concept because there has never been a deeply ingrained culture bias against whites, nor has the government played an active role in discrimination against them. On topic: This defense lawyer is really not accomplishing anything with this cross as far as I know Racism against whites being equalized with racism against blacks is foolish since the problem the african community has is that they literally get less stuff and are punished more often just for being black. Being accused of being white only tells the world that you are privileged, and that the system supports you just because you are white. Maybe you should take your racist vitriol against Whites to another thread.
Why do you assume I'm racist against white people?
Talking about historical context of terms and racial biases does not equal hating whites--it's not my fault that a lot of slavery and bigotry was most represented by white people, blame history for that.
Racism against whites is not equal to racism against blacks for the same reason that racism against germans is not the same as antisemitism.
Historical and cultural context shapes these terms; and being that the US currently convincts more african americans than whites, pay whites more than africans, and harass africans more than whites--it's safe to assume that African Americans who suffer racism suffer it not just from the people they meet, but suffer it from the nation as whole itself. On the other hand, racism against whites is rarely an institutionalized bias and is much closer to an individual's specific transient relationship with another individual.
Just because you don't like history doesn't mean that I hate white people, jeeze, stop being so defensive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
