EPTShooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 279
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
AdamBanks
Canada996 Posts
| ||
|
Taidanii
United States77 Posts
On July 06 2013 05:01 stevarius wrote: LOL this guy. This is gonna be terrible to listen to. I really hope it's not as long as O'Mara's. O'mara was a lot easier to listen to | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23932 Posts
On July 06 2013 04:58 Taidanii wrote: I am not white. I think it's cute that you simply assumed that just because of my statements. "cracker" is a racial slur. The fact that an individual truly thinks the only racist comments are those that are directed at their race alone (presumably what RJ believes as to her knowledge of racial slurs) gives them no credibility. She can't read, she has no clear definition of racism, so how can she testify to the belief of racial profiling? She has no credibility, and was not present for the conflict. All of it is circumstantial and leaves reasonable doubt Didn't say you were white. And the reason one would make a statement that the "cracker" comment was not racist has very little to nothing to do with the race of the person making that statement and every thing to do with the race that has institutional power to reinforce ones prejudices. She can read and actually speaks 3 languages. She does however, not read cursive. She was an ear witness and her testimony is valid as such. | ||
|
Taidanii
United States77 Posts
| ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
well, he thought trayvon was a burglar, and technically, trayvon previously was "suspended" for burglary. so, maybe, zimmerman did know trayvon. | ||
|
Junichi
Germany1056 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Taidanii
United States77 Posts
On July 06 2013 05:03 GreenHorizons wrote: Didn't say you were white. And the reason one would make a statement that the "cracker" comment was not racist has very little to nothing to do with the race of the person making that statement and every thing to do with the race that has institutional power to reinforce ones prejudices. She can read and actually speaks 3 languages. She does however, not read cursive. She was an ear witness and her testimony is valid as such. You said I have no knowledge of non-white culture. That can only mean I have knowledge of just white culture. How can it be that with those statements you believe I am anything other than white? 3 languages? Really? Which languages are those? English, Broken English, and ebonics? I don't know anyone that can't tell what cursive words actually say. Not recognizing that "creepy ass cracker" is a racial comment in and of itself leaves absolutely no credibility in deciding what is racist and what is not racist. We have an eye witness placing Martin on top of Zimmerman. That goes much further than a girl on the phone that has no idea of what "racism" is thinking she heard GZ start the conflict. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Taidanii
United States77 Posts
Good comment by a blogger from Fox News about O'mara's statement | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Taidanii
United States77 Posts
On July 06 2013 05:10 xDaunt wrote: This a really bad argument. I'd be objecting if I were the defense, because so much of it isn't grounded in fact. He is using ONLY circumstantial evidence to argue against this motion, which is what the motion is based on. WTF | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On July 06 2013 05:06 xDaunt wrote: "The defense isn't even contesting that Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin." Well no shit, sherlock. "he claims to know all his neighbors, but his neighbors dont know him!!" puffs up chest and allows a moment for that brilliant fact to sit in. | ||
|
Junichi
Germany1056 Posts
On July 06 2013 05:10 xDaunt wrote: This a really bad argument. I'd be objecting if I were the defense, because so much of it isn't grounded in fact. Well, bringing up the contradictions is good imo. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 06 2013 05:12 Junichi wrote: Well, bringing up the contradictions is good imo. Yes, that's good and appropriate. However, he's arguing a lot of bullshit rather than sticking to the testimony and evidence like he should be. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
ConGee
318 Posts
| ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On July 06 2013 05:15 ConGee wrote: Which witness(es) claimed that they saw the two chasing each other and upright? was wondering the same thing. i think the chase is the left to right mvoement behind the fence. but i dont recall anything about upright. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23932 Posts
On July 06 2013 05:07 Taidanii wrote: You said I have no knowledge of non-white culture. That can only mean I have knowledge of just white culture. How can it be that with those statements you believe I am anything other than white? 3 languages? Really? Which languages are those? English, Broken English, and ebonics? I don't know anyone that can't tell what cursive words actually say. Not recognizing that "creepy ass cracker" is a racial comment in and of itself leaves absolutely no credibility in deciding what is racist and what is not racist. We have an eye witness placing Martin on top of Zimmerman. That goes much further than a girl on the phone that has no idea of what "racism" is thinking she heard GZ start the conflict. "Perhaps you are unfamiliar with non-white culture" presuming you understand what those words mean it is clear your first statement is woefully inaccurate. English, Spanish, and Creole actually, this statement demonstrates your bigotry. Plenty of people who deal with handwriting on a daily basis would tell you not being able to read cursive writing is incredibly common (one of the reasons you have to print on most important documents.) Again there are common operating understandings of racism in which the "cracker" comment can logically and reasonably be demonstrated to not be racist. Finally the eye witness has no relevant testimony regarding the initiation of combat. | ||
| ||
