|
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 July 16 2013 10:41 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 10:34 Shiori wrote:On July 16 2013 10:25 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 16 2013 10:22 crms wrote:On July 16 2013 10:21 Housemd wrote:
Don't think Zimmerman was racist at all. He simply acted on human behavior, not race. As one guy posted earlier, Zimmerman organized a protest with local black people to protest something (can't remember what it was). he also tutored underprivileged kids on the weekends most of whom were black. he also called black people "fucking coons!!!" oh wait, that was back when everyone wanted to paint zimmerman as a racist and they deliberately misrepresented the 911 tapes. and then the FBI investigated him and said there is no evidence of racism despite interviewing like 30 some odd people. glad to see people are still acting like sheep and acting like he is a racist. he isnt winning any awards (except maybe Darwin awards), but i have yet to see anything showing him to be a racist. Well, I should have noted that it was just my personal opinion. Zimmerman's brother made some pretty racist-sounding remarks on Twitter, and there have been some reports (no idea how true they are) about Zimmerman's old Myspace page surfacing with some questionable remarks on it. Again, I don't think he was some hardcore racist or anything, but in my opinion there's a decent chance that he wasn't exactly a standard bearer for treating all racial groups with respect at all times, either. That said, most people say racial slurs or things that could be construed as racist from time to time (myself included) so I can' make any conclusion on whether Zimmerman actually was racist, only on what I feel to be probably based on my general (and definitely biased) impression of him. It wasn't meant to be some definitive statement. I'm sorry if people took it that way! Again, though, I want to stress that it makes absolutely no difference whether Zimmerman was racist or uttered racial slurs once or anything. It doesn't matter if he was the shittiest guy alive. My point is that doing what Trayvon did was dumb, and nothing more. i think you mean zimmerman in the last line. zimmerman's brother made some stupid fucking tweets during this case. i have not seen anything on zimmerman's myspace page. i will google it.
No, I meant Trayvon. No matter how terrible Zimmerman was as a person (and while he does seem kinda idiotic, he doesn't seem like an awful person either) what Trayvon did in trying to fight him was simply dumb.
You kind of make your own post completely unnecessary with the two bolded parts, if everybody who makes racist remarks once is a rascist then we all are, if you don't think he's a racist because of that your earlier post about him probably being a racist doesn't make much sense.
I don't want to be rude, but to me it seems like your accusations of racism have no real ground to stand on, you just said it because he was so often judged as a racist that you stopped questioning it and just kinda accepted that he must be a racist without thinking much about it, which then became your "general impression" of him.
It's pretty sad.
I literally said I don't know whether Zimmerman is actually racist. I just said it seems like he probably is from my vantage point; I stated explicitly that it's just a personal hunch, that I'm definitely biased, and that I didn't mean anything definitive by it. What more do you want?
|
That the sentence for Tayvon's actions was death as sanctioned by the state through these laws seems excessive.
What seems excessive to me is expecting innocent citizens to take a beating and fear for their lives without having recourse to defend themselves.
There is a simple solution for all parties involved here.... Don't assault people. Don't get on top of them and punch them and bang their head into the concrete. Then you shouldn't have much fear of getting legally shot. Very simple.
|
On July 16 2013 10:36 Gunther wrote:My god, someone posted this on my facebook + Show Spoiler +Normally I'm pretty tolerable of the garbage spewed on facebook, but I think I'm at my limit.
This is fucking hilarious. The mainstream news stations don't dare to show a picture of Trayvon past age 12... I wonder why?
Why are people so in love with White Supremacist on Rodney King-esque black victims? It doesn't take 10 minutes to find cases of blacks getting away with similar actions yet things like this get obfuscated by theatrics and hysteria to drive up ratings and or mollify the masses who would otherwise be worrying about their financial situations.
To those who feel so strongly about Trayvon being executed by a malicious Latino looking white supremacist Zimmerman (no doubt was practicing tuck and rolls on lawns hours before preying on Trayvon).. just what is your psychological reason for your crusade? Is it not enough to chalk it up to Zimmerman being a dumbass, and Trayvon possibly being hyper aggressive?
|
I'm glad he wasn't convicted. There wasn't enough evidence, no good witnesses, the media was just going on the assumption that the dude was killed unjustly because of race and spun it that way.
Here's the thing that I believe and it's that if the dude is truly guilty then he will commit another crime and soon. The only killers who've only killed one time are in jail because they've been caught.
But yeah, the legal system is what it is and I'd rather a dude not get convicted based on an emotion that a young black man was killed. Young black people die all the time and this just happens to make nation wide news. There is SO much reverse racism in this country it's ridiculous.
Guaranteed Zimmerman would've been convicted if he didn't plead the fifth or if he took the stand. Seriously, if you're innocent, DON'T TALK TO FUCKING COPS THEY WILL MAKE YOU GUILTY. PLEAD THE FIFTH.
|
On July 16 2013 10:39 kmillz wrote:
Apparently Eric Holder thinks that Trayvon's death was "unnecessary" and that he is going to "get to the bottom of this". I'm glad he has his priorities in the right order..
I'm sorry Holder, Zimmerman gave you the least untruthful answer. He didn't wittingly profile Trayvon Martin. Unfortunately he simply forgot about the 911 dispatcher's suggestion and followed Trayvon Martin.
|
On July 16 2013 10:25 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 10:22 crms wrote:On July 16 2013 10:21 Housemd wrote:
Don't think Zimmerman was racist at all. He simply acted on human behavior, not race. As one guy posted earlier, Zimmerman organized a protest with local black people to protest something (can't remember what it was). he also tutored underprivileged kids on the weekends most of whom were black. he also called black people "fucking coons!!!" oh wait, that was back when everyone wanted to paint zimmerman as a racist and they deliberately misrepresented the 911 tapes. and then the FBI investigated him and said there is no evidence of racism despite interviewing like 30 some odd people. glad to see people are still acting like sheep and acting like he is a racist. he isnt winning any awards (except maybe Darwin awards), but i have yet to see anything showing him to be a racist.
Don't worry, plenty of sheep have been won over to the "Zimmerman is not a racist" side, unfortunately many of them still look like sheep to me.
On July 16 2013 10:48 SilentchiLL wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 10:34 Shiori wrote:On July 16 2013 10:25 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 16 2013 10:22 crms wrote:On July 16 2013 10:21 Housemd wrote:
Don't think Zimmerman was racist at all. He simply acted on human behavior, not race. As one guy posted earlier, Zimmerman organized a protest with local black people to protest something (can't remember what it was). he also tutored underprivileged kids on the weekends most of whom were black. he also called black people "fucking coons!!!" oh wait, that was back when everyone wanted to paint zimmerman as a racist and they deliberately misrepresented the 911 tapes. and then the FBI investigated him and said there is no evidence of racism despite interviewing like 30 some odd people. glad to see people are still acting like sheep and acting like he is a racist. he isnt winning any awards (except maybe Darwin awards), but i have yet to see anything showing him to be a racist. Well, I should have noted that it was just my personal opinion. Zimmerman's brother made some pretty racist-sounding remarks on Twitter, and there have been some reports (no idea how true they are) about Zimmerman's old Myspace page surfacing with some questionable remarks on it. Again, I don't think he was some hardcore racist or anything, but in my opinion there's a decent chance that he wasn't exactly a standard bearer for treating all racial groups with respect at all times, either. That said, most people say racial slurs or things that could be construed as racist from time to time (myself included) so I can' make any conclusion on whether Zimmerman actually was racist, only on what I feel to be probably based on my general (and definitely biased) impression of him. You kind of make your own post completely unnecessary with the two bolded parts, if everybody who makes racist remarks once is a rascist then we all are, if you don't think he's a racist because of that your earlier post about him probably being a racist doesn't make much sense. I don't want to be rude, but to me it seems like your accusations of racism have no real ground to stand on, you just said it because he was so often judged as a racist that you stopped questioning it and just kinda accepted that he must be a racist without thinking much about it, which then became your "general impression" of him. It's pretty sad.
How sad that someone can voice an opinion that they are clearly uncertain about without absolute evidence.
|
On July 16 2013 11:08 emc wrote:
I'm glad he wasn't convicted. There wasn't enough evidence, no good witnesses, the media was just going on the assumption that the dude was killed unjustly because of race and spun it that way.
Here's the thing that I believe and it's that if the dude is truly guilty then he will commit another crime and soon. The only killers who've only killed one time are in jail because they've been caught.
But yeah, the legal system is what it is and I'd rather a dude not get convicted based on an emotion that a young black man was killed. Young black people die all the time and this just happens to make nation wide news. There is SO much reverse racism in this country it's ridiculous.
Guaranteed Zimmerman would've been convicted if he didn't plead the fifth or if he took the stand. Seriously, if you're innocent, DON'T TALK TO FUCKING COPS THEY WILL MAKE YOU GUILTY. PLEAD THE FIFTH.
Zimmermann talked to the cops and was very cooperative during the whole process, during the initial investigation. That by all means didn't result in his conviction. If he refused to cooperate, perhaps he would be in a worse position in the trial. Officers that testified said his story made sense and they believed him, that can't possibly have harmed him. Taking the stand is a diferent story, not doing was probally a good move, it wasn't necessary and wouldn't add anything to his defense, but noone can say it would mean his conviction. Well, the prosecution did, but they said a lot of bullshit before, during and after the trial.
|
It irritates me when people assume that because someone is 'slightly racist' they're going to go out of their way to kill someone. If someone was to say something like 'I think black people are uneducated and stupid' that really doesn't imply a complete disregard for the black persons welfare, nor does it make them think black people aren't human.
On that note, there is so much evidence that Zimmerman wasn't racist, or at the very least far less racist then average, that making the assumption that Zimmerman was racist is unbelievable.
|
At first I thought that this satire was aimed at how absurd the law is... but now I think it's actually satirizing all the over-the-top whiners who think he should have obviously been found guilty for no reason other than their instincts.
Oh Onion, how you screw with my head.
|
On July 16 2013 11:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:At first I thought that this satire was aimed at how absurd the law is... but now I think it's actually satirizing all the over-the-top whiners who think he should have obviously been found guilty for no reason other than their instincts. Oh Onion, how you screw with my head.
It seems to be implying that people just don't care about the legal system by which we are supposed to settle these sorts of issues. Instead of accepting the detailed and strict legal process, we completely dismiss it if it doesn't conform to our prejudices. I'd say your latter assessment is probably more accurate.
There are more: http://www.theonion.com/articles/nation-throws-hands-up-tells-black-teenagers-to-do,33125/
|
Wow, MSNBC is going all out on the "Hate Crime" angle. Sharpton was, well he was Sharpton but Maddow opened her show talking about the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act and then followed up with Ben Jealous of the NAACP talking about the amount of signatures they have on their online petition for the DoJ to charge Zimmerman with a hate crime.
In Maddow's defense, she didn't really compare the killing of Martin to Byrd and Shepard, but used it as an explanation as to how federal prosecutors could file charges in the case.
I take back my previous thought that the DoJ wouldn't charge Zimmerman with anything, looks like we're going all mob justice all the time. I do have faith that if charged it'll likely be dismissed, and with no further information coming out about Zimmerman, he'd be acquitted in a trial.
Situations like this are part of the reason I didn't care for "Hate Crime" legislation. The slippery slope sometimes happens.
|
On July 16 2013 11:24 bo1b wrote:
It irritates me when people assume that because someone is 'slightly racist' they're going to go out of their way to kill someone. If someone was to say something like 'I think black people are uneducated and stupid' that really doesn't imply a complete disregard for the black persons welfare, nor does it make them think black people aren't human.
On that note, there is so much evidence that Zimmerman wasn't racist, or at the very least far less racist then average, that making the assumption that Zimmerman was racist is unbelievable.
The only person involved in the case that might be a racist was Trayvon, but the "girlfriend" testimony was mostly impeached, so I don't know if I'd believe he actually called Zimmerman a "cracker".
This is what people get for actually believing *anything* the Major Media actually puts out. Most of it is factually incorrect.
|
|
|
On July 16 2013 10:55 JumboJohnson wrote:
I'm wondering, under stand your ground laws can you start a fight and if you are losing, shoot the person? Can this law be abused in this way?
Edit: I'm just curious what do stand your ground laws actually provide on legal grounds?
If you punch someone and he proceeds to repeatedly smash your face into the concrete full force then yes you can shoot them. I find this hard to abuse but it's theoretically possible just like any law.
|
On July 16 2013 11:56 ey215 wrote:Wow, MSNBC is going all out on the "Hate Crime" angle. Sharpton was, well he was Sharpton but Maddow opened her show talking about the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act and then followed up with Ben Jealous of the NAACP talking about the amount of signatures they have on their online petition for the DoJ to charge Zimmerman with a hate crime. In Maddow's defense, she didn't really compare the killing of Martin to Byrd and Shepard, but used it as an explanation as to how federal prosecutors could file charges in the case. I take back my previous thought that the DoJ wouldn't charge Zimmerman with anything, looks like we're going all mob justice all the time. I do have faith that if charged it'll likely be dismissed, and with no further information coming out about Zimmerman, he'd be acquitted in a trial. Situations like this are part of the reason I didn't care for "Hate Crime" legislation. The slippery slope sometimes happens.
The government watcher in me would like to point out that Holder wouldn't have a problem pushing this case, as he's still trying to keep his own ass out of prison. But the New Black Panther case is a good sign to show that if certain groups push on the DoJ, they will change cases. Plus, the Civil Rights department of the DoJ isn't unknown for their own bigotry. (No joke.)
Since "black on white" crime is far & away more prevalent than "white on black" crime (since that's actually very rare), I wonder how many blacks have had Hate Crime charges brought against them?
That still doesn't get around the fact that Zimmerman's ancestry is Hispanic, white & black, and if his name has been Jorge Gonzales, we wouldn't have even heard about this case.
Oh, lastly, NBC really, really wants to pay out heavy for the defamation suit, doesn't it?
|
On July 16 2013 11:09 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 10:48 SilentchiLL wrote:On July 16 2013 10:34 Shiori wrote:On July 16 2013 10:25 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 16 2013 10:22 crms wrote:On July 16 2013 10:21 Housemd wrote:
Don't think Zimmerman was racist at all. He simply acted on human behavior, not race. As one guy posted earlier, Zimmerman organized a protest with local black people to protest something (can't remember what it was). he also tutored underprivileged kids on the weekends most of whom were black. he also called black people "fucking coons!!!" oh wait, that was back when everyone wanted to paint zimmerman as a racist and they deliberately misrepresented the 911 tapes. and then the FBI investigated him and said there is no evidence of racism despite interviewing like 30 some odd people. glad to see people are still acting like sheep and acting like he is a racist. he isnt winning any awards (except maybe Darwin awards), but i have yet to see anything showing him to be a racist. Well, I should have noted that it was just my personal opinion. Zimmerman's brother made some pretty racist-sounding remarks on Twitter, and there have been some reports (no idea how true they are) about Zimmerman's old Myspace page surfacing with some questionable remarks on it. Again, I don't think he was some hardcore racist or anything, but in my opinion there's a decent chance that he wasn't exactly a standard bearer for treating all racial groups with respect at all times, either. That said, most people say racial slurs or things that could be construed as racist from time to time (myself included) so I can' make any conclusion on whether Zimmerman actually was racist, only on what I feel to be probably based on my general (and definitely biased) impression of him. You kind of make your own post completely unnecessary with the two bolded parts, if everybody who makes racist remarks once is a rascist then we all are, if you don't think he's a racist because of that your earlier post about him probably being a racist doesn't make much sense. I don't want to be rude, but to me it seems like your accusations of racism have no real ground to stand on, you just said it because he was so often judged as a racist that you stopped questioning it and just kinda accepted that he must be a racist without thinking much about it, which then became your "general impression" of him. It's pretty sad. How sad that someone can voice an opinion that they are clearly uncertain about without absolute evidence.
How sad that you can't read the full conversation before trying to upset me and being rude for no reason.
He did write that zimmerman is "probably a racist", I explained where his opinion came from, or atleast where I think it came from.
He hasn't commented on my statement yet, the only post he made above yours actually seems to have confirmed my analysis.
Write what you want, but I do enjoy the irony that you attack me for commenting on his post while you say at the same time that it's okay to post something you have no evidence for (not no absolute evidence, just absolutely no evidence, since he never provided any source and what he mentioned can't be counted, since, as I already mentioned, we'd all be racist if making a racist remark sometimes would make you one).
Sorry Shio, you don't get away nicely in my posts, but you do seem like a nice guy.
|
On July 16 2013 12:22 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 10:55 JumboJohnson wrote:
I'm wondering, under stand your ground laws can you start a fight and if you are losing, shoot the person? Can this law be abused in this way?
Edit: I'm just curious what do stand your ground laws actually provide on legal grounds?
If you punch someone and he proceeds to repeatedly smash your face into the concrete full force then yes you can shoot them. I find this hard to abuse but it's theoretically possible just like any law.
This isn't true, at least not in the US. Basically, if someone is on your property (home, work, even vehicle in some states) and you didn't invite them there, you can kill them, as long as you claim you felt threatened. Generally, this means some sort of break-in scenario. You don't have to be physically assaulted in any way, you just have to "feel" the threat of assault.
Outside of your own property, it varies state to state. Some places have "stand your ground" laws like Florida, that vary in the degree you're allowed to use force in a public place (a place you are lawfully allowed to be in).
CNN has this article which runs down a few cases of different scenarios. None of the shooters in these stories were actually physically hurt (although some suspected imminent threat to their body or life).
Some of these read like the "he's coming right at us" of South Park parody.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/29/us/stand-your-ground
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 16 2013 12:10 Phyrigian wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 10:25 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 16 2013 10:22 crms wrote:On July 16 2013 10:21 Housemd wrote:
Don't think Zimmerman was racist at all. He simply acted on human behavior, not race. As one guy posted earlier, Zimmerman organized a protest with local black people to protest something (can't remember what it was). he also tutored underprivileged kids on the weekends most of whom were black. he also called black people "fucking coons!!!" oh wait, that was back when everyone wanted to paint zimmerman as a racist and they deliberately misrepresented the 911 tapes. and then the FBI investigated him and said there is no evidence of racism despite interviewing like 30 some odd people. glad to see people are still acting like sheep and acting like he is a racist. he isnt winning any awards (except maybe Darwin awards), but i have yet to see anything showing him to be a racist. I was about to write "Wasn't it proven that he said "fucking cold!" not "fucking coons?" " - Then I read the rest of your writing and stopped.
It was "fucking punks" according to Z and to all police involved in the case.
|
On July 16 2013 12:22 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 10:55 JumboJohnson wrote:
I'm wondering, under stand your ground laws can you start a fight and if you are losing, shoot the person? Can this law be abused in this way?
Edit: I'm just curious what do stand your ground laws actually provide on legal grounds?
If you punch someone and he proceeds to repeatedly smash your face into the concrete full force then yes you can shoot them. I find this hard to abuse but it's theoretically possible just like any law.
Yes but that is just regular self-defense.
"Stand Your Ground" laws say basically (minor differences between states) that if you are attacked and feel you are in danger of death or serious bodily injury but there is also the option to retreat, you can "stand your ground" and use lethal force in self-defense lawfully.
Several other states have laws that say if you have the option to retreat, you must try to do that before you can use lethal force. Otherwise it's involuntary manslaughter at the least.
Statistically it doesn't seem to make much of a difference whether a state has "Stand Your Ground" laws or not but when they were passed gun-control advocates (some of them) made dire predictions of Wild-West shootouts if they were passed. Well, gun violence didn't go up after they were passed. It continued slightly downward like it has for a while.
But some people think "Stand Your Ground" gives people too much leeway to lawfully kill another person, and it was a possible defense for Zimmerman. With gun-control advocates wanting guns to be on the front burner again, it became a larger part of the circus around this case than it otherwise would have been.
If you started a fight and then were losing badly and thought you were going to be killed or seriously hurt, you could argue self-defense if you shot who you were fighting with, but not claim that it was a "stand your ground" situation.
|
On July 16 2013 13:04 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2013 12:22 Feartheguru wrote:On July 16 2013 10:55 JumboJohnson wrote:
I'm wondering, under stand your ground laws can you start a fight and if you are losing, shoot the person? Can this law be abused in this way?
Edit: I'm just curious what do stand your ground laws actually provide on legal grounds?
If you punch someone and he proceeds to repeatedly smash your face into the concrete full force then yes you can shoot them. I find this hard to abuse but it's theoretically possible just like any law. Yes but that is just regular self-defense. "Stand Your Ground" laws say basically (minor differences between states) that if you are attacked and feel you are in danger of death or serious bodily injury but there is also the option to retreat, you can "stand your ground" and use lethal force in self-defense lawfully. Several other states have laws that say if you have the option to retreat, you must try to do that before you can use lethal force. Otherwise it's involuntary manslaughter at the least. Statistically it doesn't seem to make much of a difference whether a state has "Stand Your Ground" laws or not but when they were passed gun-control advocates (some of them) made dire predictions of Wild-West shootouts if they were passed. Well, gun violence didn't go up after they were passed. It continued slightly downward like it has for a while. But some people think "Stand Your Ground" gives people too much leeway to lawfully kill another person, and it was a possible defense for Zimmerman. With gun-control advocates wanting guns to be on the front burner again, it became a larger part of the circus around this case than it otherwise would have been. If you started a fight and then were losing badly and thought you were going to be killed or seriously hurt, you could argue self-defense if you shot who you were fighting with, but not claim that it was a "stand your ground" situation.
Most self-defense defenses require that you not be engaged in an illegal activity for it to hold. If you instigate a physical confrontation, even without the intent to kill, you are probably engaging in some form of aggravated assault, thus nullifying any self-defense claim.
Of course, it is what you can convince a jury what was actually happening whether or not you'll get convicted. The problem is a lot of these laws put the burden of proof that it was not self defense on the state. So the state not only has to prove that someone killed a person, but also that it wasn't self defense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
