|
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 17 2013 13:21 MarlieChurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 13:04 Taf the Ghost wrote:On July 17 2013 13:00 MarlieChurphy wrote:
I have been seeing a lot of outcry about this being outcried upon. Basically, people (including other black people) are saying this is retarded to get angry about when there is hugely more of a problem of black on black crime. Someone qouted a stat of like 2k blacks killed by blacks since trayvon died. Regardless if this is true, I am now curious:
I'm curious on the stats of all murders now. Like race, culture, location, sex, poverty level, belief system, and same stats for those in prisons. It would be the most interesting fact to point out of more black on black deaths vs white on black deaths. And not just white vs black, all ethnicities.
Anyone know? I know the analysis is out there, but you could use the raw FBI stats. But "White on Black" crime is the rarest. Yea some guy quoted me it on a KPCC FB article: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl06.xlsWith his breakdown added: Show nested quote +
Of 2010 single-victim/single-perpetrator murders:
13.4% of white murder victims were murdered by black perpetrators.
8.0% of black murder victims were murdered by white perpetrators.
When you account for population percentage differences this is especially troubling: Black or African American are 12.6% of the population whole White or European American are 72.4%.
Reality is politically incorrect.
So 92.0% of all black murder victims were murdered by black perpetrators.
I would like to see the number of black murder victims that were murdered by white-hispanic neighborhood watch volunteers. It must be some outrageous number to get all these people, politicians, celebs, sports people etc all riled up needing justice.
edit: I looked it up, and the number is shocking. There has been 1 black murder victim that was murdered by a white-Hispanic neighborhood watch volunteer, ever.
|
On July 17 2013 13:47 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 13:38 Blennd wrote:On July 17 2013 10:29 dAPhREAk wrote:
its interesting how the jurors considered the exact same things discussed in this thread (over and over and over and over again) about how zimmerman could have avoided the situation by not getting out of his car and that they felt zimmerman was stupid in what he did, but ultimately didnt do anything illegal. I think it's more interesting how you can't seem to fathom that some people have a code of ethics or morality that exists independently of the law, and that that code might be interesting to discuss. The thread is called the shooting of trayvon martin, not the trial of george zimmerman under the legal system of the United States of America in the state of florida in 2013, as you seem to think it is. yes, you called me out. i have no concept that there are ethics and morals outside the legal system. phew. glad someone finally confronted me on that.
Well? You are getting really angry that people are talking about it so...
|
On July 17 2013 13:52 Blennd wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 13:47 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 17 2013 13:38 Blennd wrote:On July 17 2013 10:29 dAPhREAk wrote:
its interesting how the jurors considered the exact same things discussed in this thread (over and over and over and over again) about how zimmerman could have avoided the situation by not getting out of his car and that they felt zimmerman was stupid in what he did, but ultimately didnt do anything illegal. I think it's more interesting how you can't seem to fathom that some people have a code of ethics or morality that exists independently of the law, and that that code might be interesting to discuss. The thread is called the shooting of trayvon martin, not the trial of george zimmerman under the legal system of the United States of America in the state of florida in 2013, as you seem to think it is. yes, you called me out. i have no concept that there are ethics and morals outside the legal system. phew. glad someone finally confronted me on that. Well? You are getting really angry that people are talking about it so...
i have no idea what you are talking about.
|
On July 17 2013 13:54 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 13:52 Blennd wrote:On July 17 2013 13:47 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 17 2013 13:38 Blennd wrote:On July 17 2013 10:29 dAPhREAk wrote:
its interesting how the jurors considered the exact same things discussed in this thread (over and over and over and over again) about how zimmerman could have avoided the situation by not getting out of his car and that they felt zimmerman was stupid in what he did, but ultimately didnt do anything illegal. I think it's more interesting how you can't seem to fathom that some people have a code of ethics or morality that exists independently of the law, and that that code might be interesting to discuss. The thread is called the shooting of trayvon martin, not the trial of george zimmerman under the legal system of the United States of America in the state of florida in 2013, as you seem to think it is. yes, you called me out. i have no concept that there are ethics and morals outside the legal system. phew. glad someone finally confronted me on that. Well? You are getting really angry that people are talking about it so... i have no idea what you are talking about.
What is the point of the post that I quoted? You specifically state that jurors considered what people are discussing in the thread and determined that Zim didn't do anything illegal. Why would you post that? Was it not to imply that discussion of Zimmerman's actions was irrelevant because the legal system has already judged them? If not, who are you arguing against? Who in the thread is saying that the legal system has made a mistake under its current rules and jurors acting properly actually should have determined that Zimmerman's decisions to get out of his car and pursue Trayvon are in fact illegal under current Florida law? Or are you just musing randomly? Doesn't seem so since you specifically state "discussed in this thread".
|
On July 17 2013 14:02 Blennd wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 13:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 17 2013 13:52 Blennd wrote:On July 17 2013 13:47 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 17 2013 13:38 Blennd wrote:On July 17 2013 10:29 dAPhREAk wrote:
its interesting how the jurors considered the exact same things discussed in this thread (over and over and over and over again) about how zimmerman could have avoided the situation by not getting out of his car and that they felt zimmerman was stupid in what he did, but ultimately didnt do anything illegal. I think it's more interesting how you can't seem to fathom that some people have a code of ethics or morality that exists independently of the law, and that that code might be interesting to discuss. The thread is called the shooting of trayvon martin, not the trial of george zimmerman under the legal system of the United States of America in the state of florida in 2013, as you seem to think it is. yes, you called me out. i have no concept that there are ethics and morals outside the legal system. phew. glad someone finally confronted me on that. Well? You are getting really angry that people are talking about it so... i have no idea what you are talking about. What is the point of the post that I quoted? You specifically state that jurors considered what people are discussing in the thread and determined that Zim didn't do anything illegal. Why would you post that? Was it not to imply that discussion of Zimmerman's actions was irrelevant because the legal system has already judged them? If not, who are you arguing against? Who in the thread is saying that the legal system has made a mistake under its current rules and jurors acting properly actually should have determined that Zimmerman's decisions to get out of his car and pursue Trayvon are in fact illegal under current Florida law? Or are you just musing randomly? Doesn't seem so since you specifically state "discussed in this thread".
you need to take a chill pill. my post was discussing the news article i posted immediately prior to the post you are referring to. i was remarking how the discussions in this thread were the exact same discussions that happened in the jury room to show that the jury considered the same issues important. people were concerned that the jurors would go off on a tangent and make decisions on irrelevant bases and not really consider the evidence, but in fact they were discussing the same things we were. the news article gave us an interesting glimpse into the jury deliberations.
your assumptions about my post are incredibly misguided and weird.
|
The reactions I see from this case really make me think that the worth of a black person's life is solely based on the colour of who killed him. A couple of years ago a black kid who had to be younger than 10 was shot in the head at a 7-11 by another black man down the street from my house and not one fuck was given.
|
On July 17 2013 13:48 Dosey wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 13:38 Blennd wrote:On July 17 2013 10:29 dAPhREAk wrote:
its interesting how the jurors considered the exact same things discussed in this thread (over and over and over and over again) about how zimmerman could have avoided the situation by not getting out of his car and that they felt zimmerman was stupid in what he did, but ultimately didnt do anything illegal. I think it's more interesting how you can't seem to fathom that some people have a code of ethics or morality that exists independently of the law, and that that code might be interesting to discuss. The thread is called the shooting of trayvon martin, not the trial of george zimmerman under the legal system of the United States of America in the state of florida in 2013, as you seem to think it is. I would really be more morally outraged if TM turned out to be a burglar and killed one of GZ's neighbors while committing a crime all because GZ ignored TM and went on his merry way to Target. It is not morally wrong to track a suspicious character in a neighborhood that has been harassed by suspicious characters. I would actually call someone like that brave.It is not morally wrong to carry a firearm, especially when you know there are dangerous people wandering about. I would actually call someone like that smart.It is not morally wrong to shoot some hyper-aggressive teenager who attacks you because you were following him and only shooting him after having screamed for help for damn near a minute and receiving none. I would actually call someone like that restrained and worthy of carrying a firearm.I'm having trouble trying to figure out where this moral outrage is coming from...?
Trayvon was not a suspicious character. It is morally wrong to stalk random people that you don't recognize that are walking through your neighborhood, disobey direct instructions from people who are experts in avoiding conflict escalation, and initiate a conflict that you have no other way of ending except by lethal force. I would call someone who does that an extremely reckless and irresponsible person.
|
On July 17 2013 14:06 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 14:02 Blennd wrote:On July 17 2013 13:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 17 2013 13:52 Blennd wrote:On July 17 2013 13:47 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 17 2013 13:38 Blennd wrote:On July 17 2013 10:29 dAPhREAk wrote:
its interesting how the jurors considered the exact same things discussed in this thread (over and over and over and over again) about how zimmerman could have avoided the situation by not getting out of his car and that they felt zimmerman was stupid in what he did, but ultimately didnt do anything illegal. I think it's more interesting how you can't seem to fathom that some people have a code of ethics or morality that exists independently of the law, and that that code might be interesting to discuss. The thread is called the shooting of trayvon martin, not the trial of george zimmerman under the legal system of the United States of America in the state of florida in 2013, as you seem to think it is. yes, you called me out. i have no concept that there are ethics and morals outside the legal system. phew. glad someone finally confronted me on that. Well? You are getting really angry that people are talking about it so... i have no idea what you are talking about. What is the point of the post that I quoted? You specifically state that jurors considered what people are discussing in the thread and determined that Zim didn't do anything illegal. Why would you post that? Was it not to imply that discussion of Zimmerman's actions was irrelevant because the legal system has already judged them? If not, who are you arguing against? Who in the thread is saying that the legal system has made a mistake under its current rules and jurors acting properly actually should have determined that Zimmerman's decisions to get out of his car and pursue Trayvon are in fact illegal under current Florida law? Or are you just musing randomly? Doesn't seem so since you specifically state "discussed in this thread". you need to take a chill pill. my post was discussing the news article i posted immediately prior to the post you are referring to. i was remarking how the discussions in this thread were the exact same discussions that happened in the jury room to show that the jury considered the same issues important. people were concerned that the jurors would go off on a tangent and make decisions on irrelevant bases and not really consider the evidence, but in fact they were discussing the same things we were. the news article gave us an interesting glimpse into the jury deliberations. your assumptions about my post are incredibly misguided and weird.
What assumptions? I was asking you questions. And how are you getting the vibe that I am in some way not chill? Methinks perhaps it is you who needs to consult Dr. Calm and get a prescription.
|
On July 17 2013 14:15 Blennd wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 13:48 Dosey wrote:On July 17 2013 13:38 Blennd wrote:On July 17 2013 10:29 dAPhREAk wrote:
its interesting how the jurors considered the exact same things discussed in this thread (over and over and over and over again) about how zimmerman could have avoided the situation by not getting out of his car and that they felt zimmerman was stupid in what he did, but ultimately didnt do anything illegal. I think it's more interesting how you can't seem to fathom that some people have a code of ethics or morality that exists independently of the law, and that that code might be interesting to discuss. The thread is called the shooting of trayvon martin, not the trial of george zimmerman under the legal system of the United States of America in the state of florida in 2013, as you seem to think it is. I would really be more morally outraged if TM turned out to be a burglar and killed one of GZ's neighbors while committing a crime all because GZ ignored TM and went on his merry way to Target. It is not morally wrong to track a suspicious character in a neighborhood that has been harassed by suspicious characters. I would actually call someone like that brave.It is not morally wrong to carry a firearm, especially when you know there are dangerous people wandering about. I would actually call someone like that smart.It is not morally wrong to shoot some hyper-aggressive teenager who attacks you because you were following him and only shooting him after having screamed for help for damn near a minute and receiving none. I would actually call someone like that restrained and worthy of carrying a firearm.I'm having trouble trying to figure out where this moral outrage is coming from...? Trayvon was not a suspicious character. It is morally wrong to stalk random people that you don't recognize that are walking through your neighborhood, disobey direct instructions from people who are experts in avoiding conflict escalation, and initiate a conflict that you have no other way of ending except by lethal force. I would call someone who does that an extremely reckless and irresponsible person.
Literally everything you said is false. Trayvon was suspicious. Stalking is a term used when following somebody for extended periods of times, not as briefly as in this case. There is no evidence he initiated the conflict either. You have been effectively duped by the media.
|
On July 17 2013 14:15 Blennd wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 13:48 Dosey wrote:On July 17 2013 13:38 Blennd wrote:On July 17 2013 10:29 dAPhREAk wrote:
its interesting how the jurors considered the exact same things discussed in this thread (over and over and over and over again) about how zimmerman could have avoided the situation by not getting out of his car and that they felt zimmerman was stupid in what he did, but ultimately didnt do anything illegal. I think it's more interesting how you can't seem to fathom that some people have a code of ethics or morality that exists independently of the law, and that that code might be interesting to discuss. The thread is called the shooting of trayvon martin, not the trial of george zimmerman under the legal system of the United States of America in the state of florida in 2013, as you seem to think it is. I would really be more morally outraged if TM turned out to be a burglar and killed one of GZ's neighbors while committing a crime all because GZ ignored TM and went on his merry way to Target. It is not morally wrong to track a suspicious character in a neighborhood that has been harassed by suspicious characters. I would actually call someone like that brave.It is not morally wrong to carry a firearm, especially when you know there are dangerous people wandering about. I would actually call someone like that smart.It is not morally wrong to shoot some hyper-aggressive teenager who attacks you because you were following him and only shooting him after having screamed for help for damn near a minute and receiving none. I would actually call someone like that restrained and worthy of carrying a firearm.I'm having trouble trying to figure out where this moral outrage is coming from...? Trayvon was not a suspicious character. It is morally wrong to stalk random people that you don't recognize that are walking through your neighborhood, disobey direct instructions from people who are experts in avoiding conflict escalation, and initiate a conflict that you have no other way of ending except by lethal force. I would call someone who does that an extremely reckless and irresponsible person.
How the F could you POSSIBLY know this?
The amount of people who pretend they know the people involved in this is preposterous, and extremely depressing. I work on cases like this daily, and even when I'm the attorney of record I can barely get an understanding of the personalities involved to make a moral judgment (should I want to). The fact that you think by watching a few hours of news reports you know enough about their personalities to make a judgment is just ridiculous.
I call people like you arrogantly uniformed and snobbishly judgmental assholes.
|
On July 17 2013 14:16 Blennd wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 14:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 17 2013 14:02 Blennd wrote:On July 17 2013 13:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 17 2013 13:52 Blennd wrote:On July 17 2013 13:47 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 17 2013 13:38 Blennd wrote:On July 17 2013 10:29 dAPhREAk wrote:
its interesting how the jurors considered the exact same things discussed in this thread (over and over and over and over again) about how zimmerman could have avoided the situation by not getting out of his car and that they felt zimmerman was stupid in what he did, but ultimately didnt do anything illegal. I think it's more interesting how you can't seem to fathom that some people have a code of ethics or morality that exists independently of the law, and that that code might be interesting to discuss. The thread is called the shooting of trayvon martin, not the trial of george zimmerman under the legal system of the United States of America in the state of florida in 2013, as you seem to think it is. yes, you called me out. i have no concept that there are ethics and morals outside the legal system. phew. glad someone finally confronted me on that. Well? You are getting really angry that people are talking about it so... i have no idea what you are talking about. What is the point of the post that I quoted? You specifically state that jurors considered what people are discussing in the thread and determined that Zim didn't do anything illegal. Why would you post that? Was it not to imply that discussion of Zimmerman's actions was irrelevant because the legal system has already judged them? If not, who are you arguing against? Who in the thread is saying that the legal system has made a mistake under its current rules and jurors acting properly actually should have determined that Zimmerman's decisions to get out of his car and pursue Trayvon are in fact illegal under current Florida law? Or are you just musing randomly? Doesn't seem so since you specifically state "discussed in this thread". you need to take a chill pill. my post was discussing the news article i posted immediately prior to the post you are referring to. i was remarking how the discussions in this thread were the exact same discussions that happened in the jury room to show that the jury considered the same issues important. people were concerned that the jurors would go off on a tangent and make decisions on irrelevant bases and not really consider the evidence, but in fact they were discussing the same things we were. the news article gave us an interesting glimpse into the jury deliberations. your assumptions about my post are incredibly misguided and weird. What assumptions? I was asking you questions. And how are you getting the vibe that I am in some way not chill? Methinks perhaps it is you who needs to consult Dr. Calm and get a prescription.
LOL please tell me this is some failed attempt at trolling...
|
On July 17 2013 14:12 yokohama wrote:
The reactions I see from this case really make me think that the worth of a black person's life is solely based on the colour of who killed him. A couple of years ago a black kid who had to be younger than 10 was shot in the head at a 7-11 by another black man down the street from my house and not one fuck was given.
Quite honeslty, though it's aweful. This is totally true. I live in a city where the nightly news has its choice of awful murders. Honestly, it only matter if a black kid is killed by a white guy or a white guy is killed by a black guy; stirring up racial issues sells the news hard.
|
On July 17 2013 14:16 Blennd wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 14:06 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 17 2013 14:02 Blennd wrote:On July 17 2013 13:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 17 2013 13:52 Blennd wrote:On July 17 2013 13:47 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 17 2013 13:38 Blennd wrote:On July 17 2013 10:29 dAPhREAk wrote:
its interesting how the jurors considered the exact same things discussed in this thread (over and over and over and over again) about how zimmerman could have avoided the situation by not getting out of his car and that they felt zimmerman was stupid in what he did, but ultimately didnt do anything illegal. I think it's more interesting how you can't seem to fathom that some people have a code of ethics or morality that exists independently of the law, and that that code might be interesting to discuss. The thread is called the shooting of trayvon martin, not the trial of george zimmerman under the legal system of the United States of America in the state of florida in 2013, as you seem to think it is. yes, you called me out. i have no concept that there are ethics and morals outside the legal system. phew. glad someone finally confronted me on that. Well? You are getting really angry that people are talking about it so... i have no idea what you are talking about. What is the point of the post that I quoted? You specifically state that jurors considered what people are discussing in the thread and determined that Zim didn't do anything illegal. Why would you post that? Was it not to imply that discussion of Zimmerman's actions was irrelevant because the legal system has already judged them? If not, who are you arguing against? Who in the thread is saying that the legal system has made a mistake under its current rules and jurors acting properly actually should have determined that Zimmerman's decisions to get out of his car and pursue Trayvon are in fact illegal under current Florida law? Or are you just musing randomly? Doesn't seem so since you specifically state "discussed in this thread". you need to take a chill pill. my post was discussing the news article i posted immediately prior to the post you are referring to. i was remarking how the discussions in this thread were the exact same discussions that happened in the jury room to show that the jury considered the same issues important. people were concerned that the jurors would go off on a tangent and make decisions on irrelevant bases and not really consider the evidence, but in fact they were discussing the same things we were. the news article gave us an interesting glimpse into the jury deliberations. your assumptions about my post are incredibly misguided and weird. What assumptions? I was asking you questions. And how are you getting the vibe that I am in some way not chill? Methinks perhaps it is you who needs to consult Dr. Calm and get a prescription.
On July 17 2013 14:02 Blennd wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 13:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 17 2013 13:52 Blennd wrote:On July 17 2013 13:47 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 17 2013 13:38 Blennd wrote:On July 17 2013 10:29 dAPhREAk wrote:
its interesting how the jurors considered the exact same things discussed in this thread (over and over and over and over again) about how zimmerman could have avoided the situation by not getting out of his car and that they felt zimmerman was stupid in what he did, but ultimately didnt do anything illegal. I think it's more interesting how you can't seem to fathom that some people have a code of ethics or morality that exists independently of the law, and that that code might be interesting to discuss. The thread is called the shooting of trayvon martin, not the trial of george zimmerman under the legal system of the United States of America in the state of florida in 2013, as you seem to think it is. yes, you called me out. i have no concept that there are ethics and morals outside the legal system. phew. glad someone finally confronted me on that. Well? You are getting really angry that people are talking about it so... i have no idea what you are talking about. What is the point of the post that I quoted? You specifically state that jurors considered what people are discussing in the thread and determined that Zim didn't do anything illegal. Why would you post that? Was it not to imply that discussion of Zimmerman's actions was irrelevant because the legal system has already judged them? If not, who are you arguing against? Who in the thread is saying that the legal system has made a mistake under its current rules and jurors acting properly actually should have determined that Zimmerman's decisions to get out of his car and pursue Trayvon are in fact illegal under current Florida law? Or are you just musing randomly? Doesn't seem so since you specifically state "discussed in this thread".
Why does it seem like you're flamebaiting? How many awkward implication-laden questions do you have to ask before you may consider yourself guilty of nothing but innocuous question-posing?* I was going to bold the genuinely puzzling set of apparently hypocritical assumptions you're passing off as questions, but I gave up because I realized I was bolding almost the entire post, now isn't that funny? How long and convoluted can someone make a question before it just gets way too unwieldy (but awkward) for everybody involved to have to think through the needlessly dense, quasi-run-on query posed by the poster before it just gets absolutely ridiculous???
Not assuming anything, just asking you some questions =)
*6, apparently
|
On July 17 2013 13:50 dotHead wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 13:21 MarlieChurphy wrote:On July 17 2013 13:04 Taf the Ghost wrote:On July 17 2013 13:00 MarlieChurphy wrote:
I have been seeing a lot of outcry about this being outcried upon. Basically, people (including other black people) are saying this is retarded to get angry about when there is hugely more of a problem of black on black crime. Someone qouted a stat of like 2k blacks killed by blacks since trayvon died. Regardless if this is true, I am now curious:
I'm curious on the stats of all murders now. Like race, culture, location, sex, poverty level, belief system, and same stats for those in prisons. It would be the most interesting fact to point out of more black on black deaths vs white on black deaths. And not just white vs black, all ethnicities.
Anyone know? I know the analysis is out there, but you could use the raw FBI stats. But "White on Black" crime is the rarest. Yea some guy quoted me it on a KPCC FB article: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl06.xlsWith his breakdown added:
Of 2010 single-victim/single-perpetrator murders:
13.4% of white murder victims were murdered by black perpetrators.
8.0% of black murder victims were murdered by white perpetrators.
When you account for population percentage differences this is especially troubling: Black or African American are 12.6% of the population whole White or European American are 72.4%.
Reality is politically incorrect.
So 92.0% of all black murder victims were murdered by black perpetrators. I would like to see the number of black murder victims that were murdered by white-hispanic neighborhood watch volunteers. It must be some outrageous number to get all these people, politicians, celebs, sports people etc all riled up needing justice. edit: I looked it up, and the number is shocking. There has been 1 black murder victim that was murdered by a white-Hispanic neighborhood watch volunteer, ever.
The right number would be 90% of black victims murdered by black perpetrators. Isn't it time for a quota or something, race equality in murder rates please!
|
Even though he won the court case most feel as though he did not act in a professional/proper way and him killing another human being (using excessive force, mind you) that was doing nothing wrong at the time is looked down upon by most and George is going to end up living a shitty life like the lady that neglected her child and got away with it last year.
People seem to get all worked up when people like George get acquitted even though he murdered someone but they forget that the guy now needs to wear a vest whenever he goes out, millions hate him, and his life is pretty much fucked due to those reasons alone.
He also has civil cases going against him and he will have to live with killing someone for the rest of his life.
This my friends, is what is known as bad karma. He's karma fucked just like OJ, and the lady that got aquited last year.
Only a fool would think that they got let off the hook and now are "free".....how "free" can you be knowing that you killed a young kid, have civil cases coming your way, need to wear a bullet proof vest, and millions hate you and riots have been started over your "doings" and you need to hide away?
I think that he should have listed to the dispatcher, nobody would have gotten hurt and I would be fraked out as well if some guy was following me late at night.
In the least Goerge should have a uniform on stating that he's neighborhood watch and he should have yelled something along the lines of "stop where you are, I'm neighborhood watch and police are on the way" and I doubt the kid would have fought Goerge.
I think that it's BS that people that are in neighborhood watch can carry a gun, I mean even msot security do not have a gun what the hell is a random guy doing with a gun? Especially a guy that is not a police officer, has no uniform, and doesn't listen to basic instructions from a dispatcher.
I think that all neighborhood watch should be stripped from their guns and given tazer guns as a replacement a long with pepper spray.
The fact that George had a gun and sucked ass at defending himself (they should be qualified in defense/withholding people as well), didn't listen to the dispatcher, and was just allowed to shoot someone is BS.
But in the end the verdict does not manner as the people found him guilty and now his life will never be the same just like his attorney's said. It is also BS that he did not apologize to the kids mother/father or show any signs of remorse. Reminds me of Casey Anthony.
He didn't cry or anything, he was only concerned with himself.
Personally I also think that the people that heard him screaming should be prosecuted as well. In Germany if you hear/see someone getting beat like that you have to help or else your ass goes to jail. I know that if I heard a man yelling for help outside I'd be right out the door to help break it up.
The fact that these people did NOTHING is disgusting.
|
Here is my 2 cents, while i dont believe GZ guilty of murder i do think he should of got charged for manslaughter.
He has no training in threat diffusion and little to no knowledge in less then lethal force, and if anything i think they said he was out of shape. He put himself in a situation where the only option he had was to use lethal force when it never needed to get there. He basically put himself in the role of being a police officer with out any of the training need to handle a situation like that. While no one know the future i can be almost certain that if a trained professional, say an actual law enforcement officer handled the situation it would never of gotten as bad as what happened.
Maybe there is some facet of Florida law that i dont know about but what GZ did seems to fit Criminally negligent manslaughter. "It occurs where death results from serious negligence, or, in some jurisdictions, serious recklessness".
|
On July 17 2013 15:31 SjPhotoGrapher wrote:
Even though he won the court case most feel as though he did not act in a professional/proper way and him killing another human being (using excessive force, mind you) that was doing nothing wrong at the time is looked down upon by most and George is going to end up living a shitty life like the lady that neglected her child and got away with it last year.
People seem to get all worked up when people like George get acquitted even though he murdered someone but they forget that the guy now needs to wear a vest whenever he goes out, millions hate him, and his life is pretty much fucked due to those reasons alone.
He also has civil cases going against him and he will have to live with killing someone for the rest of his life.
This my friends, is what is known as bad karma. He's karma fucked just like OJ, and the lady that got aquited last year.
Only a fool would think that they got let off the hook and now are "free".....how "free" can you be knowing that you killed a young kid, have civil cases coming your way, need to wear a bullet proof vest, and millions hate you and riots have been started over your "doings" and you need to hide away?
I think that he should have listed to the dispatcher, nobody would have gotten hurt and I would be fraked out as well if some guy was following me late at night.
In the least Goerge should have a uniform on stating that he's neighborhood watch and he should have yelled something along the lines of "stop where you are, I'm neighborhood watch and police are on the way" and I doubt the kid would have fought Goerge.
I think that it's BS that people that are in neighborhood watch can carry a gun, I mean even msot security do not have a gun what the hell is a random guy doing with a gun? Especially a guy that is not a police officer, has no uniform, and doesn't listen to basic instructions from a dispatcher.
I think that all neighborhood watch should be stripped from their guns and given tazer guns as a replacement a long with pepper spray.
The fact that George had a gun and sucked ass at defending himself (they should be qualified in defense/withholding people as well), didn't listen to the dispatcher, and was just allowed to shoot someone is BS.
But in the end the verdict does not manner as the people found him guilty and now his life will never be the same just like his attorney's said. It is also BS that he did not apologize to the kids mother/father or show any signs of remorse. Reminds me of Casey Anthony.
He didn't cry or anything, he was only concerned with himself.
Personally I also think that the people that heard him screaming should be prosecuted as well. In Germany if you hear/see someone getting beat like that you have to help or else your ass goes to jail. I know that if I heard a man yelling for help outside I'd be right out the door to help break it up.
The fact that these people did NOTHING is disgusting.
he apologized to the family more than a year ago. needless to say, they took the apology and threw it back in his face calling it disingenuous (not too surprising since words are cheap). as for what he did after the trial, you really cant blame him for being happy that he isnt going to spend the rest of his life in prison. it would be ridiculous to expect him to apologize to the family after being acquitted...
|
On July 17 2013 14:30 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2013 14:12 yokohama wrote:
The reactions I see from this case really make me think that the worth of a black person's life is solely based on the colour of who killed him. A couple of years ago a black kid who had to be younger than 10 was shot in the head at a 7-11 by another black man down the street from my house and not one fuck was given. Quite honeslty, though it's aweful. This is totally true. I live in a city where the nightly news has its choice of awful murders. Honestly, it only matter if a black kid is killed by a white guy or a white guy is killed by a black guy; stirring up racial issues sells the news hard.
A young black boy killed by another black is a statistic. Any black killed by a "white" is a prop. The Al Sharptons of the world are evil, evil people. They care only about themselves and their own power, and they'll destroy anyone that's useful to destroy. And it now looks like a Hispanic guy in Maryland was beaten because Zimmerman was properly found not guilty.
But they'll go on doing this stuff. Zimmerman got crucified because they could claim he was "white" and it was an election year, and they needed black turn out, especially in Florida. It'll be someone else in 2014 and again in 2016. All the while they'll claim we need to "talk about race in this country" and other such platitudes, yet solid ideas to actually address, fix or change the environments that allow these situations to brew will be completely ignored.
This is part of the nature of our now Media-infused societies. The "story" is more important than the facts; the "narrative" more important than reality. And damn anyone caught in the middle, for you will be destroyed. Unless you're the "right" race for the incident or know the "right" people to sweep it under a rug.
|
Baltimore, USA22253 Posts
Locking. This thread has run it's course, and the same points of view are being repeated ad nauseum. If you want to continue any specific threads of conversation, please PM the user.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
