or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

killing Trayvon - Page 328

post #4906 of 6250
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NameBack View Post

Well the fact is that Martin had a right to be where he was and was doing nothing illegal when Zimmerman begain tailing him and playing deputy. So, I would say that's a fair definition of "innocent."

.

it seems to me that Z had a right to be where he was and doing what he was doing when he got attacked, too.
post #4907 of 6250
Consider that Rachel testified Trayvon thought Zimmerman might have been going after him to rape him. That's what "creepy ass cracka" means, allegedly, in the black community. So when Trayvon started beating on Zimmerman he was committing a hate crime against a person he thought was gay.
post #4908 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post


Jimmy Two Times

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-PHCaf9JnE

I'm gonna get the paper, get the paper!

And now back to Trayvon, Zimmerman, Justice, Racism, and CE
This sort of response to an accidental double post only clarifies your image
post #4909 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post


You can go back and check this thread when it started, before I watched the case develop I even bought into some of the lies. Some of my first posts showed a contempt for Zimmerman, clouded by my own hatred of HOAs and "neighbourhood watch busybodies." But then information started to get out, and rather than people recognize the correct information nearly every verifiable fact of this case was turned around by the media and by CRT proponents as it's gone along. Based on what was presented at trial the state had no business ever filing charges against Zimmerman. CRT progressives had no business blowing this up into a false narrative for their own political purposes. And the President had no business commenting on a local criminal prosecution in some shitty small town in FLA.

Likewise. I bailed on this because of all the hyperbolic media sensationalism and garbage that was being spewed. It was clear that the actual facts were not going to be available until the trial. Once they were made available is when I could say without doubt that this was a clear cut self defense case and NOTHING MORE.
post #4910 of 6250
Thread Starter 
ok, does it seem that perhaps black men should wonder why people are scared of them?

I saw a black man in my local coffee shop today, probably 6 foot 2-3, and I didn't find him scary at all. he was wearing a pair of linen pants, nice shoes and a blue button down shirt.

I don't like to think of myself as a racist, but I will certainly teach my kids to be careful of suspicious people, including profiling. that is common sense.
post #4911 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by NameBack View Post

Well the fact is that Martin had a right to be where he was and was doing nothing illegal when Zimmerman begain tailing him and playing deputy. So, I would say that's a fair definition of "innocent."

Zimmerman's statement that Martin appeared to be loitering and suspiciously looking into peoples' houses was completely uncontradicted.

You wanting to believe otherwise doesn't make it true.
post #4912 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

Consider that Rachel testified Trayvon thought Zimmerman might have been going after him to rape him. That's what "creepy ass cracka" means, allegedly, in the black community. So when Trayvon started beating on Zimmerman he was committing a hate crime against a person he thought was gay.

She also said "cracka" meant a police officer or security guard. Sometimes the truth slips out of her lies, like how she kept saying she felt so guilty about what happened, but could never articulate a reason.

And I know it's speculation, but I bet it's because he told her was going to beat Zimmerman up and she didn't try to talk him out of it. That sure would explain why she didn't come forward, why she kept adding onto her story as she became more confident it couldn't be solidly disproven, etc.
post #4913 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

Well provocation can cause you to lose your self defense claim. There just was no evidence in this case that Zimmerman provoked the other party.

If you are suggesting that Zimmerman was provoking him by his mere presence, then you are really heading down a rabbit hole if you ask me. Any law like that is going to apply to everyone. Presuming juries are racist (and they are; you won't get any argument on that point from me), you have to realize that is going to be used more often against minorities and poor people who can't afford good attorneys. The next generation will be protesting a verdict where a black guy is sent to prison because he "provoked" some white guy with his presence.

I don't think Zimmerman provoked him by his mere presence. I think Zimmerman provoked him by following Martin, even after Martin attempted to flee.

By Zimmerman's own 9-11 call, he followed Martin, lost sight of him, and yet managed to end up in an altercation with Martin a few minutes later right next to Martin's house. To me, this suggests that Martin reasonably attempted to flee what he perceived as a threatening individual. Zimmerman pursued, and Martin felt he had nowhere to go. What reason would he have that Zimmerman would stop pursuing if Martin went inside? So Martin confronted Zimmerman, or vice-versa, and at some point Martin probably used force to defend himself.

Here's the thing--if Martin could be reasonably considered to use self-defense, and Zimmerman could have reasonably considered to use self-defense, it seems that there must be some manner of arbitrating such an event. Personally, I find it compelling evidence that Zimmerman professes to losing sight of Martin on his 9-1-1 call, and yet still ended up outside of his car in a confrontation with Martin three minutes later. What possible need was there for Zimmerman to be outside of his car, except to provoke a confrontation?

Listen, I'm not saying you have to agree with my interpretation of events, but it seems like strong evidence of provocation to me.
post #4914 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by NameBack View Post

My personal opinion on why this case garnered so much outrage and attention is a simple one: in the case of black on black violence, there is a feeling at least that the perpetrators will be punished. Certainly many do indeed go to prison. I think there in fact would be more national outrage and attention, including from non-black people, if there were an epidemic of murderers in the black community going uninvestigated or unconvicted.

Perhaps 30 seconds of googling would give your craftily worded posts more substance.
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/May-2013/Getting-Away-with-Murder/
Quote:
When I asked for the department’s homicide clearance rates over the past five years, a police spokesman provided the following statistics: 56 percent in 2008; 51 percent in 2009, 2010, and 2011; and 37 percent in 2012. The data also showed that 43 of 146 cases (that’s nearly 30 percent) were exceptionally cleared in 2012. But the internal clearance stats provided by a well-placed police source differ markedly: 48 percent in 2008; 44 percent in 2009; 39 percent in 2010; 34 percent in 2011; and, as previously mentioned, 26 percent last year, with 15 exceptionally cleared cases.
post #4915 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

Before you answer, understand that any new criminal law you create will be used disproportionately against blacks. Are you sure you still want to make that behaviour a criminal act?
Maybe for 15 seconds before you could check the statistics on google (as helpfully provided by Ata previously in this thread) which show the opposite. So to an ignorant person, or to a person unwilling to spend 15 seconds to actually check on the matter I suppose you're entitled to your anger and doubt.

What statistics would those be?

This is what I saw:

post #4916 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by NameBack View Post

I don't think Zimmerman provoked him by his mere presence. I think Zimmerman provoked him by following Martin, even after Martin attempted to flee.

By Zimmerman's own 9-11 call, he followed Martin, lost sight of him, and yet managed to end up in an altercation with Martin a few minutes later right next to Martin's house.

No, it was much closer to Zimmerman's car than it was to Martin's house. You don't know anything about this case.
post #4917 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by NameBack View Post

I don't think Zimmerman provoked him by his mere presence. I think Zimmerman provoked him by following Martin, even after Martin attempted to flee.

By Zimmerman's own 9-11 call, he followed Martin, lost sight of him, and yet managed to end up in an altercation with Martin a few minutes later right next to Martin's house. To me, this suggests that Martin reasonably attempted to flee what he perceived as a threatening individual. Zimmerman pursued, and Martin felt he had nowhere to go. What reason would he have that Zimmerman would stop pursuing if Martin went inside? So Martin confronted Zimmerman, or vice-versa, and at some point Martin probably used force to defend himself.

Here's the thing--if Martin could be reasonably considered to use self-defense, and Zimmerman could have reasonably considered to use self-defense, it seems that there must be some manner of arbitrating such an event. Personally, I find it compelling evidence that Zimmerman professes to losing sight of Martin on his 9-1-1 call, and yet still ended up outside of his car in a confrontation with Martin three minutes later. What possible need was there for Zimmerman to be outside of his car, except to provoke a confrontation?

Listen, I'm not saying you have to agree with my interpretation of events, but it seems like strong evidence of provocation to me.

Your "interpretation" of events are not what happened. That's the problem here.
post #4918 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

No, it was much closer to Zimmerman's car than it was to Martin's house. You don't know anything about this case.

70 yards from Martin's house is within eyesight.

edit: which is inconsistent with Zimmerman tailing Martin, getting out of the car, tailing him further, and then losing sight of him. Meaning that Zimmerman followed Martin after hanging up with 9-1-1
post #4919 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by NameBack View Post

70 yards from Martin's house is within eyesight.

So is a block, a half mile or for that matter a mile. What's your point?
post #4920 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by NameBack View Post

By Zimmerman's own 9-11 call, he followed Martin, lost sight of him, and yet managed to end up in an altercation with Martin a few minutes later right next to Martin's house.

Again, Google is your friend here.
http://www.hlntv.com/interactive/2013/06/17/zimmerman-trayvon-map-interactive

I suppose this critique depends on your definition of "right next to." Perhaps ours differ.


If anything, you should be wondering why GZ had to get out of his truck in the first place to look for a street sign. He lives nearby. He supposedly watches the neighborhood. Why didn't he know the names of the streets?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon