Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

In my foreign land, murder is OKFollow

#152 Mar 23 2012 at 6:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Gbaji would fit right in with the 50s, where after murdering a black man for whistling at a white woman he'd blame the victim & find it appropriate the white men were acquitted.

Those were the glory days of his ilk.

Edited, Mar 23rd 2012 8:08am by Omegavegeta
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#153 Mar 23 2012 at 6:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,174 posts
You know, a new study out of Notre Dame demonstrates that to a person who is holding a gun, innocuous objects other people are holding also look like guns.

I've never seen anyone pretzel so hard in order to blame the victim. You can stand down, Gbaji. No one's claiming they were raped, here.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#154 Mar 23 2012 at 6:59 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,369 posts
... got in one little fight, and my mom got scared ...

Smiley: motz
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#155 Mar 23 2012 at 7:23 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
5,601 posts
Race and legal issues aside, he shot and killed an unarmed teenager. Zimmerman may not get arrested for it, but he is in no way getting out of this scot free. His face is all over the internet, and people are no doubt looking for him with the intention of inflicting grief and bodily harm.
____________________________
my Tumblr
Pixelmon Server Info
#156 Mar 23 2012 at 7:23 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
In a moment of levity, I'm having fun scanning the comments section of The Blaze article where Allen West came out fully in support of the investigation and a trial for Zimmerman.


For a moment, I pondered "wtf does Batman have to do with this?" Then I realized you said Allen.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#157 Mar 23 2012 at 5:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,442 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
And if all he did was approach, this would be a very different conversation.


And yet, despite the fact that this is all he did, we're having the conversation we're having. Strange, isn't it?

Quote:
Slowly tailing someone while they walk home in the dark, with your headlights blaring, is a very, very different monster.


Is it? How much? You have no freaking idea to what degree Zimmerman "trailed him" with his car. The only actual facts we have about that stage of the events that night come from the call Zimmerman made. It's quite clear in that call that he's sitting in his stationary car reporting someone walking down the street. He speaks about him "coming toward me". Then confirms that the subject is a black male (because he walked close enough for him to see clearly, presumably). Then he reports that "he's running", leaves the car and follows.

That's it. What's happening is that you've adopted the assumption that Martin was 100% innocent, and Zimmerman 100% guilty and are filling in gaps of the story with information that makes that assumption seem stronger. All I'm asking is that you stop filling in gaps, stop making assumptions, and just look at the facts we know. I mean "headlights blaring"? Really? You don't realize you're using language designed to alter the perception of the event? How exactly do headlights "blare" in your world?


Quote:
And if you would get off your white male privilege horse for a second, maybe you could tune in to how most people would feel in that situation.


And there's the insertion of race into the issue (again, since I"m apparently now a racist for not ignoring the facts of a case and joining a mob acting almost solely on the race and age of the two men). What does this have to do with anything? The fact is that the concerns Martin had about Zimmerman were all in his head (just like much of the crazy theories floating around about this). He overreacted. Had he just walked home like a normal person, nothing would have happened. It was Martin's bizarre assumption that a guy in a car must be a threat to him, which required him to run that set up this whole situation.

We don't know who initiated the physical confrontation. But in the absence of any evidence, you can't just assume that Zimmerman did.


And you're also still ignoring huge amounts of information about this case that all supports Zimmerman's side of the story. It's only the selected bits being reported by a couple witnesses after the fact (who didn't see any of the conflict), and the claims of Martin's family, coupled with cries of racism, hate crimes, etc that create this perception you're reacting to. Look at the facts objectively. There's a reason why cops take statements from witnesses as soon after an event as possible. People's perceptions and assumptions about an even change over time. This is a classic example. When we have a witness saying that there was a guy wearing a white shirt straddling Martin and beating him, while Martin screamed for help, but we know that it was Martin wearing a white(ish) top, and Zimmerman wearing red, we're seeing this in action. That witness has adopted the assumption that it was Zimmerman beating Martin, and thus named the person on the ground being beat Martin. But his own statement proves that it was the other way around.


This is how assumptions taint the story over time. When we ignore people's labels and look just at what they actually saw or heard, it's clear that Martin was the aggressor (at least during the entire time period that anyone witnessed any of this). This fact was corroborated by at least 3 different eye-witnesses to the fight and was supported by the physical evidence at the scene. That's why the police concluded that this was a legitimate case of self defense.


As I've said repeatedly, if Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation (not just approaching and/or talking, but actually laying his hands on Martin), then his self defense claim is false. But we can't know if he did. In the absence of any evidence, we can't assume he's guilty. Our legal system works the other way around. And what's happening right now is an angry mob demanding "justice". They are no better than a lynch mob IMO. They don't want actual justice. If that was the case, they'd be looking at all the facts and not ignoring the ones that call into question their claim. They want an outcome that they've predetermined and which isn't justice at all.


And frankly, that makes me sick. You guys are allowing your emotions to lead you to something which is ugly and hateful. Look at the facts. They're there if you're willing to accept them.

Edited, Mar 23rd 2012 4:11pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#158 Mar 23 2012 at 5:36 PM Rating: Decent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,691 posts
I could not care less about the age/race of the people involved. I care that the law let's a person kill another person in this fashion. That a person can just say "He was acting suspiciously!", kill the other person, then claim self defense and of course the other party is now dead so who is going to speak out? The girlfriend's (or, 16 year old girl who liked him a lot) phone call and Zimmerman's phone call both seem to contain enough information to call into question the validity of Zimmerman's claims.

Zimmerman, or anyone else, shouldn't be allowed to do this, and hopefully the outrage (well deserved outrage) over this event will cause lawmakers to take a serious look at the laws in question.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#159 Mar 23 2012 at 5:45 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,162 posts
Quote:
The fact is that the concerns Martin had about Zimmerman were all in his head (just like much of the crazy theories floating around about this). He overreacted. Had he just walked home like a normal person, nothing would have happened. It was Martin's bizarre assumption that a guy in a car must be a threat to him, which required him to run that set up this whole situation.


Or you could say that the concerns Zimmerman had about Martin were all in his head. It was Zimmerman's assumption that some kid walking down the street is automatically up to no good. We know for a fact that his assumption was wrong but he had already decided that Martin was a criminal. Zimmerman overreacted.
#160 Mar 23 2012 at 5:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,664 posts
gbaji wrote:
That's it. What's happening is that you've adopted the assumption that Martin was 100% innocent, and Zimmerman 100% guilty and are filling in gaps of the story with information that makes that assumption seem stronger. All I'm asking is that you stop filling in gaps, stop making assumptions, and just look at the facts we know. I mean "headlights blaring"? Really? You don't realize you're using language designed to alter the perception of the event? How exactly do headlights "blare" in your world?

Martin was innocent - he did nothing illegal. Zimmerman, on the other hand, shot someone dead - that used to be illegal.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#161 Mar 23 2012 at 6:17 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,608 posts
And my assertion had nothing to do with Martin's race, it was about yours and your own inability to see beyond it. You don't know what it's like to belong to an oft-brutalized minority group.

Zimmerman didn't just approach the kid in a car, he stalked him for many minutes. Minutes during which Martin varied his speed, tried to lose him, was eventually found again, etc.

Getting stalked by a car at night is the way most random hate crimes begin. Because the twisted **** who commit those kinds of crimes are doing so to punish their victims for something (that being the affront of being outside the norm)--it's a mild form of terrorism. They want you to panic and feel fear before they actually engage. If you are really lucky (after finding yourself in that situation), they'll satisfy themselves with the knowledge that you are terrified and leave. But more often than not, at some point they are going to get out of the car and try to kick the sh*t out of you.

Whether Zimmerman was bothering to think about how his actions were obviously going to be construed is a different matter. The fact is that Martin (or ANYONE else, regardless of their race) would feel deeply threatened by them. His girlfriend was begging him to run.

If you belong to a social group generally subject to increased rates of random violence, you are naturally more aware of these indicators (with the stalking car not being a subtle one). Anyone would have been scared, but there's a good chance that Martin was aware he should feel scared.

And, quite literally, he should have felt scared. Zimmerman was stalking him. We KNOW this is true. The 911 call and the girlfriend's testimony proves it to be so. His intent was to control and monitor the kid, and that is how he acted.

Like I said, depending on the state, his actions could have earned him a harassment charge.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#162 Mar 23 2012 at 7:42 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,442 posts
TirithRR wrote:
I could not care less about the age/race of the people involved.


You're in the extreme minority then, given the number of people in this thread who've called me a racist for not agreeing with them.

Quote:
I care that the law let's a person kill another person in this fashion. That a person can just say "He was acting suspiciously!", kill the other person, then claim self defense and of course the other party is now dead so who is going to speak out?


You skipped a whole set of steps in between. He didn't just walk up to Marin and shoot him because he thought he was acting suspiciously. He shot him because when he approached him to ask him what he was doing, he was (according to Zimmerman) attacked from behind by Martin, who then proceeded to attempt to beat Zimmerman senseless.

Quote:
The girlfriend's (or, 16 year old girl who liked him a lot) phone call and Zimmerman's phone call both seem to contain enough information to call into question the validity of Zimmerman's claims.


How? Zimmerman's phone call only shows us that he left his car to follow Martin. We don't have a record of the girlfriend's phone call, but even her account confirms that Zimmerman approached and spoke with Martin prior to the physical altercation breaking out. She can't possibly know who initiated that fight. She speculates that Martin was pushed, but it could just as easily been Martin doing the pushing (or attacking) which caused his earpiece to fall out and disconnect the call.

And her account does also confirm the whole "acting suspiciously" part. She said that Martin was stepping under awnings to get out of the rain. I suppose if it suddenly started raining while I was walking home, and I expected it to stop in a few minutes, I *might* seek shelter under an awning, but if it's just a steady drizzle (which is what the rain appeared to be that night), I'd just walk home in the rain. Her account has him wandering off the sidewalk and into random areas of the complex in a manner that would certainly seem suspicious and absolutely might be seem as matching what someone might do if they were poking around looking for something to steal.

Quote:
Zimmerman, or anyone else, shouldn't be allowed to do this...


Do what? Approach someone while acting as a member of a local community watch group and ask them what they're doing? Because we have absolutely zero evidence that he did anything other than that. As I said earlier, anyone has an expectation that they can approach anyone else and ask them something on a public street without being assaulted. A watchman on private property he's been authorized to patrol absolutely does as well.

Quote:
...and hopefully the outrage (well deserved outrage) over this event will cause lawmakers to take a serious look at the laws in question.


What laws? The law that says that it's illegal to attack someone simply for walking up to you and asking you a question?


You are assuming that Martin did nothing to instigate the physical conflict. You are assuming that Zimmerman did. Why? Because Zimmerman ultimately shot and killed Martin? If we assume that Martin didn't know Zimmerman was armed, then that doesn't figure into the calculation at all, does it? So no one ever attacks someone else? That's news. You know nothing about Trayvon Martin. Nothing. Yet you take his side without question. Despite all the physical evidence and witness statements showing that he was on top of Zimmerman beating him up just prior to the shot being fired, you assume a guy capable of doing that is utterly incapable of deciding to start the fight in the first place. Why?


Think about how irrational that is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#163 Mar 23 2012 at 8:00 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,442 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
And my assertion had nothing to do with Martin's race, it was about yours and your own inability to see beyond it. You don't know what it's like to belong to an oft-brutalized minority group.


Which is an assertion having to do with race. You assume that as a white male, I can't even conceptualize what Trayvon might have been feeling or thinking. And you frankly assume what Trayvon was thinking and feeling based on your own assumptions about racial groups.

I'm looking at the facts and nothing but the facts. You're speculating based on your own racially biased assumptions.

Quote:
Zimmerman didn't just approach the kid in a car, he stalked him for many minutes. Minutes during which Martin varied his speed, tried to lose him, was eventually found again, etc.

Getting stalked by a car at night is the way most random hate crimes begin. Because the twisted @#%^s who commit those kinds of crimes are doing so to punish their victims for something (that being the affront of being outside the norm)--it's a mild form of terrorism. They want you to panic and feel fear before they actually engage. If you are really lucky (after finding yourself in that situation), they'll satisfy themselves with the knowledge that you are terrified and leave. But more often than not, at some point they are going to get out of the car and try to kick the sh*t out of you.

Whether Zimmerman was bothering to think about how his actions were obviously going to be construed is a different matter. The fact is that Martin (or ANYONE else, regardless of their race) would feel deeply threatened by them. His girlfriend was begging him to run.

If you belong to a social group generally subject to increased rates of random violence, you are naturally more aware of these indicators (with the stalking car not being a subtle one). Anyone would have been scared, but there's a good chance that Martin was aware he should feel scared.

And, quite literally, he should have felt scared. Zimmerman was stalking him. We KNOW this is true. The 911 call and the girlfriend's testimony proves it to be so. His intent was to control and monitor the kid, and that is how he acted.


Ok. Let's play "pretend to be the scared black kid" game for a moment. If he's being stalked for several minutes (and perceives it that way), and in his mind he's thinking "OMG. This is just how hate crimes start", and he's genuinely affraid that there's some crazed KKK guy following him in a car playing "scare the black kid", why for all that is holy, does he carry on a conversation with his girlfriend instead of himself calling 911?

He's got a cell phone, right? If he was really that scared, and really thought this was someone out to "get him" (for any reason, even if not related to race), why not call 911? Why instead talk to his girlfriend about how someone is watching him and following him, and deciding to walk quickly or run? Now, maybe I'm just some white guy who doesn't understand the thought process of black kids, but to me that would be the correct course of action. Now, again, perhaps because I'm white guy who doesn't understand anything, I might interpret the conversation he had with his girlfriend in exactly the way someone who actually was doing something suspicious might if he were worried that he was being watched by a patrol guy, who might be calling the cops on me, and I decide I want to avoid him and try to get away.


His actions are *not* consistent with a law abiding citizen just walking home who sees someone suspicious. Zimmerman's call to the police is absolutely consistent, Martin's isn't. It's consistent with someone who is worried that someone else might be watching what he's doing or even might catch him doing something he's not supposed to do.


To be fair, this is also pure speculation on my part. But you don't know, do you? How do you know that Martin *wasn't* ducking into side yards and other parts of the complex checking out if there was anything he could steal? Do you know that for a fact? Heck. Maybe it's less serious than that. Maybe he took the excuse of walking to the store to smoke some pot and was hiding in the shadows of the complex (and getting out of the rain) to do so? I don't know. But neither do you.


The point is that his actions aren't terribly consistent with someone who was afraid that he might be about to become a victim of a crime. His actions *were* consistent with someone who was afraid he might be caught committing one though. This doesn't prove anything, of course, but if we're going to speculate about what happened, why assume one is true and automatically discount the other? Because his parents say he was a good boy? Parents of gang members who just sprayed bullets on a crowd during a drive by also insist that their son was a good boy. They're hardly objective character witnesses.

Yet you base your entire interpretation of this event and condemnation of Zimmerman and the police on an assumption that there could not have been any justification for Zimmerman's actions and complete justification for Martin's. You assume this because his parents (and their lawyer) insist it's so. You assume this because a bunch of other people, who know no more details about this than you do have also accepted that assumption and loudly proclaim it to be true. I'm sorry, but I don't see it. Now maybe because I'm white I think that you should call the police if you think someone might be planning to commit a crime against you, or maybe it's because I think like a normal law abiding citizen. But in any case, I acknowledge the parts of this story that I don't know and attempt to make my judgment based only on the things I do.

Quote:
Like I said, depending on the state, his actions could have earned him a harassment charge.


In no state can his actions be judged as harassment. You're just tossing absurdities out there now. Stop trying to invent rationales for Martin's actions. Look at the facts. Geez!

Edited, Mar 23rd 2012 7:07pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#164 Mar 23 2012 at 8:18 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,691 posts
gbaji wrote:

Quote:
Zimmerman, or anyone else, shouldn't be allowed to do this...


Do what? ...

Quote:
...and hopefully the outrage (well deserved outrage) over this event will cause lawmakers to take a serious look at the laws in question.


What laws? The law that says that it's illegal to attack someone simply for walking up to you and asking you a question?


The laws that let someone kill another person and get away with it. The laws that let Zimmerman stalk an innocent person and force a situation where Zimmerman felt he had to use deadly force.

You act like Zimmerman did nothing wrong, yet his actions resulted in Martin's death. Oh, wait... Martin started it by decided to go to the store and purchase something. Shame on him. Maybe it's Martin's family's fault for living in the same area as Zimmerman?

Martin could have thrown the first punch, Zimmerman could have as well, but Zimmerman is the victor, so if you go by his word alone obviously he's going to be the 'victim'. That's the problem. The law let Zimmerman kill Martin, and now there is no real way to know the truth. You don't see this as a problem? That a gun toting individual can decide that someone is suspicious, approach them, kill them (who cares what happens between these two steps), and then that individual is now the 100% authority as to what happened happened between those two steps?

How do you protect yourself against people like that (Zimmerman or not). Just not go anywhere alone, don't do anything that someone in their right, or not right, mind may find a bit suspicious? Zimmerman overstepped, and legal or not, a boy is dead. And yes, he overstepped. He could have done the right thing and waited for real authorities, in which case the truth would have came out and Martin would still be alive, Zimmerman maybe a little embarrassed. But he chose to escalate the encounter to something physical (by approaching the boy) due to his emotions and now he gets to decide what the truth is.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#165 Mar 23 2012 at 8:22 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
19,608 posts
Quote:
Zimmerman's phone call only shows us that he left his car to follow Martin.


Did you even listen to it? He was in his car for the whole conversation.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#166 Mar 23 2012 at 8:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
***
1,162 posts
If Zimmerman would come out and admit that he killed the kid in cold blood, Gbaji would still make up some BS about how the position of the moon in relation to Saturn while taking into account the wind direction that night makes it Martin's fault.
#167 Mar 23 2012 at 10:21 PM Rating: Good
Racism only plays a part in this if it is part of the reason Zimmerman used to conclude that Martin was "suspicious". Some version of why Zimmerman found Martin suspicious will come out if Zimmerman ends up getting charged with anything.

- If he was suspicious of Martin because he was black, Racism played a factor.
- If he was suspicious because he was a teenager ("kid" is the term Zimmerman used), he's an @#%^, but not necessarily racist.
- If he suspicious because Martin was walking in the rain wearing a hoodie, he's a dumbass.
- If he was suspicious because he thought, as he said in the call, Martin was "on drugs" I'm betting Zimmerman didn't even know Martin was on his phone (using an ear piece) and falsely assumed Martin was "on drugs" instead of simply talking on his phone. Which makes Zimmerman look like an even bigger dumbass.

Anyway you slice it, Martin didn't do ANYTHING wrong or illegal up until the point that Zimmerman confronted Martin, while Zimmerman had already made incorrect assumptions about Martin & disregarded the recommendations of the operator. He also got out of his car and followed Martin, which is against the rules of the Neighborhood Watch program. And while carrying the gun was legal in Zimmerman's case, since he had a Florida CC permit, carrying a gun is also against Neighborhood Watch Protocols.

The police have made some blunders too: they didn't drug test Zimmerman, they told the family Zimmerman had a "squeaky clean" record when he did not, they didn't investigate Martin's last phone call, & they may have led witnesses. Taking into account the "temporarily" resigned chief (Lee) got his job after the last Police Chief lost his job due to a scandal revolving around the cover up of an officer's son beating a homeless man...



It's really hard to take the Police at their word here. It gives, at the very least, the illusion of a cover up & that they have a history of being less than truthful when their asses are on the line. Did that happen here? I don't know. But it certainly warrants further investigation.

Taking into account Zimmerman's overzealous nature in his role as neighborhood and his past criminal charges (even though he was never convicted), he certainly shouldn't have had a gun. He tried to be a hero, killed an innocent kid, & has yet to be charged (Best I can hope for is manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter). It's a @#%^ing tragedy & Gbaji bending over backwards for this twat is sickening.

Edited, Mar 24th 2012 12:24am by Omegavegeta
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#168 Mar 23 2012 at 11:36 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,608 posts
If he was charged with what he was actually guilty of, resisting arrest with violence/battery towards a police officer, he wouldn't have been eligible for a concealed weapons permit in Florida. They dropped the charges after he entered a program available to people with no prior arrests (which I assume is community service).

____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#169 Mar 24 2012 at 1:22 AM Rating: Excellent
**
574 posts
As soon as Zimmerman left his car and sought out danger he was no longer protected under the Law so it really does come back to the Police botching it up. Really as soon as he admitted going from a place of safety to one where is life would be in danger should had thrown up all kinds of red flags to any cop with half a brain. Now in every state even those with out laws like Fl's you can use deadly force and not be charged as long as you are defending your self and you did not seek out the confrontation or danger.
____________________________
.
#170 Mar 24 2012 at 10:09 AM Rating: Good
******
21,717 posts
A lawyer for the man at the center of the Trayvon Martin death investigation said Florida's "stand your ground" law doesn't apply to the shooting that killed the unarmed teen.
"In my legal opinion, that's not really applicable to this case. The statute on 'stand your ground' is primarily when you're in your house," said Craig Sonner, attorney for George Zimmerman.


Zimmerman's **** if his own lawyer denies the law's protection in this case. Maybe justice will be done after all.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#171 Mar 24 2012 at 6:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
David Frum asks why Martin isn't being given the benefit of the doubt regarding Zimmerman's wounds under the "stand your ground" law given that he was being pursued by an attacker with a deadly weapon.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#172 Mar 24 2012 at 7:18 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,691 posts
Jophiel wrote:
David Frum asks why Martin isn't being given the benefit of the doubt regarding Zimmerman's wounds under the "stand your ground" law given that he was being pursued by an attacker with a deadly weapon.


Cause he was wearing a hoodie.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#173 Mar 24 2012 at 11:10 PM Rating: Good
That's Giraldo's theory, anyways.



The hoodie is as responsible as Zimmerman!?!!


Edited, Mar 25th 2012 1:11am by Omegavegeta
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#174 Mar 25 2012 at 1:42 AM Rating: Good
Everything else aside, since when was lethal force ever allowed to settle a fist fight? Especially when police are already on their way?
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#175 Mar 25 2012 at 3:13 AM Rating: Good
**
574 posts
If Martin had used deadly force he would had been protected since this was not a fist fight. The stand your ground law was intended to protect people in Martin's position shame he didn't come out the victor. Martin was stalked down by a nut job that should never had been allowed to carry. If any anything should be changed its the first time offender program, no violent crime should fall under that program for this very reason. But every state has protections for those that have to use deadly force to ward off a attack seeing how a well placed punch could be deadly **** even pepper spray could be fatal if some one has a bad enough reaction.
____________________________
.
#176 Mar 25 2012 at 9:24 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,171 posts
Apparently Zimmerman was a serial 911 abuser, with 45 calls placed since he started working as a neighborhood watch patrolman in September 2011.

He once called 911 because a 7-9 year old black boy was walking down the street, alone. His official reason for calling? The child was "unaccompanied."

Shoot, when I was that age I was permitted to walk about 2 miles unsupervised (down to the local driving range) and bike the full area of another 5-6.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#177 Mar 25 2012 at 12:52 PM Rating: Default
****
7,805 posts
catwho wrote:
Apparently Zimmerman was a serial 911 abuser, with 45 calls placed since he started working as a neighborhood watch patrolman in September 2011.

He once called 911 because a 7-9 year old black boy was walking down the street, alone. His official reason for calling? The child was "unaccompanied."

Shoot, when I was that age I was permitted to walk about 2 miles unsupervised (down to the local driving range) and bike the full area of another 5-6.

When you were a child, times were different. Predators weren't as brazen as they are now.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#178 Mar 25 2012 at 4:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,174 posts
I'm not sure that's true. I think the difference lies in the news cycle and the immediacy of information.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#179 Mar 25 2012 at 4:28 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,562 posts
Kastigir wrote:
When you were a child, times were different. Predators weren't as brazen as they are now.

Yeah that's wrong.
#180 Mar 25 2012 at 4:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,674 posts
I think her parents were just hoping for a predator to come by.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#181 Mar 25 2012 at 6:16 PM Rating: Good
***
1,877 posts
Kastigir wrote:
catwho wrote:
Apparently Zimmerman was a serial 911 abuser, with 45 calls placed since he started working as a neighborhood watch patrolman in September 2011.

He once called 911 because a 7-9 year old black boy was walking down the street, alone. His official reason for calling? The child was "unaccompanied."

Shoot, when I was that age I was permitted to walk about 2 miles unsupervised (down to the local driving range) and bike the full area of another 5-6.

When you were a child, times were different. Predators weren't as brazen as they are now.


I hate to tell you this but that cherry sucker you got from the free candy van wasn't a sucker. Smiley: wink
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#182 Mar 25 2012 at 9:35 PM Rating: Decent
Sacrificial Lamb
*****
16,110 posts
At this point the only thing we know is a black teenage male is dead. All of the assumptions each of you have made as to the guilt or innocence of Zimmerman or Martin is just conjecture, nothing more. Beyond that, Obammy inserting himself into the discussion is, like most of what he does, none of his business and typical overreach by a slimy politician.
____________________________
Born-on date: 2076

Zombo.com

Obama

Winner of Last(tm) VIII!

Winner of the 2008 Allakhazam March Madness tourny

"Totem is the personification of whiskey soaked evil" --Annabelle

"You're special, pumpkin, but not speshuler than the 'Bama Black Snake" --AtomicFlea
#183 Mar 25 2012 at 10:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Totem wrote:
All of the assumptions each of you have made as to the guilt or innocence of Zimmerman or Martin is just conjecture, nothing more.

Oh, thank God. Here I thought this was the court-appointed jury and we were doing it all wrong.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#184 Mar 25 2012 at 10:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel wrote:
Totem wrote:
All of the assumptions each of you have made as to the guilt or innocence of Zimmerman or Martin is just conjecture, nothing more.

Oh, thank God. Here I thought this was the court-appointed jury and we were doing it all wrong.
I wonder what this discussion would look like if the Sanford PD actually did an investigation.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#185 Mar 25 2012 at 10:25 PM Rating: Good
To all of those surprised by gbaji's take on this:

This is a guy who thinks rape isn't rape unless you leave a mark. Is stalking someone, then shooting them when they take issue with it really that much of a stretch?
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#186 Mar 26 2012 at 4:09 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,633 posts
It's not rape if you yell surprise.
____________________________
Mistress Darqflame wrote:
Sorry, anything representing or remotely resembling a **** is a nono.
gigasnail wrote:
i'm lighting the freak signal here, sara help me out ~
Redding wrote:
Same ol' Sara now with 50% less hidden penis
#187 Mar 26 2012 at 7:14 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,664 posts
Totem wrote:
At this point the only thing we know is a black teenage male is dead. All of the assumptions each of you have made as to the guilt or innocence of Zimmerman or Martin is just conjecture, nothing more. Beyond that, Obammy inserting himself into the discussion is, like most of what he does, none of his business and typical overreach by a slimy politician.
We know the cause of death of the black teenage kid. He was shot by Zimmerman.

I'd be sorely disappointed as a tax-payer if our federal government didn't step in when/if a state failed to investigate a murder.

Edited, Mar 26th 2012 3:16pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#188 Mar 26 2012 at 7:51 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,369 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Everything else aside, since when was lethal force ever allowed to settle a fist fight?
When the person's fists are capable of causing severe damage and/or death, for instance when the aggressor is clearly several weight classes above the victim or has/is showing experience. If the victim is in or feels they are in imminent danger, pretty much.

I don't need to point out I'm just answering the question and not the overall topic, do I?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#189 Mar 26 2012 at 9:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,577 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Totem wrote:
All of the assumptions each of you have made as to the guilt or innocence of Zimmerman or Martin is just conjecture, nothing more.

Oh, thank God. Here I thought this was the court-appointed jury and we were doing it all wrong.


So, does this mean we're not going to be getting that bribe money now? Smiley: frown
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#190 Mar 26 2012 at 1:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,442 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Everything else aside, since when was lethal force ever allowed to settle a fist fight?
When the person's fists are capable of causing severe damage and/or death, for instance when the aggressor is clearly several weight classes above the victim or has/is showing experience. If the victim is in or feels they are in imminent danger, pretty much.


So if, just as an example, you were on your back, with a broken nose, and having your head smashed into the sidewalk by an assailant? That might do it, right?

Quote:
I don't need to point out I'm just answering the question and not the overall topic, do I?


Oh. Then never mind!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#191 Mar 26 2012 at 2:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
**** =/= Broken

But feel free to lay on the hyperbole as long as we're not talking about this specific case Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#192 Mar 26 2012 at 2:50 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,633 posts
The only decent argument you've made is that we cant trust our sources and we don't really know what happend and that alone cancels out everything else you've said.

They may have both handled to situation poorly but since Zimmerman is the aggressor, the adult, the one with the gun and the one that's still alive I really can't believe anyone would argue against him being detained while a proper investigation is done.

That being said my money would be on it WAS completely Zimmerman's fault. We have reason to believe Zimmerman was a bit irrational and had a hero complex, possibly even racist and no reason to believe Trayvon was anything but a normal teen.
____________________________
Mistress Darqflame wrote:
Sorry, anything representing or remotely resembling a **** is a nono.
gigasnail wrote:
i'm lighting the freak signal here, sara help me out ~
Redding wrote:
Same ol' Sara now with 50% less hidden penis
#193 Mar 26 2012 at 3:04 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,608 posts
Apparently he's arguing that Trayvon went for his gun, which is apparently supposed to put the law on his side.

I'm sorry, but if Trayvon was in a position to go for your gun, it meant that your gun was exposed and accessible. Which means it probably wasn't fastened into its holster, and he was probably holding it.

He put Trayvon into a situation where he had to defend his life. That is not self defense. The individual act cannot be applied to the conflict as a whole. He may have shot Trayvon in self defense, but the entire conflict is Zimmerman's fault.

I don't get to hold a knife against someone's throat, wait until they fight back, and then stab them. That's ridiculous.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#194 Mar 26 2012 at 3:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,442 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Bloody =/= Broken

But feel free to lay on the hyperbole as long as we're not talking about this specific case Smiley: laugh


But if we're taking the words of lawyers for various parties (which no one here seems to have any problem with doing), then Zimmermans's lawyer's account says that his nose was broken:

Quote:
Among that evidence is proof, Mr Sonner said, that Trayvon struck Zimmerman and knocked him to the ground. His nose was broken, he had a gash on his the back of his head and grass stains on on back, the lawyer revealed.


Maybe the lawyer is exaggerating as well. No way to know. But isn't this kind of a minor point to make? So you acknowledge now that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, beating his face, smashing his head into the ground, but it's all ok because there's wiggle room over whether he actually broke Zimmerman's nose?

Remember last week when I said that once the facts of this case start to come out, a lot of people are going to owe some apologies? Looks like I was right.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#195 Mar 26 2012 at 3:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,442 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Apparently he's arguing that Trayvon went for his gun, which is apparently supposed to put the law on his side.


Haven't heard that particular bit. Pretty impossible to prove either way.

Quote:
I'm sorry, but if Trayvon was in a position to go for your gun, it meant that your gun was exposed and accessible. Which means it probably wasn't fastened into its holster, and he was probably holding it.


Because it's impossible for someone straddling someone on his back on the ground to grab for a gun in a holster on the person's waistband? It's irrelevant anyway. The injuries Zimmerman sustained and every eyewitness who actually saw the fight more than confirm sufficient self-defense cause for the shooting.

Quote:
He put Trayvon into a situation where he had to defend his life.


People keep saying this, but are you basing that on any actual facts, or just a need to justify a position you've already taken on the issue. I believe that you first adopted the assumption that Martin was the innocent victim of an unjustified shooting and now have to keep inventing stuff to support that assumption. You have zero facts to this. It's pure speculation.

Can you even allow yourself to imagine the possibility that Martin attacked Zimmerman without cause? You're so quick to assume that Zimmerman would stalk Martin and deliberately set up a situation where he could shoot him and claim self defense, but can't even admit the possibility that Martin might have jumped a guy he thought wasn't armed? Why assume one, but not even allow the possibility of the other?

Quote:
That is not self defense.


Correct. Attacking a guy who's done nothing more than walk down a sidewalk is not self defense. Martin had absolutely no justification to attack Zimmerman.


Quote:
The individual act cannot be applied to the conflict as a whole. He may have shot Trayvon in self defense, but the entire conflict is Zimmerman's fault.


Is it? How do you know?

Quote:
I don't get to hold a knife against someone's throat, wait until they fight back, and then stab them. That's ridiculous.


Yes, it is. But that's not even remotely similar to what happened here. And frankly, it doesn't make any sense. You're allowing that starting assumption to drive your argument into pretty absurd directions. Which makes more sense:

1. Zimmerman forced Martin to attack him by threatening him with a gun.

2. Martin attacked Zimmerman because he didn't realize he had a gun.

Think about it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#196 Mar 26 2012 at 3:21 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,608 posts
His injuries weren't serious enough to be tended to before they brought him to the station, according to the reports. They are definitely using exaggerated language. Doesn't mean his nose couldn't have been broken, technically, but a cracked bone isn't anything like what they want us to picture.

And, again, no one denies that they fought. I don't know why you are dwelling on that--it isn't important. No one owes you an apology, because no one ever denied that he could have been injured.

The point is that Trayvon didn't initiate their encounter, he didn't bring firearms into the picture, and he had every right to be there. We don't know who started the fight and, frankly, that doesn't even matter. Zimmerman voided his ability to claim self defense by putting Trayvon into a situation where he had legitimate reason to fear for his life. If he initiated the fight, it simply makes him even more culpable. If he didn't, it's still his fault for forcing a minor into a situation where his life could be forfeit.

[EDIT]

Seriously, your "who started the fight" argument isn't working, because no one cares. Why? Because it doesn't matter. Zimmerman was the aggressor of the whole conflict, even if he had not initiated the fight, because had he not stalked the kid in his car there wouldn't have been a conflict.

Edited, Mar 26th 2012 5:23pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#197 Mar 26 2012 at 3:26 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,442 posts
SillyXSara wrote:
They may have both handled to situation poorly but since Zimmerman is the aggressor, the adult, the one with the gun and the one that's still alive I really can't believe anyone would argue against him being detained while a proper investigation is done.


They did detain him. But there was no evidence that he had broken the law. So they did what the police are supposed to do. They released him and didn't file charges. You're reacting to parts of a story, told in an emotional fashion a month after the event itself. The police reacted to the actual evidence in front of them, and the full accounts of the witnesses at the time. They had a much better ability to judge this than you do.

Quote:
That being said my money would be on it WAS completely Zimmerman's fault. We have reason to believe Zimmerman was a bit irrational and had a hero complex, possibly even racist and no reason to believe Trayvon was anything but a normal teen.


No reason because no reason exists? Or no reason because you haven't heard one? You do get that the entire story you've heard so far is being told by the Martin's and their lawyer, right? It hasn't occurred to you that they might just omit any information about their son which might make him appear less innocent?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#198 Mar 26 2012 at 3:30 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,674 posts
I'm curious as to why you refer to one by their first name and the other by their last name. Trying to raise sympathy? I haven't followed this at all but that's the sort of thing you do when your facts aren't very good.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#199 Mar 26 2012 at 3:41 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,608 posts
I've been moving between Trayvon and Martin. Honestly, I think it's because I'm inclined to use their last names and, even though Martin is the surname, it got filed in my brain as the first name. Which is probably partly due to the fact that, until two days ago, I had no idea how to pronounce "Trayvon".
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#200 Mar 26 2012 at 3:41 PM Rating: Good
******
21,717 posts
gbaji wrote:
SillyXSara wrote:
They may have both handled to situation poorly but since Zimmerman is the aggressor, the adult, the one with the gun and the one that's still alive I really can't believe anyone would argue against him being detained while a proper investigation is done.


They did detain him. But there was no evidence that he had broken the law. So they did what the police are supposed to do. They released him and didn't file charges. You're reacting to parts of a story, told in an emotional fashion a month after the event itself. The police reacted to the actual evidence in front of them, and the full accounts of the witnesses at the time. They had a much better ability to judge this than you do.

Quote:
That being said my money would be on it WAS completely Zimmerman's fault. We have reason to believe Zimmerman was a bit irrational and had a hero complex, possibly even racist and no reason to believe Trayvon was anything but a normal teen.


No reason because no reason exists? Or no reason because you haven't heard one? You do get that the entire story you've heard so far is being told by the Martin's and their lawyer, right? It hasn't occurred to you that they might just omit any information about their son which might make him appear less innocent?


It really doesn't matter if Martin was a complete thug. His innocence beyond the scope of the incident at hand is irrelevant. The fact that you can't see that is not surprising. ZImmerman called the police, was told to meet the cops and stop following. The minute he disobeyed that order, he became the aggressor. It's really that **** simple.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#201 Mar 26 2012 at 3:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,442 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
His injuries weren't serious enough to be tended to before they brought him to the station, according to the reports. They are definitely using exaggerated language. Doesn't mean his nose couldn't have been broken, technically, but a cracked bone isn't anything like what they want us to picture.

And, again, no one denies that they fought.


Now. A week ago?

Quote:
I don't know why you are dwelling on that--it isn't important. No one owes you an apology, because no one ever denied that he could have been injured.


Fair enough. I dwell on it because there were people who seemed to think that Zimmerman just chased Martin down and shot him in cold blood and not after a struggle in which Zimmerman was on the loosing side. It's kinda relevant because the position of those defending Martin keeps shifting. First it was a cold blooded killing and there was no fight. Then it shifted to Martin being the victim who couldn't possibly have defended himself from the much larger and stronger older man and was just trying to defend himself and run home. Now, it's Martin was participating in the fight, and was continuing that fight long past the point of self-defense, but it's justified because Zimmerman started it, or gave him no choice, or something.

Quote:
The point is that Trayvon didn't initiate their encounter...


You do not know this. Holy hell!


Quote:
... he didn't bring firearms into the picture, and he had every right to be there.


Irrelevant *and* so did Zimmerman. The issue is only about who started the physical fight, not who was following whom, or who initiated a conversation, or whatever other stuff you keep spinning this into. What matters is who physically laid hands on the other first.

Quote:
We don't know who started the fight and, frankly, that doesn't even matter.


Um... Yes, it does. It's the only thing that does. If Martin started the fight, then Zimmerman is 100% in the right here. More to the point, we can only prove that Zimmerman is in the wrong if we can prove that he started the fight. And there is zero evidence for that. This is why the police didn't press charges. There's no evidence to refute Zimmerman's claim of self defense, and a **** of a lot of evidence that shows that at Martin choose to continue the fight. There is not a single eye witness account which shows Zimmerman as the aggressor.


Yet, you choose to assume he was. Why?

Quote:
Zimmerman voided his ability to claim self defense by putting Trayvon into a situation where he had legitimate reason to fear for his life. If he initiated the fight, it simply makes him even more culpable. If he didn't, it's still his fault for forcing a minor into a situation where his life could be forfeit.


That's not how the law works though. You don't get to deck someone because they walk up to you and ask you a question. Period.


Quote:
Seriously, your "who started the fight" argument isn't working, because no one cares. Why? Because it doesn't matter. Zimmerman was the aggressor of the whole conflict...


Patently false. Every eye witness account places Martin as the aggressor. No eye witness account places Zimmerman as the aggressor. While we can't say just by looking at who's on top at the end of a fight who started the fight, we can also only go based on the facts we have. At no point did any witness observe Zimmerman on top or in an aggressive position (until after he fired his gun). You're leading with your assumption and inventing facts to match.


Quote:
... even if he had not initiated the fight, because had he not stalked the kid in his car there wouldn't have been a conflict.


Irrelevant. That's like saying "if he hadn't looked at me funny, I wouldn't have had to beat him up, so it's not really my fault"

Do you even hear yourself? This is ridiculous. The lengths you're willing to go to excuse Martin's behavior is frankly astounding. Nothing Zimmerman did justified Martin assaulting him. You don't get to deck someone because they're following you, or asking you a question.

And, according to Zimmerman's statement (which is now being released by his lawyer), he had lost sight of Martin and was returning to his car when Martin jumped him. If this is true, then it wasn't even that Zimmerman chased the kid down, or that Martin was trying to get away. Martin may have actually circled around and stalked Zimmerman and jumped him.


Do I know that for a fact? Of course not. But again, in the absence of any solid facts regarding how the physical altercation started, we can't assume that Zimmerman is at fault. The law does not work that way.

Edited, Mar 26th 2012 2:56pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 33 All times are in CDT
Debalic, Anonymous Guests (32)