Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

In my foreign land, murder is OKFollow

#202 Mar 26 2012 at 3:45 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
My favorite part is how news outlets have been trying, in the past week or so, to paint Martin as a terrible kid. Because he was, at the time, suspended from school.

For what? For having an empty baggy of pot. But no record of violence from the school or police. And he played for the school's football team.

Yeah, we've got a real thug on our hands...
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#203 Mar 26 2012 at 3:46 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
Quote:
The point is that Trayvon didn't initiate their encounter...


You do not know this. Holy ****!


Yes we do. Again, STOP FOCUSING ON THE FIGHT. The entire encounter between them begins with Zimmerman following him in his car. The fight between them is just one part of the overall interaction.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#204 Mar 26 2012 at 3:48 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
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.


I'm sure that's exactly why they're referred to that way in the media. The whole thing is about public perception. Same reason why they have a picture of him that looks like it's a few years old (he certainly looks younger than 17 in that picture).

I've tried to consistently use both their last names, but I'll switch to Trayvon occasionally when directly responding to someone else who used that name. And yeah, I made the same connection about the names that you did.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#205 Mar 26 2012 at 3:54 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:

Yes we do. Again, STOP FOCUSING ON THE FIGHT.


Why? It's the fight that matters. It's the fight that leads to Zimmerman firing his gun. It doesn't matter what happened prior to that point.

Quote:
The entire encounter between them begins with Zimmerman following him in his car. The fight between them is just one part of the overall interaction.


It's the part that resulted in Martin getting shot. I think that's kinda important. People walk around housing complexes all the time. They "encounter" each other all the time. Heck. I had an encounter with my neighbor while getting my mail yesterday. Amazingly, it didn't end with one of us getting shot. Zimmerman was well within his right to follow Martin. You can use words like "stalking" to make it sound more sinister, but at the end of the day he's not doing anything illegal, and nothing he's doing justifies Martin attacking him.

Edited, Mar 26th 2012 2:55pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#206 Mar 26 2012 at 3:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Yeah, he was following him while talking to the police and ignoring their instructions. That is a little bit different then running into someone in your housing complex. Don't equate the two.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#207 Mar 26 2012 at 4:03 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
It really doesn't matter if Martin was a complete thug.


It doesn't? So the outrage isn't because he was just an innocent kid getting some skittles and tea and whom Zimmerman had no reason (other than being a racist) for viewing him as suspicious? No one's made a reference to Martin being "guilty of walking while black"?

The entire public outrage rests on the perception of Martin as a clean cut kid.

Quote:
His innocence beyond the scope of the incident at hand is irrelevant.


From an objective point of view, certainly. But the folks passing judgment on Zimmerman are *not* acting objectively. They're acting based on a perception of Martin which makes it seem like Zimmerman's actions were completely unjustified.

Quote:
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 @#%^ing simple.


Aggressor in what way? In attempting to determine who the person he saw walking through the complex was? That's not a crime. That's not an action which justifies a violent response. You're playing word games.

The aggressor during the fight was Martin. Every witness who saw the fight confirmed this fact. It's the fight that matters, not who was following whom prior to the fight.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#208 Mar 26 2012 at 4:05 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Yeah, he was following him while talking to the police and ignoring their instructions. That is a little bit different then running into someone in your housing complex. Don't equate the two.


From a legal perspective, they are exactly the same. Why would you think otherwise? Martin had just as much legal justification to attack Zimmerman, as I did to attack the guy who happened to be getting mail at the same time I was.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#209 Mar 26 2012 at 4:30 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,720 posts
gbaji wrote:
The aggressor during the fight was Martin. Every witness who saw the fight confirmed this fact. It's the fight that matters, not who was following whom prior to the fight.


In your make believe world, maybe. You really are a waste of space, Gbaji.
____________________________
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.


#210 Mar 26 2012 at 4:57 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
gbaji wrote:
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.

You're making a fair amount of assumptions yourself, bucko. Nobody witnessed the start of the fight. You can't say that Martin was the aggressor. You could say that he was winning the fight, until the gun came out, but not that he initiated it. There are a fair number of viable scenarios in which either could be the aggressor, and also the possibility that Zimmerman is lying about the encounter to save his ***. Does that sound more or less likely than a teenager unfamiliar with the neighborhood deciding to pick a fight with some random adult?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#211 Mar 26 2012 at 4:58 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The aggressor during the fight was Martin. Every witness who saw the fight confirmed this fact. It's the fight that matters, not who was following whom prior to the fight.


In your make believe world, maybe.


Maybe what? That the aggressor during the fight was Martin? That every witness who saw the fight confirmed this fact? Or that it's that fight and the shot fired which ended it, which matters.


Quote:
You really are a waste of space, Gbaji.


Ah yes... the "resort to name calling when you're losing" strategy. It's a bit 5th grade, but still a classic!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#212 Mar 26 2012 at 5:20 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
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.

You're making a fair amount of assumptions yourself, bucko. Nobody witnessed the start of the fight.


Which I addressed with the statement "While we can't say just by looking at who's on top at the end of a fight who started the fight...". I'm the one stating over and over that we don't know who started the fight, so we can't assume it was Zimmerman.

Quote:
You can't say that Martin was the aggressor.


At what point? He was absolutely the aggressor during the time period when (at least) three different witnesses all saw him straddling Zimmerman beating him. I've yet to find a single witness account who actually saw Zimmerman throw a punch, or at any point be in control of the situation. Not one.


Quote:
You could say that he was winning the fight, until the gun came out, but not that he initiated it.


Ok. But you're switching terms there. I didn't say he initiated it, only that he was the aggressor "during the fight". The fact that we can't know for sure who started the fight does not preclude us from observing who was clearly in control of the fight and clearly attacking the other guy during the fight. Again, we can't conclude from this who started it, but it does blow some serious holes in the argument that Martin was some passive kid whose only objective during the whole thing was to get home.

Do I need to go back to earlier in this thread and start quoting people talking about how Zimmerman "cornered him" or was otherwise keeping him from simply running away? Clearly, Martin could have gotten away if that's all he wanted. He choose to straddle Zimmerman and continue punching him and beating him. This is not the act of a scared little boy who just wants to go home.


Quote:
There are a fair number of viable scenarios in which either could be the aggressor, and also the possibility that Zimmerman is lying about the encounter to save his ***.


Sure. And space aliens could have abducted them both during the fracas too! But we can only act on the evidence we have. We have zero evidence that Zimmerman initiated the physical altercation. And "physical altercation" does not mean following him, or talking to him. It means physically laying hands on the other person in some way.

I guess I'm not sure what people want here. Zimmerman should be arrested and charged because he could have done something? I could have robbed a bank yesterday. Does the fact that I can't prove otherwise make me guilty? No? Then neither does the fact that Zimmerman can't prove he didn't initiate the fight make him guilty.

Quote:
Does that sound more or less likely than a teenager unfamiliar with the neighborhood deciding to pick a fight with some random adult?


The difference is that I'm not precluding the possibility that Zimmerman is lying to save his ***. But a whole **** of a lot of people are precluding the possibility that Martin was doing something suspicious and did start the fight and Zimmerman was acting in self-defense. Read some of the stuff being said out there. People are howling for Zimmerman's head, based solely on assumptions that Zimmerman must have been in the wrong because a 17 year old they've never met and don't know could not possibly have been doing anything suspicious, and could not possibly have initiated the fight.


I'm not calling for immediate action, or escalating the issue, or assuming that the police have failed to do their jobs because they didn't arrive at a conclusion I like. Yet, there are a whole lot of highly publicly visible and influential people doing exactly that. And frankly, they should be ashamed for it. I'm all for making sure justice is done, but if you're going to pick a cause to fight, perhaps you should actually get the facts first? The sad part to all of this, is that the next time there is a kid like Martin who's unfairly treated by our legal system, there will be less support for that cause because those calling for it have cried wolf too many times when they were in the wrong.

Edited, Mar 26th 2012 5:12pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#213 Mar 26 2012 at 5:20 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
gbaji wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Yeah, he was following him while talking to the police and ignoring their instructions. That is a little bit different then running into someone in your housing complex. Don't equate the two.


From a legal perspective, they are exactly the same. Why would you think otherwise? Martin had just as much legal justification to attack Zimmerman, as I did to attack the guy who happened to be getting mail at the same time I was.


No, they aren't. In one scenario, there's no prior relation between the two. In another, one party placed the other into an immensely stressful situation which, historically, is related with brutal hate crimes.

That is NOT the same thing. And anyone with a brain can see why.

[EDIT]

Can you honestly not see why someone would be justifiably terrified after a car had been slowly trailing them for 2-4 minutes, in the dark, with the headlights making it impossible to make out the driver?

Edited, Mar 26th 2012 7:21pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#214 Mar 26 2012 at 5:40 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
I think if I lived in this neighborhood with Zimmerman, I'd be thinking about moving. Self-appointed vigilante, roaming the streets with a gun? No thank you. Next, it'll be someone else that looks "suspicious".

That's what bothers me. Not who started this fight, but the fact that this guy has decided that he's going to take the place of the police and take "justice" into his own hands. He sounds unstable to me and someone really needs to revoke his carry license.

Also, did gbaji say he attacked some guy for getting his mail?? Smiley: confused
#215 Mar 26 2012 at 6:23 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
ITT: Getting the upper hand in a fight makes you the aggressor, even though no one actually knows who started it.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#216 Mar 26 2012 at 6:23 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
gbaji wrote:
Do I need to go back to earlier in this thread and start quoting people talking about how Zimmerman "cornered him" or was otherwise keeping him from simply running away? Clearly, Martin could have gotten away if that's all he wanted. He choose to straddle Zimmerman and continue punching him and beating him. This is not the act of a scared little boy who just wants to go home.

You're right. It's more the act of someone being harassed.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#217 Mar 26 2012 at 6:26 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Nilatai wrote:
ITT: Getting the upper hand in a fight makes you the aggressor, even though no one actually knows who started it.

People who pick fights are always winning, until they're shot.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#218 Mar 26 2012 at 6:28 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Also, did gbaji say he attacked some guy for getting his mail?? Smiley: confused

It's a federal offense to tamper with someone else's mail, though not necessarily worth a shootin'.

Unless you're in Florida.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#219 Mar 26 2012 at 6:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Yeah, he was following him while talking to the police and ignoring their instructions. That is a little bit different then running into someone in your housing complex. Don't equate the two.


From a legal perspective, they are exactly the same. Why would you think otherwise? Martin had just as much legal justification to attack Zimmerman, as I did to attack the guy who happened to be getting mail at the same time I was.


No, they aren't. In one scenario, there's no prior relation between the two.


In both, there is no prior relation between the two. It's a chance encounter. Martin is walking back from the store, Zimmerman is driving back from the store.

Quote:
In another, one party placed the other into an immensely stressful situation which, historically, is related with brutal hate crimes.


Bit of a stretch, isn't it? It's also historically related to neighborhood watch activities. It's related to undercover police activities. It's related to people stopping and asking directions. It's related to people stopping their cars to make a phone call. When did someone driving past someone else, and then parking their car up the street become some sinister thing which justifies an immediate and violent response?

Quote:
That is NOT the same thing. And anyone with a brain can see why.


Legally, Martin's justification for initiating violent action against Zimmerman is the same. I could speculate that the guy following me to the mailbox could be a psycho serial killer, and decide to beat him to a pulp too. But I'd be in the wrong if I decide to beat him to a pulp based solely on that speculation. No matter how much he's following me around, I don't have the right to attack him.

Quote:
Can you honestly not see why someone would be justifiably terrified after a car had been slowly trailing them for 2-4 minutes, in the dark, with the headlights making it impossible to make out the driver?


This is, I believe, the third time you've presented this image of events prior to Martin's decision to run and Zimmerman's decision to get out of his car and follow him. Do you have *any* evidence that this is what happened? Aside from other people on the interwebs speculating wildly that is?

The only thing we know for a fact from when Zimmerman was in his car was during the phone call to police. And it's clear from that call that his car is stopped (idling), and that he's parked himself up the street since he's unable to definitively describe Martin initially, then says something like "he's coming towards me", then is able to identify him as a black male. This image you keep repeating of Zimmerman slowly trailing Martin with his car is, as far as I can tell, completely made up.

So, how about before you repeat that claim yet another time, you actually try to determine if it's true first? All I'm asking is that we look only at the facts and not speculate about what could have happened, or worse yet, invent assumptions designed to strengthen a position we've already taken. You don't assume that Martin acted out of legitimate fear of Zimmerman because of some facts about what Zimmerman had done. You assume that Zimmerman did certain things in order to defend your starting assumption that Martin acted out of legitimate fear.


That's a circular position. Stop speculating. Look only at the facts.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#220 Mar 26 2012 at 6:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Nilatai wrote:
ITT: Getting the upper hand in a fight makes you the aggressor, even though no one actually knows who started it.


IIT: People repeat overly simplistic statements that have already been responded to fully and clearly.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#221 Mar 26 2012 at 6:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
[quote]There are a fair number of viable scenarios in which either could be the aggressor, and also the possibility that Zimmerman is lying about the encounter to save his ***.


Sure. And space aliens could have abducted them both during the fracas too! But we can only act on the evidence we have. We have zero evidence that Zimmerman initiated the physical altercation. And "physical altercation" does not mean following him, or talking to him. It means physically laying hands on the other person in some way.

Yes, I specifically used the words "viable scenarios" because I knew you'd come up with something totally ridiculous.

You don't have to physically lay hands on someone to be threatening.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#222 Mar 26 2012 at 6:55 PM Rating: Good
****
9,526 posts
lolgaxe wrote:


Really, if anyone should have it, it should be law enforcement, off and on duty. I see it the same way as soldiers in war zones. Just because you're off duty doesn't mean the potential for violence against you for what you are isn't there. Everyone else is highly debatable.


Anyone could argue the potential for violence exists. I mean, when a woman out for a morning jog can be randomly attacked - can't it be said we are all potential targets for violence?

Now I do come from a a certain perspective:
I don't generally agree with anyone carrying hidden weapons in civilian society.

If there is a need for weapons in civilian society - if it is, as you describe it, a war zone, doesn't that suggest something is wrong on the home front?

I haven't heard of much here that would suggest to me that law enforcement officials would require a hidden weapon off hours. I mean I could see it with undercover people involved in gangs, if there are any, obviously an investigation like that could call for exceptions, but what does it say for the tenor of the society as a whole if there is out and out warfare between agents of the state and significant portions of the population? I mean warfare is what it looks like to me when police are so insecure that they feel the need to carry a weapon off hours and tons of other people just feel the need to own and carry weapons regardless.

Isn't that a hint that there may be some societal breakdown going on?

Edited, Mar 26th 2012 5:58pm by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.


#223 Mar 26 2012 at 7:40 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
It's not a chance encounter when one of the parties followed the other for several minutes beforehand...
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#224 Mar 26 2012 at 7:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 posts
Debalic wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
Also, did gbaji say he attacked some guy for getting his mail?? Smiley: confused

It's a federal offense to tamper with someone else's mail, though not necessarily worth a shootin'.

Unless you're in Florida.



See? Cliff Claven voice makes it alllll better.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#225 Mar 26 2012 at 8:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
ITT: Getting the upper hand in a fight makes you the aggressor, even though no one actually knows who started it.


IIT: People repeat overly simplistic statements that have already been responded to fully and clearly.

ITT: gbaji shows that he doesn't know how to use the abbreviation 'ITT".
#226 Mar 26 2012 at 9:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,010 posts
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
There are a fair number of viable scenarios in which either could be the aggressor, and also the possibility that Zimmerman is lying about the encounter to save his ***.


Sure. And space aliens could have abducted them both during the fracas too! But we can only act on the evidence we have. We have zero evidence that Zimmerman initiated the physical altercation. And "physical altercation" does not mean following him, or talking to him. It means physically laying hands on the other person in some way.

Yes, I specifically used the words "viable scenarios" because I knew you'd come up with something totally ridiculous.


You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether the scenarios are viable or absurd. If we don't know what happened and *can't* know what happened, we can't assume anything, much less press charges against someone.

Yet that's exactly what the mob is demanding in this case.

Quote:
You don't have to physically lay hands on someone to be threatening.


You're changing the words again. We're dealing with a case where Martin was seen (by at least three witnesses) straddling Zimmerman and beating him just before Zimmerman shot him. At some point, whether we call it an encounter, or an altercation, or whatever, a physical fight started. The cause of that fight is in question. Either Zimmerman started the fight, or Martin did. If Zimmerman did, his case for self defense is invalid. If Martin did, his case is valid.


And while I suppose you can make a case for Martin feeling threatened, you'd need to make a much stronger case for an explicit threat from Zimmerman to justify the end result the eye witnesses saw. As I've said many times so far in this thread, we can speculate an endless set of possible things Zimmerman could have done which might make Martin so sure he was going to be attacked that he might attack first. Or we could speculate that Zimmerman just ran up and attacked Martin out of the blue with no warning. But all of that is just speculation. We don't know what is true and unless there's some additional information that we're missing, we *can't* know.


It just sounds like you're trying to come up with excuses to explain Martin's behavior, but those excuses are getting more and more bizarre and unlikely as more facts about this case appear. You should step back from the issue for a second and ask what your position would be if you'd just heard about this for the first time today. I honestly believe that most people are continuing to insist that Zimmerman should be arrested not because of the facts of the case, but because they adopted that position a week or so ago when all they knew was a slanted view presented by the Martin's lawyer and now they don't want to face the possibility that something they felt so strongly about was wrong.


This is why I keep saying that people are acting on emotion and not reason in this case. I fully get why the Martin's lawyer did this. It's good for her clients to stir up public support. But this is precisely why we should wait to pass judgment until we know all the facts (or as many as possible). Frankly, the behavior of the media and many public figures in this case has been abhorrent. While screaming for justice, they've been effectively preventing it from being done. Hopefully, it wont be long before cooler heads prevail and the public perception shifts. The real question is whether we'll learn from this lesson, or repeat it again the next time it happens.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 67 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (67)