Zimmerman Verdict In... |
||
|
Zimmerman Verdict in...
How does one dress like a thug?
Ragnarok.Hevans said: » Leviathan.Kincard said: » I'm still not getting where you get the assumption that Zimmerman thought he was suspicious based on the fact he was black, rather than the fact he was...acting suspicious. conjecture, which is a legal word for FTFY. At least according to that hognosed *** Nancy Grace. We already established multiple times that he was already suspicious of Trayvon before he even knew he was Black. If you want to argue that him being Black solidified his suspicion you are free to do so, but you have no proof of that, because he only mentioned race after that because the dispatch specifically asked him for it.
And as I already mentioned, the people that were seen in the area before when the area was burglarized were black. Does it make me "racist" to assume that the next time a burglary will take place in the area that I assume that a suspicious man being black probably increases my chances of having the right guy? Does it make me "racist" if I said a white guy has a higher chance of skin cancer or a black man has a higher chance of sickle cell? Come on. I don't deny that racism exists but it's annoying when people spot it in places where there's no real way of proving there is any... Fenrir.Mtmoogle said: » How does one dress like a thug? Maybe that works in your fantasy world, but I deal in reality. Leviathan.Kincard said: » We already established multiple times that he was already suspicious of Trayvon before he even knew he was Black. If you want to argue that him being Black solidified his suspicion you are free to do so, but you have no proof of that, because he only mentioned race after that because the dispatch specifically asked him for it. And as I already mentioned, the people that were seen in the area before when the area was burglarized were black. Does it make me "racist" to assume that the next time a burglary will take place in the area that I assume that a suspicious man being black probably increases my chances of having the right guy? Does it make me "racist" if I said a white guy has a higher chance of skin cancer or a black man has a higher chance of sickle cell? Come on. I don't deny that racism exists but it's annoying when people spot it in places where there's no real way of proving there is any... I love how you don't even attempt to answer the question and assume my position on this verdict just because I'm questioning you. I haven't stated whether I agree with the verdict or not and neither did I use any loaded language to support either side. Get over yourself.
Despite my distaste for rap music, Lupe Fiasco hit many of the points I share on Twitter.
Fenrir.Mtmoogle said: » I love how you don't even attempt to answer the question and assume my position on this verdict just because I'm questioning you. I haven't stated whether I agree with the verdict or not and neither did I use any loaded language to support either side. Get over yourself. Gilgamesh.Tenshibaby said: » Fenrir.Mtmoogle said: » I love how you don't even attempt to answer the question and assume my position on this verdict just because I'm questioning you. I haven't stated whether I agree with the verdict or not and neither did I use any loaded language to support either side. Get over yourself. Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » Despite my distaste for rap music, Lupe Fiasco hit many of the points I share on Twitter. Ragnarok.Hevans said: » yeah, cause 60 years ago white people in the south were *** crazy it obviously means everyone in the south now hates darkies. while it is a fact that in every part of the country (meaning not just in the south you bigot) young black males are given a disproportionate number of harsher sentences for lesser crimes, it's simply not a statistic that has much to do with this murder case. it has more to do with socio-economic repression. in fact more black people have been moving south than moving north. you know why? it's because the misguided notion that all southerners are ignorant racists is a myth. It's a well-documented fact that the South suffers from more incidents of racial violence against blacks. I'm not sure what there is to argue about there. I'm not saying that every white Southerner is a racist. I'm saying that racism against African-Americans is historically much higher in the South. Ragnarok.Hevans said: » not to play the, 'it sucks being a white guy in america card' (cause it totally doesn't), but you say that black lives are undervalued in america. let's be real. if i was shot by pretty much anyone tomorrow for any reason, there wouldn't be a protest about it. people wouldn't show up in work the next day in polo shirts and flip flops cause that's what i had on. russel simons and lebron james wouldn't be lighting up the twitter sphere or give a ***about me. You have missed the point. If you were shot tomorrow and killed, you would expect that the person who shot you be charged appropriately. Zimmerman wasn't charged at all until the case went nationwide. Black, white, whatever, when one person is dead and the other person shot them, some heavy scrutiny is necessary. Ragnarok.Hevans said: » it just turns out in this case, that a man who self-identifies as a hispanic legally carrying a firearm got his *** whooped by a black teenage male who i'm sure didn't consider himself much of a kid. the *** whooping was not legal, but being a scared person being assaulted does give you the legal right to discharge your firearm. it sucks he died, but the laws are there for a reason. 984 people were murdered in florida in 2011. 5,274 people were raped. i couldn't name a single victim from those. trayvon martins parents had the connections to advocate for him that those other victims didn't. i think that sucks too. What you're saying is morally/legally wrong. If you're in fear for your life or of grievous bodily harm, then you can discharge your firearm. Anything less is not a call to use deadly force. I was never convinced during the trial that Zimmerman was in the type of danger that required a lethal response. Everyone that had been arrested for break ins in the area had been black.
That isn't to say every black person in the area is up to no good, but if 100% of the people being caught are black, I don't think its unfair to say you are then more suspicious of black people in the area. Now, if more than 50% of the break ins were done by non black people, they you have a better case in saying he was racially profiling him. Kimble2013 said: » Everyone that had been arrested for break ins in the area had been black. That isn't to say every black person in the area is up to no good, but if 100% of the people being caught are black, I don't think its unfair to say you are then more suspicious of black people in the area. Now, if more than 50% of the break ins were done by non black people, they you have a better case in saying he was racially profiling him. I thought that's EXACTLY what racial profiling is? Suspicious of someone simply on their race. How many white serial killers are there? hundreds of them. Does anyone follow random middle aged white men around all day just because they're white middle aged men in the area of the murders? I doubt it. ...Because looking for someone of a particular description in a particular area is the same thing as going around randomly arresting white guys because white killers exist? Might as well call any police searches based on what a man looks like racist, or people looking for a woman perpetrator by stopping females sexist.
Meld said: » Sylph.Safiyyah said: » Ragnarok.Hevans said: » it just turns out in this case, that a man who self-identifies as a hispanic legally carrying a firearm got his *** whooped by a black teenage male who i'm sure didn't consider himself much of a kid. the *** whooping was not legal, but being a scared person being assaulted does give you the legal right to discharge your firearm. it sucks he died, but the laws are there for a reason. 984 people were murdered in florida in 2011. 5,274 people were raped. i couldn't name a single victim from those. trayvon martins parents had the connections to advocate for him that those other victims didn't. i think that sucks too. What you're saying is morally/legally wrong. If you're in fear for your life or of grievous bodily harm, then you can discharge your firearm. Anything less is not a call to use deadly force. I was never convinced during the trial that Zimmerman was in the type of danger that required a lethal response. I'm not sure if you made a typo or not. You say 'Its ok to fire a weapon if you're in fear', then act like getting your skull smashed into hard concrete doesn't warrant to use a firearm. In fear for your life, or of grievous bodily harm. Zimmerman wasn't going to be killed, and his injuries weren't severe: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/george-zimmerman-jury-told-injuries-insignificant/story?id=19552856#.UeL-A40XnBE Sylph.Safiyyah said: » Meld said: » Sylph.Safiyyah said: » Ragnarok.Hevans said: » it just turns out in this case, that a man who self-identifies as a hispanic legally carrying a firearm got his *** whooped by a black teenage male who i'm sure didn't consider himself much of a kid. the *** whooping was not legal, but being a scared person being assaulted does give you the legal right to discharge your firearm. it sucks he died, but the laws are there for a reason. 984 people were murdered in florida in 2011. 5,274 people were raped. i couldn't name a single victim from those. trayvon martins parents had the connections to advocate for him that those other victims didn't. i think that sucks too. What you're saying is morally/legally wrong. If you're in fear for your life or of grievous bodily harm, then you can discharge your firearm. Anything less is not a call to use deadly force. I was never convinced during the trial that Zimmerman was in the type of danger that required a lethal response. I'm not sure if you made a typo or not. You say 'Its ok to fire a weapon if you're in fear', then act like getting your skull smashed into hard concrete doesn't warrant to use a firearm. In fear for your life, or of grievous bodily harm. Zimmerman wasn't going to be killed, and his injuries weren't severe: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/george-zimmerman-jury-told-injuries-insignificant/story?id=19552856#.UeL-A40XnBE So if this guy who's younger than you has you in a UFC type mount, punches you until his hand bleeds, taking a break only to smack the back of your head into the pavement, reportedly says "you're going to die tonight", your advice would be to just blackout and hope he stops because there's no reason to feel any fear at this point? Granted, if Martin did anything like that. And even then, how'd he get the gun in a UFC style grapple? Also, how do we know MArtin said anything? Isnt this whole "You're going to die tonight!" eath match nonsense coming from solely Zimmerman?
Enuyasha said: » Isnt this whole "You're going to die tonight!" eath match nonsense coming from solely Zimmerman? Yes. This case is mostly comprised of "he said, she said" nonsense, with just one single physical witness that saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman and also claiming a high chance the "help" yells were from the man on the bottom. In other words, reasonable doubt. So murder 2, no way. Manslaughter? If the good chance that Trayvon backtracked doesn't matter to you, you're going to have to go look for information on both these people that were not presented in court (Judge deemed it irrelevant) and make your own determination. Quote: In fear for your life, or of grievous bodily harm. Zimmerman wasn't going to be killed, and his injuries weren't severe: Bolded important part. The law, as written, is used to protect people who cannot immediately *** their own situation because they are in a struggle and panicking and/or lack the necessary medical/etc training. Yes, fear is subjective, so I guess make of it what you will. Ragnarok.Hevans said: » Jetackuu said: » Ragnarok.Hevans said: » it's ok. my great grand father was full blooded cherokee and i forgive you. to be fair, I wouldn't call the history of America *** over the natives a "civil war" as they were their own people, not of the US. but that's quibbling a bit imo. neither would i, but it's the best example of people with guns fighting people with out them for most people here. also... was a joke. let's n ot apply critical thinking to it. laugh and walk away bro. laugh, and walk away. I figured that, was just having fun :P Sylph.Safiyyah said: » It's a well-documented fact that the South suffers from more incidents of racial violence against blacks. Sylph.Safiyyah said: » Zimmerman wasn't charged at all until the case went nationwide. Black, white, whatever, when one person is dead and the other person shot them, some heavy scrutiny is necessary. Sylph.Safiyyah said: » What you're saying is morally/legally wrong. If you're in fear for your life or of grievous bodily harm, then you can discharge your firearm. Anything less is not a call to use deadly force. I was never convinced during the trial that Zimmerman was in the type of danger that required a lethal response. /ma Blindna Safiyyah Sylph.Safiyyah said: » In fear for your life, or of grievous bodily harm. Zimmerman wasn't going to be killed, and his injuries weren't severe: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/george-zimmerman-jury-told-injuries-insignificant/story?id=19552856#.UeL-A40XnBE I don't think you quite understand stand your ground laws. All you need is three little words and you are free to kill. "I felt threatened." But now compare compare the Zimmerman verdict to this case, also in FL: Marissa Alexander Gets 20 Years For Firing Warning Shot YouTube Video Placeholder Zimmerman Prevented This From Happening That Night And Where Was The NAACP Or Jesse *** Jackson For This Victim Sylph.Safiyyah said: » Lakshmi.Glaciont said: » I thought self-defense was this: "a person may use reasonable force when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury. A person using force in self-defense should use only so much force as is required to repel the attack. Nondeadly force can be used to repel either a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. Deadly Force may be used to fend off an attacker who is using deadly force but may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force." I don't think this was a situation where deadly force was necessary. That's my essential problem with the situation. Martin wasn't trying to kill Zimmerman. It was a disproportionate response and it left a child dead. Zimmerman should have paid for that, it was manslaughter at the very least. Siren.Piccollo said: » I have actually kept up with this case and its handling by the media since i first heard of it, (im from the uk btw), and in my oppinion while it seems zimmerman was defending himself he should not have been carrying a gun anyway and personally feel this is the main reason for this case = illigal to carry guns except single shot rifles in cases ect and there should be no situation where a citizen should be carrying a concealed / loaded weapon. If you had real gun regulations not just the well a old granny should have a gun so she can protect herself from a 20 year old with a gun kind of argument as in reality nowhere in the world has as much of a problem as the usa when it comes to guns murders and white on black racism. simply you need to disarm the masses and stop telling black folks that they are criminals and different from everyone else. Being from the UK, you probably don't understand the sick gun obsession in America culture, as well as the deep-seated prejudice against African-Americans, particularly in areas like Florida that are below the Mason-Dixon line. I don't think we will EVER be divested of that, it's very pervasive. The thing is, black lives, especially male lives, are undervalued. It extends beyond this trial to stuff like inner-city violence and the war on drugs as well. 1. he was no child, he was a punk. 2. you weren't there, you don't know if he felt threatened enough to use self defense. 3. he was found innocent on manslaughter as well, as there wasn't enough evidence for that either. 4. whether something is sick or not is entirely subjective and honestly has no place here, I personally find people trying to make this into a gun debate sickening, but hey. 5. this case had nothing to do with race, until politicians/media made it so. 6. inner city violence would be resolved (mostly) if you eliminated the culture that lets it thrive. 7. the war on drugs is a bad joke. Quetzalcoatl.Xueye said: » I keep reading contradicting sources -- what was the final verdict, did Trayvon reach for the gun or not? Because, even if you started, when someone reaches for your gun it means your life is now in danger. It's not a rash assumption to say "welp, he's about to shoot me" and have to act. I feel dirty that I keep having to reiterate that Zimmerman instigated this, and that the whole situation is disgusting and handled poorly, but I can't find any compelling argument that states that he was wrong. Just that he was a really shitty human being. I don't see enough evidenced to support the idea that he instigated this at all. Garuda.Chanti said: » (And this is why you should never rely on HuffPo for getting the whole story) She could not use the SYG defense because she left and returned on her own volition. Also, she was under mandatory sentencing guidelines. She was morally permitted to shoot him in my opinion, but not legally permitted. The court decided properly, and of course it was portrayed by utter morons as a racist/sexist case. Leviathan.Kincard said: » Enuyasha said: » Isnt this whole "You're going to die tonight!" eath match nonsense coming from solely Zimmerman? Yes. This case is mostly comprised of "he said, she said" nonsense, with just one single physical witness that saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman and also claiming a high chance the "help" yells were from the man on the bottom. In other words, reasonable doubt. So murder 2, no way. Manslaughter? If the good chance that Trayvon backtracked doesn't matter to you, you're going to have to go look for information on both these people that were not presented in court (Judge deemed it irrelevant) and make your own determination. Quote: In fear for your life, or of grievous bodily harm. Zimmerman wasn't going to be killed, and his injuries weren't severe: Bolded important part. The law, as written, is used to protect people who cannot immediately *** their own situation because they are in a struggle and panicking and/or lack the necessary medical/etc training. Yes, fear is subjective, so I guess make of it what you will. Jetackuu said: » Sylph.Safiyyah said: » Lakshmi.Glaciont said: » I thought self-defense was this: "a person may use reasonable force when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury. A person using force in self-defense should use only so much force as is required to repel the attack. Nondeadly force can be used to repel either a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. Deadly Force may be used to fend off an attacker who is using deadly force but may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force." I don't think this was a situation where deadly force was necessary. That's my essential problem with the situation. Martin wasn't trying to kill Zimmerman. It was a disproportionate response and it left a child dead. Zimmerman should have paid for that, it was manslaughter at the very least. Siren.Piccollo said: » I have actually kept up with this case and its handling by the media since i first heard of it, (im from the uk btw), and in my oppinion while it seems zimmerman was defending himself he should not have been carrying a gun anyway and personally feel this is the main reason for this case = illigal to carry guns except single shot rifles in cases ect and there should be no situation where a citizen should be carrying a concealed / loaded weapon. If you had real gun regulations not just the well a old granny should have a gun so she can protect herself from a 20 year old with a gun kind of argument as in reality nowhere in the world has as much of a problem as the usa when it comes to guns murders and white on black racism. simply you need to disarm the masses and stop telling black folks that they are criminals and different from everyone else. Being from the UK, you probably don't understand the sick gun obsession in America culture, as well as the deep-seated prejudice against African-Americans, particularly in areas like Florida that are below the Mason-Dixon line. I don't think we will EVER be divested of that, it's very pervasive. The thing is, black lives, especially male lives, are undervalued. It extends beyond this trial to stuff like inner-city violence and the war on drugs as well. 1. he was no child, he was a punk. 2. you weren't there, you don't know if he felt threatened enough to use self defense. 3. he was found innocent on manslaughter as well, as there wasn't enough evidence for that either. 4. whether something is sick or not is entirely subjective and honestly has no place here, I personally find people trying to make this into a gun debate sickening, but hey. 5. this case had nothing to do with race, until politicians/media made it so. 6. inner city violence would be resolved (mostly) if you eliminated the culture that lets it thrive. 7. the war on drugs is a bad joke. Um, we're talking about a 17 year old boy who was on a 711 run to get iced tea and skittles. Treatening? I think not... And that's not even mentioning Zimmerman's extensive criminal activity record and molestation accusations. I'm extremely saddened by this trial and it's result- and nervous that concealed carry has just become legal in Illinois. May the odds be ever in our favor. |
||
|
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|
||