Yeah, we know what PROBABLY happens next, TM punches GZ in the face and mounts him to deliver an asswhippin. And being armed with a legal concealed weapons permit is a Constitutional right, not "sufficient to establish malicious intent." I'm glad GZ had his gun. Are you really a lawyer? I would love to see you try and sell that to a halfway intelligent jury.
Black Teen Shot, Killed By Neighborhood Watch
- Thread starter joeboosauce
- Start date
I actually agree totally with the last post you quoted. The other two are more examples of the idiocy we have in this country, just like those calling for violence against GZ and committing destructive protests.
joeboosauce
CAGiversary!
1) How does what happens next matter to the stalking charge?
2) Although carrying a gun is not against the law in the State of FL doing so while in pursuit or stalking someone makes it an aggravated offense which would be sufficient to establish intent.
3) The point that most folks haven't mentioned because it played no part in the murder 2 charge is that carrying a gun is against national neighborhood watch regulations which means he stopped acting in his capacity as a neighborhood watch. So, is pursuing a suspect. GZ was acting as a straight up vigilante which the law does not protect.
4) Selling a story to a jury has nothing to do with intelligence it's all about relating to them and getting them involved in the case. In the words of O'Mara "No jury out there understands the law, they just won't."
Lastly, I'm a real attorney much to your chagrin but I do not practice criminal law. I work for a corporate firm in NYC.
Last edited by a moderator:
joeboosauce
CAGiversary!
No it's not. Concealed carry is a granted privilege. We interpret the ability to bear arms as a right. That does not inherently cover concealed carry. That is issued by your state and local county as a privilege.
EDIT: Goddammit. I hate the new CAG layout. It's harder than shit to quote anything, it's hard to tell who is replying to who. Bleh. Anyway...I meant to quote this from egofed:
But as an edit to an edit, the guy he's quoting who claims concealed carry is automatically intent to do malicious harm, that's ridiculous. Is it intent to do malicious harm each time someone legally carries a Leatherman around? This notion that Zimmerman had a concealed weapon, and was "carrying hot" is so badly misunderstood by people with no experience or understanding of responsible firearms carry. Lots of people carry every day just as they go about their business. Not because they plan on murdering people. Where exactly is the malicious intent? Is he supposed to empty his pockets, walk through a metal detector, then chase after Martin for it to no longer be malicious?
EDIT: Goddammit. I hate the new CAG layout. It's harder than shit to quote anything, it's hard to tell who is replying to who. Bleh. Anyway...I meant to quote this from egofed:
But as an edit to an edit, the guy he's quoting who claims concealed carry is automatically intent to do malicious harm, that's ridiculous. Is it intent to do malicious harm each time someone legally carries a Leatherman around? This notion that Zimmerman had a concealed weapon, and was "carrying hot" is so badly misunderstood by people with no experience or understanding of responsible firearms carry. Lots of people carry every day just as they go about their business. Not because they plan on murdering people. Where exactly is the malicious intent? Is he supposed to empty his pockets, walk through a metal detector, then chase after Martin for it to no longer be malicious?
Last edited by a moderator:
If you are pursuing/stalking someone with a gun which you end up firing I would think that pretty much establish malicious intent. In NYC bringing a gun into any scenario pretty much bumps up the crime one degree. I understand that you are allowed to conceal carry in FL but I would assume that they have laws where if someone is caught stalking or pursuing someone while armed that amounts to aggravated offense.
EDIT: Disclaimer: This is a conversation discussing a hypothetical based on the idea that GZ was stalking and how you would go about establishing it.
Last edited by a moderator:
jputahraptor
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 41 (100%)
The guy that called conservatives right winged
tards above is calling me racist. This is the close minded bigot who never calls out his own political party or Obama for doing nothing to help blacks find jobs or improve education. You have enough hate for whites and conservatives that calling anyone racist is shocking. If you spent 1/10th the time trolling facebook for what you perceive as conservative racism, you'd find that you are among thousands of racist and ignorant liberals. All your posts mention race and racism, all of them. Somehow though black lives never seem to improve, they keep voting the liberals in because they know what's best. Keep calling people names, that should fix all the problems, you are to focused on race in your posts, regardless of whether or not it has any bearing on the topic, to be debated intelligently, you are a dumb racist kid who needs an ass whooping and a reality check.The truth is you cheapen the word by calling everyone who disagrees with you a racist. Anyone who accepts the jury's verdict and looked at the evidence objectively is a racist and not somebody who looked at the facts. You only see this issue (ACTUALLY THE WORLD) as a racial one and refuse to look at what your dems have done for blacks the last 50 years. If I blamed the ills of society on blacks and liberals, even the people who tend to agree with me on most issues here would back the hell up and condemn me, your side see it as a absolute and 100% true, that's the sad existence of believing the media instead of reading up on history.
Let me ask you, who do you think voted more in favor of civil rights in the 60's, Republicans or Democrats? Because it was Republicans 80% to Democrats voting 60% in favor. The black "leadership" that continues to get voted in office in black urban areas where education and jobs continue to be among the worst in the country are somehow white peoples fault, even though all the decisions are made under black elected officials, not that many aren't trying to improve things, but in spite of the votes the dems get, they have not advance or done anything to improve black families in 50 years.
Who am I kidding, you aren't going to read this or debate this factually, you are so far biased and have your mind set, that you will never admit to or hold your party accountable for all of their failures to the black community.
I don't think I necessarily agree with that. Let's say you're walking through the wilderness, a mountain lion jumps out and attacks. You shoot it in self defense/fear for your life. Are you going to get poaching chargers raised if you didn't have a license to kill the animal? Of course not. The assumption is that you were legally carrying, when circumstances came up that made it justifiable to use your weapon. Now if you are found to have unnecessarily killed the animal just because you saw it, then sure. Charges. In any hypothetical, merely carrying legally, versus preparing to carry with intent, is where an elevated crime occurs.
I'm going to a bar in a bad part of town. I make a point to legally carry concealed. No problem.
I'm going to a bar where I got my ass beat by a biker gang last week. I make a point of going there, legally carrying concealed, and starting an altercation. Now I'm carrying maliciously.
Last edited by a moderator:
Carrying a gun by itself doesn't amount to anything unless you happen to be in a state or city which does not permit conceal carry. However pursuing someone while armed would be the equivalent of your bar scenario. Given the circumstances of the case such as GZ being "on duty" carrying a concealed weapon adds to the idea that he was looking for trouble. The gun IMO would make stalking into a felony instead of a misdemeanor. Ether way it's a hypothetical which is silly to begin with since the state didn't charge GZ as an armed stalker.
EDIT: Flashed out some of my thoughts.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hmm, still not entirely grasping it. There needs to be intent established. Or if something were done out of the ordinary.
Everyday you get dressed and wear sandals, but you intend on getting in a fight, so that day you wear steel toed boots.
If legally carrying concealed is something that is as commonplace to you as wearing pants and a shirt, then there is nothing out of the ordinary that would make a person question your intent, and why you happened to be carrying at that moment.
The stalking scenario is already pretty thin, but the malicious intent part, to me, isn't there.
Whoops, ninja-edit to your edit: I thought we were discussing this outside of the Zimmerman trial, so that's why I was bringing in my own hypotheticals. Oops.
But second to the idea of neighborhood watch, on guard, or whatever else, I'm not sure any organization has ever come out and said Zimmerman was an official member, acting on behalf of a group, or anything like that. We know he was the de facto neighborhood watch "captain", whatever that means, but for some communities that could be a granny with a flashlight. It's not exactly a respected, legal title of authority. So a vest, an introduction, all of that isn't necessary legally or logically really when pursuing someone who you think may be acting suspiciously.
In regards to the Zimmerman case, we don't know if he tried to grab Martin, detain him, or take any action beyond walk after him and try to talk to him. So without that known, we also couldn't ever establish malicious intent. I don't think anybody really believes that Zimmerman was trying to walk into a situation where he could get socked in the face and taken to the ground, in order to pull a legally concealed weapon and could kill a 17 year old.
Last edited by a moderator:
Here the section of the law we are talking about:
Under Florida law, stalking is a first degree misdemeanor charge. However, a person may be charged with Aggravated Stalking, which is a third degree felony charge, under any of the following circumstances:
- If the offender stalks a minor who is under the age of sixteen (16).
- If the offender makes a "credible threat" of bodily injury or death against the victim as part of the behaviors exhibited, with the intent to cause the victim to reasonably fear for his or her safety.
- If the victim has an injunction for protection or other court-ordered prohibition of conduct by the offender toward the intended person or that person's property, and the offender persists with the pattern of behaviors.
Here's my hypo if you want to read it:
Let's start off with the premise that both parties had a right to be there. GZ had a right to be where he was because he was part of the neighborhood watch and TM had a right to be where he was because he lived there among a slew of other reasons.
GZ approaches TM the first time. This act is okay in and of itself because GZ is only doing his job (I won't address the issue of whether or not he was violating neighborhood watch regulations by carrying a loaded weapon). However, based on what I know GZ never identified himself as part of neighborhood watch nor did he have on a vest or some form of identification to notify others that he was part of neighborhood watch.
TM on the other hand was suspicious of GZ (a total stranger who was following him in a car) corroborated by Jeantel's testimony. He was afraid of him. This fear of GZ was displayed in his decision to run towards safety, his home.
GZ interpreted TM's decision to run as a sign of culpability. In his mind TM was already guilty. So following protocol GZ notified the police. While talking to them he identified the suspect as black and that he's tired of these "punks" getting away with it. At this point he decides to ignore the dispatcher's advice and pursued TM. He has now stopped acting within his capacity as a neighborhood watch. GZ has now left his vehicle and is in pursuit of TM. He is armed (this in itself is sufficient to establish malicious intent) and in pursuit of TM with the intent to stop that punk from getting away with it (as he told the dispatcher).
TM realizes that GZ is now following him. He panics and instead of running home decides to confront GZ. We know what happens next.
And that could be sufficient to prove aggravated stalking.
*Note: Malicious intent does not to need to proved explicitly it can be implied. Additionally, carrying a weapon while involved in any unlawful activity is considered an escalating factor.
That's all I have to say on the subject. I've wasted way too much time discussing something I care little about.
Last edited by a moderator:
So the existence of ignorant racist liberals makes the existence of ignorant racist conservatives ok?The guy that called conservatives right winged
Nice of you to suggest that a kid deserves a beating though. Super christian of you.
Uhhh...but you DO blame society's ills on black people and liberals? Like in this very paragraph?
Btw, the only people that attempt to cheapen the word are the ones that aren't introspective about it's usage. That'd be you. It's been explained constantly to the racists on this board as to WHY they're called racist and all you nudnicks can say is "no, YOU'RE the REAL racist!"
Obama increased funding to higher education and worker training programs. I'd say that's more than nothing. And those ghettos you're talking about? White-flight and Redlining happened. Those FHA loans that were instrumental in creating the (white) middle-class weren't exactly given to everyone that qualified.
Ok, so more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats. I'll give you that one. But when we look at the numbers regionally, you'll see that it has far less to do with party affiliations. That said, your point is beyond intellectually dishonest.
As for "improving" black families and communities, you give no metrics nor do you qualify that bullshit, so instead of trying to bullshit your way out of needing to be accurate, why not grow some balls and take a stand by explaining that statement.
LOLZ...have you even READ your own goddamn post?
How frequently was TM in "his own neighborhood"?
Because I don't remember him being there by choice.
Purple Flames
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
if there's one thing I've learned from this whole mess, it's that Al Sharpton has become the racist white people's equivalent of Godwin's Law.
kill3r7, NY isn't FL and carrying "cocked and locked" is perfectly safe with a proper holster and safety. I totally get your point and am not a fan of CCW, but unless you're trying to be pedantic, it's a pointless argument to hang your hat on when there are so many other arguments with more meat. Forest for the trees, buddy.
Hahaha...I think I said something to that effect a few days ago. Funniest thing is that they don't know dick about him either. Between him and Jesse Jackson, I don't know who's Hitler and who's Goebbels.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry for the delay, my 3 month old determines when I get computer time. And I apologize in advance for the post avalanche...
It certainly seems that a not guiilty on the murder 2 was inevitable, and I know that you can't prove a negative. But I'm not talking about convicting a man based on assumptions of what he might have done. I'm purely speaking to the idea that Zimmerman's intent and motive are can be reasonably extrapolated just from the actions that we know factually he took prior to any punches being thrown. I think this has largely been avoided by those who want to protect Zimmerman because it could give legitimacy to Martin's actions. It could also cast Zimmerman's use of the gun in a much more unflattering light. So again, I'm not talking about what he might have done, but what we know he did.
He could have fought to free himself. I find it hard to believe a scrawny 17 year old boy could immobilize a grown man enough that he can't strike back but can still get to a gun in his waistband (?) and shoot the boy in the chest. Martin didn't have any specialized hand to hand training, but wasn't zimmerman talking MMA? But I'm trying to avoid hypotheticals, so don't feel like you need to answer that. i just didn't want to ignore your question again.
jputahraptor
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 41 (100%)
I indented my responses in case our responses get jumbled together.
So the existence of ignorant racist liberals makes the existence of ignorant racist conservatives ok?
No, but JOE is so unapologetically sour to conservatives and labels ALL white and conservatives as being solely racist. Even you are not that stupid as to overlook his attitude. He and Finger Shocker have to be the same because they share such negative views of those they disagree with. Read some of their posts objectively and read some conservative posters on here and try to tell me those two aren't more extreme. Who does the most name calling and finger pointing.
Nice of you to suggest that a kid deserves a beating though. Super christian of you.
That was a little reference to Rachel Jeantle and her ass whooping statement, she said there is nothing wrong with a little ass whooping, after all, you point out how "violent" us Christians are so I got to live up to the violent nature you describe us at.
Uhhh...but you DO blame society's ills on black people and liberals? Like in this very paragraph?
I don't blame black people, and I only said that as an "what if" response to JOE's blaming white and conservatives comments. I DO blame those elected in urban cities that repeatedly fail to improve the lives of the people they represent I also don't blame any race for the ills of society, that would be silly or to put it another way, that would be JOEBOOSAUCE. Unlike you few, I hold individuals accountable for what they do, not based on race (whites) or politics (conservatives) that are the foundation of JOE and FInger's posts. There is good and bad in all races, religions and ideologies.
Btw, the only people that attempt to cheapen the word are the ones that aren't introspective about it's usage. That'd be you. It's been explained constantly to the racists on this board as to WHY they're called racist and all you nudnicks can say is "no, YOU'RE the REAL racist!"
No when I and others come on here and state our opinions, a select few instantly claim a racial bias. JOE called me a racist for a suggestion I made of what Trayvon could have done. Lots of people propose what GZ could have done, nobody labeled them a racist. In fact, JOE and FINGER will bring up race regardless of context. You take your potshots as well but not to that extreme. This thread should be about evidence or lack thereof, some people are looking at what we know, others are just injecting their feelings STRONGLY. You can be white and agree with the verdict and not be a racist. You can be black and disagree with the verdict and not be a racist. There is no EVIDENCE of racial profiling, you can throw around theories but that's all they are. You literally believe the opposite of what people like me are saying, yet you are not a racist for your beliefs? How about this, how about neither one of us are racists? And let's debate facts and proof and speculate, but show respect for each others opinion. That's what mature adults do, they don't point fingers and label. If I'm racist, report me, but do a good job citing exactly what I said and in the context I said it. Please I'm sure a moderator would have warned me or someone would send me a PM if I was ever to extreme.
Obama increased funding to higher education and worker training programs. I'd say that's more than nothing. And those ghettos you're talking about? White-flight and Redlining happened. Those FHA loans that were instrumental in creating the (white) middle-class weren't exactly given to everyone that qualified.
Ok, so more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats. I'll give you that one. But when we look at the numbers regionally, you'll see that it has far less to do with party affiliations. That said, your point is beyond intellectually dishonest.
The democratic party actually has a history of opposing civil rights, in the decades leading up to the 60's dating back to the Civil War where a Republican proposed legislation to abolish slavery.
As for "improving" black families and communities, you give no metrics nor do you qualify that bullshit, so instead of trying to bullshit your way out of needing to be accurate, why not grow some balls and take a stand by explaining that statement.
Improving black communities, sure, pump more money into schools, both teachers and materials, evaluate schools there more for performance, offer incentives to teachers who perform well. Reduce or eliminate student loan interest to residents of these neighborhoods to encourage higher education. For businesses, offer credits to new businesses, reduce or eliminate sales tax, offer tax breaks to businesses to encourage jobs and business credits for new hires for every quarter they remain hired, and to grow the economy, and invest in rundown buildings and turn them into youth centers for kids to go after school, more business, more money, more jobs, better way of life. No reason with the way we waste tax dollars that they can't introduce legislation to grow economies in ANY city to foster growth. Good education and a good economy are obvious, I would also suggest improving the police presence to weed out drug dealers, gang violence, and crime. Remove these options and replace them with real jobs to keep them from getting in trouble or killed. I know people in these cities are not happy, but they are at the mercy of the elected who make big promises and than engage in backroom deals, and yes corruption is every race and party. Compare NY to Chicago, even though NY is a blue state it has a Republican mayor for the last 12 years and crime is way down and a better economy than Chicago, the city is a far cry from 20 or 30 years ago, now look at Obama's Chicago with out of control gang violence and high crime.
LOLZ...have you even READ your own goddamn post?
LOLZ have you read yours?
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree that the trial itself probably could have only gone the way it did with the case that the prosecution built. I say probably just because I haven't yet read the Jury Instructions for Manslaughter. As far as stalking goes, I think a case could have been successfully made under the section I pulled from kill3r7's helpful research quoted below, since the course of conduct can be a short period of time. Thus is could be argued that he met the repeatedly with at least 2 distinct following episodes (as far as my understanding of the timeline goes):
1) In the car before and during the 911 call
2) When he gets out of the car and searches for Martin after being told by the 911 dispatcher not to pursue
Either way, I think there should definitely be some kind of law put onto the books in the future that can be applied in cases of vigilantism such as this one to discourage citizens from doing things like this again.
Are you seriously trying to find a way to make Al Sharpton seem like he's being treated unfairly? Some shit is just ridiculous.
People continue to bring up racism and call people racist.
Based on what?
What?
People feed in to a victim mentallity and a prejudice system simply out of racial barriers,
Do you ever see Hispanics whining about their race and being treated unfairly? Protesting about racism? Having wacky racial profiterring 'leaders' ?
This case and race rests on 3 things
1. Did Zimmerman profile the teen purely because he was black, was he racist and viewed black people as suspicious
Evidence suggested not, and he viewed wondering around, looking around, attire as suspicious.
2. Were the police racist because it was a black teen shot by a non black, so they didn't arrest Zimmerman
No. They found the evidence equalled self defense. And were gathering evidence to possibly arrest Zimmerman at a later date.
3. Were the jury racist in finding Zimmerman not guilty
No. They followed the law.
Now despite all that, every one of them have been accused of being racist. Is this the society you want to promote? Because it's one continually encouraged by left liberals.
If you have an issue with what happenend don't use race as a cheap ploy to voice concern. It's always divisive.
Some of the comments by people here just defy rational. Comparing the case to Michael Vick and dogs, saying people 'claimed' Zimmerman, what the heck is wrong with you people. Media create a white on black narrative and it's eaten up by people due to agenda's and bias, and somehow these people accuse others of being racist????
But yes continue to attempt to defend Al Sharpton by claiming racist white people hate him....smart. SMHHH
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywauUc-ZhbA&feature=youtu.be
This guys is just GOLD. He needs to be on TV more
This guys is just GOLD. He needs to be on TV more
I don't know if this is true, but it was making the rounds today that Jenteal said in her Piers Morgan interview that Martin thought Zimmerman was some kind of rapist and didn't want to lead him back to the house where his little brother was. And I know that Zimmerman thought he had a legitimate purpose, but it needs to also actually be a legitimate purpose, which it was not. Especially since what he did is supposed to fall under the purview of the police, not a concerned citizen or member of the neighborhood watch. Calling in the suspicious activity should have been the end. Especially when the dispatcher told him not to follow.Thanks , Killer7. I definitely think TM felt stressed about being followed, but the word repeatedly makes it not fit. Plus it has to be "substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose." Trayvon probably would have run home if he was truly afraid.(Conjecture) There was a legitimate purpose, I know many will blast me for this, in GZ's mind. The dispatcher also asked where he was and where TM went. I think if this would have fit the scenario, then the prosecution would have stressed it.
Purple Flames
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
The only thing I got from this post is "Them Mexicans know in their place in this country and keep their mouths shut like good little oppressed minorities".
Bill Maher was right: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZed_FpQxwI
Last edited by a moderator:
By normal people I mean people who don't look to the shade of someone's skin to explain every action and reaction.
White person A performs some action towards another white person B. We look to why White Person A would do something to White person B but we leave race out of it because they are the same race.
Black person A performs some action towards another black person B. We look to why Black Person A would do something to White Person B but we leave race out of it because they are the same race.
White person A performs some action towards Black Person B. We look at why White person A hates Black people so much.
So if there are legitimate explanations for the first two scenarios that does not involve race, isn't it possible that scenario 3 may not involve race even though there are two different races? The problem that most people have with the racism argument is that it seems to always overrule all other legitimate explanations.
Obviously White person A performed some action towards Black Person B because A is white and B is black. Isn't it obvious? No, no it is not.
Last edited by a moderator:
jputahraptor
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 41 (100%)
So I have a little to much free time here, and I get to thinking about the EVIDENCE, which leads me the phone calls and the timestamps and I have a bit of a relevation. I will now try to make a case without using any of GZ's account because many believe him a liar. I will use a little common sense however, and a couple reasonable assumptions so hear me out and try to follow along.
We know thanks to 911 calls that the shooting took place at 7:16:55, I'm going to call that ZZ from now on, the time Martin is shot. We also know that GZ concludes his call with police at 7:13:41, let's call that time XX. A 3 minute and 14 second window. Now what happens between these two times is obviously where everything went down. Now I have to make an assumption here, that being that when GZ gets off the phone with police he does not know where TM is. I conclude this for several reasons, first and most obvious, TM is not heard in the background, no voices, no noise that could be him. We also don't hear anything like an AH HA moment where he sees him hiding or more simply, him admitting to police he reacquired him. From the time Trayvon takes off at 7:11:40 per timestamps of the GZ call there is now a minimum of 2 minutes ( 7:11:40-7:13:41) where TM is clear though it turns out to be 4 minutes, see below. At 7:11:43 to about 7:12:01, GZ leaves his truck and pursues TM, he is then suggested, not ordered he doesn't need to follow him. At this point, I can infer based on the reenactments that he is about at the T intersection since a reasonable job of 18 seconds should put him at least there, at this point he stops chasing and continues straight to get the street name, before stating he tells the cop to meet him at the truck because as he said, he lost TM. It can be reasonable assumed he turned around and probably kept his search going back in the direction of his truck.
Now I want to go back to the 3 minute and 14 second window (between time XX and ZZ where he ended the call and the gunshot occured) Let's try our best to use calls to determine what happened. The first call to police is 44 seconds prior to the shot, and the call begins at 7:16:11, at this point we know it's a fight, we know one person is screaming for help, we have accounted for the last 44 seconds of the original 3 minute 14 gap, meaning we have 2 minutes and 30 seconds to account for. It is at this point that we no longer have timestamps nor any recorded calls, we only have testimony and police interviews. According to Jennifer Lauer's testimony, she said she called cops about 30 seconds after she first heard words outside and by the time it had become a brawl, so that would mean the confrontation would have lasted a minute and 15 seconds from words to gunshot, certainly enough time for GZ to get his wounds. Now I think I have fairly concluded the last 1:15 seconds of the 3:14 gap between the end of GZ call and the gunshot. I can also conclude that TM had from 7:11:40 to 7:15:40 or about 4 minutes between when he ran away from GZ in his truck to where either one confronted the other. I arrived at the time of 7:15:15 by subtracting the 1:15 confrontation start from the time of the finale gunshot at 7:16:55.
Now I know that may be a lot to digest but what remains? We don't know what GZ did those first two minutes after getting off the phone, we know he didn't make it back to his truck obviously. We know that the cops were to be there any minute and shooting someone would be incredibly risking being that anyone could hear the commotion and be a witness or the cops could appear, and catch him killing someone or shoot him thinking he is the threat. We do know that TM had a two minute lead on GZ. Another two minutes would go by before the paths crossed. We know that TM was on the phone for part of that 4 minute gap with Jeantel, and sadly, like GZ, we will never know what was said? Did Jeantel egg him on, or did TM admit that he wasn't going to let it go? This didnt occur right outside TM's home so he seemed to intentionally hang around what would be the crime scene. Did TM circle back to confront GZ, did he decide to hide and GZ got happened across him, or did TM think he lost him and accidently cross paths? Nobody know for sure. But I have a few things to say. First, if you don't believe TM gave GZ those wounds, than GZ had to use some of those two minutes to bash his head into the concrete and hope to find and kill TM in the couple minutes before the cops came. Now we know that Johnathan Good testifed on record and to police that he saw TM over GZ in what appeared to be TM giving blows. This is noteworthy because GZ and Good never could have conspired to create that story once interviews were done immediately and they had statements from both that night. That supports what GZ claimed to happen. Next we know it was pitch dark out and raining, that GZ had a small flashlight which didn't work well and TM had a lead eventually 4 minutes, so was GZ able to find TM? Is it logical to assume GZ could find TM in the dark with such a lead and a little flashlight at night in the rain in under two minutes? Can we assume with 4 minutes that regardless of what you FEEL racially or otherwise that TM could have made it home and that based off Jeantel's testimony that he could have felt threatened or offended by this creepy guy following him? If so, did circling back and attacking GZ who he wouldn't have beaten with a gun on him, seem justified, certainly tragic for both parties but did that give GZ at least reasonable doubt to protect himself? Finally, the cries for help. If you can conclude that GZ didn't bash his head into the concrete prior to the confrontation in hopes of finding and killing TM within two minutes w/o knowing where he was and the wounds were done by TM than is it not reasonable to assume that the wounded guy on the bottom per testimony was crying for help. The gun wouldn't make an appearance until right before the gunshot, otherwise I would expect both to be yelling over the gun struggling for it where most would conclude the voice yelling is the same throughout. I don't pretend to know, just trying to look at the evidence, I think I stuck mostly to that here. I appreciate anybody correcting me on any details that slipped or building on what I said.
Oh and racist^^^ so I'll save those precious the trouble.
We know thanks to 911 calls that the shooting took place at 7:16:55, I'm going to call that ZZ from now on, the time Martin is shot. We also know that GZ concludes his call with police at 7:13:41, let's call that time XX. A 3 minute and 14 second window. Now what happens between these two times is obviously where everything went down. Now I have to make an assumption here, that being that when GZ gets off the phone with police he does not know where TM is. I conclude this for several reasons, first and most obvious, TM is not heard in the background, no voices, no noise that could be him. We also don't hear anything like an AH HA moment where he sees him hiding or more simply, him admitting to police he reacquired him. From the time Trayvon takes off at 7:11:40 per timestamps of the GZ call there is now a minimum of 2 minutes ( 7:11:40-7:13:41) where TM is clear though it turns out to be 4 minutes, see below. At 7:11:43 to about 7:12:01, GZ leaves his truck and pursues TM, he is then suggested, not ordered he doesn't need to follow him. At this point, I can infer based on the reenactments that he is about at the T intersection since a reasonable job of 18 seconds should put him at least there, at this point he stops chasing and continues straight to get the street name, before stating he tells the cop to meet him at the truck because as he said, he lost TM. It can be reasonable assumed he turned around and probably kept his search going back in the direction of his truck.
Now I want to go back to the 3 minute and 14 second window (between time XX and ZZ where he ended the call and the gunshot occured) Let's try our best to use calls to determine what happened. The first call to police is 44 seconds prior to the shot, and the call begins at 7:16:11, at this point we know it's a fight, we know one person is screaming for help, we have accounted for the last 44 seconds of the original 3 minute 14 gap, meaning we have 2 minutes and 30 seconds to account for. It is at this point that we no longer have timestamps nor any recorded calls, we only have testimony and police interviews. According to Jennifer Lauer's testimony, she said she called cops about 30 seconds after she first heard words outside and by the time it had become a brawl, so that would mean the confrontation would have lasted a minute and 15 seconds from words to gunshot, certainly enough time for GZ to get his wounds. Now I think I have fairly concluded the last 1:15 seconds of the 3:14 gap between the end of GZ call and the gunshot. I can also conclude that TM had from 7:11:40 to 7:15:40 or about 4 minutes between when he ran away from GZ in his truck to where either one confronted the other. I arrived at the time of 7:15:15 by subtracting the 1:15 confrontation start from the time of the finale gunshot at 7:16:55.
Now I know that may be a lot to digest but what remains? We don't know what GZ did those first two minutes after getting off the phone, we know he didn't make it back to his truck obviously. We know that the cops were to be there any minute and shooting someone would be incredibly risking being that anyone could hear the commotion and be a witness or the cops could appear, and catch him killing someone or shoot him thinking he is the threat. We do know that TM had a two minute lead on GZ. Another two minutes would go by before the paths crossed. We know that TM was on the phone for part of that 4 minute gap with Jeantel, and sadly, like GZ, we will never know what was said? Did Jeantel egg him on, or did TM admit that he wasn't going to let it go? This didnt occur right outside TM's home so he seemed to intentionally hang around what would be the crime scene. Did TM circle back to confront GZ, did he decide to hide and GZ got happened across him, or did TM think he lost him and accidently cross paths? Nobody know for sure. But I have a few things to say. First, if you don't believe TM gave GZ those wounds, than GZ had to use some of those two minutes to bash his head into the concrete and hope to find and kill TM in the couple minutes before the cops came. Now we know that Johnathan Good testifed on record and to police that he saw TM over GZ in what appeared to be TM giving blows. This is noteworthy because GZ and Good never could have conspired to create that story once interviews were done immediately and they had statements from both that night. That supports what GZ claimed to happen. Next we know it was pitch dark out and raining, that GZ had a small flashlight which didn't work well and TM had a lead eventually 4 minutes, so was GZ able to find TM? Is it logical to assume GZ could find TM in the dark with such a lead and a little flashlight at night in the rain in under two minutes? Can we assume with 4 minutes that regardless of what you FEEL racially or otherwise that TM could have made it home and that based off Jeantel's testimony that he could have felt threatened or offended by this creepy guy following him? If so, did circling back and attacking GZ who he wouldn't have beaten with a gun on him, seem justified, certainly tragic for both parties but did that give GZ at least reasonable doubt to protect himself? Finally, the cries for help. If you can conclude that GZ didn't bash his head into the concrete prior to the confrontation in hopes of finding and killing TM within two minutes w/o knowing where he was and the wounds were done by TM than is it not reasonable to assume that the wounded guy on the bottom per testimony was crying for help. The gun wouldn't make an appearance until right before the gunshot, otherwise I would expect both to be yelling over the gun struggling for it where most would conclude the voice yelling is the same throughout. I don't pretend to know, just trying to look at the evidence, I think I stuck mostly to that here. I appreciate anybody correcting me on any details that slipped or building on what I said.
Oh and racist^^^ so I'll save those precious the trouble.
Last edited by a moderator:
I applaud your efforts, but it's fruitless because it's guess work that has a million different various scenario's. We know that the teen was a football player, so you'd assume he had decent stamina. So given he had a minute on GZ(i didn't fully understand your workng out, from the call i heard it was about just over a minute before GZ hung up that GZ no longer was persuing) if he really wanted to, or was truly scared, he could have kept running, and GZ would have found it difficult to catch up or find him.
He could have thought he lost him, he could have decided to stand away from the rain, stopped to call his friend...she said he had a headset, and if you're talkng through a headset it's hard to be fully aware of your surroundings, it's raining too so hearing wise he may not have heard somebody jogging or running looking for him until he was right close.
GZ said to the cops i'll give you my number can they call me when they're here, rather than give a location where he would be. So it seems likely he intended to go look where this guy went.
We also don't know what took place in the call with his friend. If it altered his opinion, made him angry, more scared or whatever. I mean i don't think any of this is hugely significant overall. Anybody who thinks GZ inflicted his own injuries is in cuckoo land. Even some things disputed are pretty clear cut and well established.
It's also impossible to know what was said...it's not unlikely in my opinion, that it got violent if somebody took offense to something said or a punch was thrown after an insult or whatever. This teenager is a teenager a 17 yr old who seemed to be in the bracket of showing off with guns, drugs, kicked from school. These type of people have a tendency to take stances like, look at me funny again i'll you up, or fronting out. His friend even said he told her i'll walk fast but i aint running. His 'street' or mindset is i aint gonna act like im scared or whatever.
People say he didn't know he had a gun, but GZ didn't know he didn't have a gun. There's so many variables and scenario's. With a lot of teenagers with this background, even in daylight in a crowded place it doesn't take much to start a confrotation. So two people at night, after one just chased the other for a bit, is just unlikely to be solved amicably. Many ifs and buts, i think really GZ had a gun so he should have just took it out kept his distance, then asked whatever it was, or told him wait here till the police get here. Maybe that's illegal though.
His friend mentioned that she said he could be a rapist, and GZ on the phone said he keeps touching his waist. If GZ went go check his pockets or tap his waist to see if he had anything stolen or a gun, i mean it's very likely he's gonna react to that. But it's impossible to know. What is pretty clear is the kid ended up on top of GZ and was beating him.
The idea GZ planned to shoot somebody i don't buy it. You cant really plan a situation like that. A phrase ive always used is miscommunications lead to complications. And really both here didn't convey their message, it became two people suspicious of each other, and once it gets violent it can always turn nasty with or without a gun.
Also a point i don't hear much his friend said he was standing out waiting for the rain to stop. So if GZ a neighborhood watchman was going to target, which his brother says he was. And he sees a guy he hasn't seen before just standing still, looking around at night, it's clear why he'd be suspicious. I think the race element is even further diminished by this. I just don't see it at all.
Final point. Given your workings out, GZ came together with him about 1 minute 30 after the call ended. And you said he had a flashlight. So clearly he didn't get too far or thought he lost him, stopped or whatever. If he looked back and seen him coming, or looking around with his flashlight, he could have waited in a dark spot, bushes or whatever, till GZ came close then attacked him, jumped like GZ actually claimed, knowing he was looking for him and not knowing who he is.
Actually when you see the location of the incident, and the time the teen had to get away. Combined with the calls from people. It's pretty clear that unless GZ turned into Usain Bolt that this guy didn't actually really run for his life type of thing. So i wont rule out he was scared, but people acting like some child was really in fear of his life are talking shit. How can GZ catch up with someone who had over a minute to get away within just over a minute and less than 100 ft from the car?
He could have thought he lost him, he could have decided to stand away from the rain, stopped to call his friend...she said he had a headset, and if you're talkng through a headset it's hard to be fully aware of your surroundings, it's raining too so hearing wise he may not have heard somebody jogging or running looking for him until he was right close.
GZ said to the cops i'll give you my number can they call me when they're here, rather than give a location where he would be. So it seems likely he intended to go look where this guy went.
We also don't know what took place in the call with his friend. If it altered his opinion, made him angry, more scared or whatever. I mean i don't think any of this is hugely significant overall. Anybody who thinks GZ inflicted his own injuries is in cuckoo land. Even some things disputed are pretty clear cut and well established.
It's also impossible to know what was said...it's not unlikely in my opinion, that it got violent if somebody took offense to something said or a punch was thrown after an insult or whatever. This teenager is a teenager a 17 yr old who seemed to be in the bracket of showing off with guns, drugs, kicked from school. These type of people have a tendency to take stances like, look at me funny again i'll
you up, or fronting out. His friend even said he told her i'll walk fast but i aint running. His 'street' or mindset is i aint gonna act like im scared or whatever. People say he didn't know he had a gun, but GZ didn't know he didn't have a gun. There's so many variables and scenario's. With a lot of teenagers with this background, even in daylight in a crowded place it doesn't take much to start a confrotation. So two people at night, after one just chased the other for a bit, is just unlikely to be solved amicably. Many ifs and buts, i think really GZ had a gun so he should have just took it out kept his distance, then asked whatever it was, or told him wait here till the police get here. Maybe that's illegal though.
His friend mentioned that she said he could be a rapist, and GZ on the phone said he keeps touching his waist. If GZ went go check his pockets or tap his waist to see if he had anything stolen or a gun, i mean it's very likely he's gonna react to that. But it's impossible to know. What is pretty clear is the kid ended up on top of GZ and was beating him.
The idea GZ planned to shoot somebody i don't buy it. You cant really plan a situation like that. A phrase ive always used is miscommunications lead to complications. And really both here didn't convey their message, it became two people suspicious of each other, and once it gets violent it can always turn nasty with or without a gun.
Also a point i don't hear much his friend said he was standing out waiting for the rain to stop. So if GZ a neighborhood watchman was going to target, which his brother says he was. And he sees a guy he hasn't seen before just standing still, looking around at night, it's clear why he'd be suspicious. I think the race element is even further diminished by this. I just don't see it at all.
Final point. Given your workings out, GZ came together with him about 1 minute 30 after the call ended. And you said he had a flashlight. So clearly he didn't get too far or thought he lost him, stopped or whatever. If he looked back and seen him coming, or looking around with his flashlight, he could have waited in a dark spot, bushes or whatever, till GZ came close then attacked him, jumped like GZ actually claimed, knowing he was looking for him and not knowing who he is.
Actually when you see the location of the incident, and the time the teen had to get away. Combined with the calls from people. It's pretty clear that unless GZ turned into Usain Bolt that this guy didn't actually really run for his life type of thing. So i wont rule out he was scared, but people acting like some child was really in fear of his life are talking shit. How can GZ catch up with someone who had over a minute to get away within just over a minute and less than 100 ft from the car?
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2367733/Think-logically-racially-Facebook-message-NAACP-chapter-president-Zimmerman-trial-brings-calls-resignation.html
Seems anyone with an opposing view is a racist or must resign.
Seems anyone with an opposing view is a racist or must resign.
I still think you're dwelling on the legitimacy of his "neighborhood watch" status, which by my understanding, was in no official capacity, so this vest wearing, identification. Wholly irrelevant. What, if Zimmerman says "Stop right there. By the power vested in me, by the cross roads of 6th and Lawrence, and as neighborhood watch captain, halt!" If somebody pulled that goofy shit on me, I would go about my business laughing. Neighborhood watch captain is not a title of authority. It's a title of action.
Frankly, I think under your stalking hypothetical (because again, we wouldn't have Martin's full state of mind, beyond what he said to Jeantel, that many feel was less than a stellar witness, because he's dead), it would have been almost as hard to prove murder, based on the series of events. It would require a lot more assumption of intent by Zimmerman, which factually can't be proven.
It would be a reach, but maybe they could've tagged it on as a misdemeanor hoping the jury would at least find guilt in something, so they felt like he was getting a slap on the wrist for kickstarting a series of events that led to the death of a person.
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/07/16/jesse-jackson-calls-on-un-to-investigate-zimmerman-case-79797
Jesse Jackson calls on the UN to investigate the case........................
100's protesting are demanding change....what change? Do people just say change for the hell of it. I don't get what change they could possibly want. Maybe change the law, so that social emotion is more significant in a case than the law itself? All i can think of
How about this. Why the jury were wrong.....they found him not guilty because white women fear black men Seriously
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/07/17/why_did_an_all_female_jury_let_george_zimmerman_go_free_white_women_are.html
Betty Mowery @bettymowery 1h
So...Little kids r Blown up & leftist want Americans to "understand" the psychos But Zimmerman is Lynched?
She raises a good point. Why so keen to defend, make excuses, sorta justify horrific injuries, and worse on people....Yet not so keen to defend a guy persecuted for actually looking to protect the community.......a guy with a black great grandfather, who voted for a black president, tried to get justice for a black homeless man...but was labelled racist on the back of malicious media editing...? Have liberals got this right? It's ok to hate America and be bigotted in hating Americans? Or it's not ok, but it's understandable.... But finding a drug taking teenager acting suspicious....suspicious ain't understandable...it's racist.
Anyway last link..best thing ive seen written on this - http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/george-zimmerman-race-trayvon-martin-national-conversation-94381.html?hp=r2
Jesse Jackson calls on the UN to investigate the case........................
100's protesting are demanding change....what change? Do people just say change for the hell of it. I don't get what change they could possibly want. Maybe change the law, so that social emotion is more significant in a case than the law itself? All i can think of
How about this. Why the jury were wrong.....they found him not guilty because white women fear black men Seriously
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/07/17/why_did_an_all_female_jury_let_george_zimmerman_go_free_white_women_are.html
Betty Mowery @bettymowery 1h
So...Little kids r Blown up & leftist want Americans to "understand" the psychos But Zimmerman is Lynched?
She raises a good point. Why so keen to defend, make excuses, sorta justify horrific injuries, and worse on people....Yet not so keen to defend a guy persecuted for actually looking to protect the community.......a guy with a black great grandfather, who voted for a black president, tried to get justice for a black homeless man...but was labelled racist on the back of malicious media editing...? Have liberals got this right? It's ok to hate America and be bigotted in hating Americans? Or it's not ok, but it's understandable.... But finding a drug taking teenager acting suspicious....suspicious ain't understandable...it's racist.
Anyway last link..best thing ive seen written on this - http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/george-zimmerman-race-trayvon-martin-national-conversation-94381.html?hp=r2
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
Do you huff paint before posting?
I agree with what you are saying, which is why GZ wasn't charged with stalking. The only reason why I went off on that long diatribe was because someone asked how one would go about making a case for stalking. It ended up being an epic waste of time for both me and most of the folks who read it. Ultimately, even if GZ was found guilty the max punishment for aggravated stalking is up to 5 years in prison (don't quote me on that). Thus, in proving stalking the prosecution would have only confused the jury, wasted their time and pissed off the masses.
Anyhow, I think the trial debate is over. Unless, the DOJ is able to find evidence of racial bias this case is over from a legal standpoint. However, from a moral and social perspective the debate will go on as will the race debate here on the VS. forum.
Yeah, thanks for the "effort."
Seriously, would it have killed to to make it easier to read and respond to?
- If you're white and conservative, you're more than likely to be racist and more racist than racist "liberals." The only difference being that conservatives are less ashamed of it.
- None of the posters here are Jeantel and to the best of my knowledge, no one here made similar statements. If you have a bone to pick with it, do it with someone that made that argument or Jeantel herself. Again, you're the only one advocating violence against someone that is ideologically different here. Or I know, maybe you should stop advocating for violence against people in general if you don't want to be accurately accused of it.
If joeboosauce is the same as Finger Shocker, then you're the same as slidecage.
- Nothing happens in a vacuum. Blaming individuals just makes the assumptions that people are naturally good or naturally bad. If race and political ideology mean nothing and have no bearing on anything, why use "liberal" as an insult? Why do you give others a free pass for it? Obviously because it means something. Just because you remove context and use racist dogwhistles doesn't mean that others will go along with your rhetorical trickery.
- Of course all your comments are teeming with racism. I mean shit, how blind do you have to be to see that you're giving Zimmerman every single little benefit of the doubt as you can while implying that Martin was just some thug that wanted to bring the hood to Sanford? You're equating the actions of a minor to a grown adult. Reread your "unbiased" post. Think about how you're characterizing the actors in your scenario.
And if you think that mods come down hard on overtly racist posts in this forum, you're deluded. No one would say shit to you and your ideological compatriots, muchless have mod intervention unless you started dropping N-bombs. People don't banned for stuff they post in vs. except for massive levels of trolling or being alts. Hell, you can't even police your own when they post racist shit. At least us "liberals" will call each other out on stuff.
- Doubling down on the Dems being the REAL racists again? The Republicans are no longer the same party of Lincoln just as the Democrats are no longer the party of the KKK. Democrats aren't the ones trying to roll back all the provisions from the Civil Rights Act. The Republicans are more than happy to fill that niche. But please, continue to try and convince me that current members of the KKK and Stormfront-type racist assholes are currently Democrats.
- Who's going to pay for all those programs you're proposing? If I recommended that stuff, mrcottonunderoos would be all over my ass for being a socialist commie.
Chicago isn't New York? No shit. Why don't you throw Detroit into that mix too.
- I'm fully self-aware of the tone and content of my posts and I don't curbstomp context just because it supports my argument. That's the difference between me and you.
So we live in a post-racial world, right? No one uses racial slurs against people opf other races, right? Black people never target other people because of the color of their skin and neither do Whites or any other race, right? Racial profiling doesn't exist at all, right?
Normal people know that all of the above things happen. Normal people know that Pakistans kill each other and Jews, but sometimes there's a little extra motivation in there when they kill a Jew (and vice versa, of course). When it's to your benefit, then racism is just the boogeyman used as a scare and hate tactic. When it's perpetrated against you, however, it's a different story. Isn't affirmative action racist?
Please don't waste my time with bullshit arguments. I'm not here claiming that every time something happens involving more than one race, there must be racism involved. Nor do I think that the fact that it doesn't happen every time means that racism never happens. That's just stupid. So is pretending that you, or "normal" people are colorblind. That's a lie, and everyone here knows it. I was wondering in my original post if people here find thesmselves thinking not about whether someone is Black or Hispanic, but about how black or Hispanic someone is.
Purple Flames
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rev-jesse-lee-peterson-to-piers-trayvon-was-thug-not-innocent-little-kid-tip-toeing-through-the-tulips/ Another BLACK person blasts the media. Love how Piers cuts him off and says no hard evidence, eh there was no hard evidence GZ targeted him cos he was black, but he keeps acting like there was. What an idiot
And Charles Barkley questions things in a more rational way http://newsone.com/2636653/charles-barkley-george-zimmerman/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
And Charles Barkley questions things in a more rational way http://newsone.com/2636653/charles-barkley-george-zimmerman/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Last edited by a moderator:
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
Last edited by a moderator:
its about time someone put up a picture of what he really looked like instead of all the 12 year old boy pictures they were using...
Another interesting article on race stemming from the reaction to this case. Maybe the liberals clueless desperation, and media sensationalism/lies mixed with the usual race baiters have actually had some positive effect.
We now have people saying, hold up you really want to talk about race, well here's the facts, do something about it.
http://news.yahoo.com/black-americas-real-problem-isnt-white-racism-070000529.html
Those rape statistics are just scary. More and more people are beginning to stamp out this leftist propaganda. So while you currently have white/hispanic people being beaten up, attacked, abused, shouted at all in the name of justice from angry people citing unfair treatment of blacks by the system, or saying it's a white mans world, or acting like victims due to their race.
The statistics show a pretty damning insight into the reality. I welcome a white apologist to attempt to spin this? Seems a tough ask, i'll give kudos if it's possible.
Weird thing is, considering such statistics, it's remarkable there isn't such hatred and racism from whites towards blacks. It's certainly NOT remarkable that anyone black or white or whatever sub conciously at the very least would be more wary of in particular a young black male.
I know it's hard for liberals to process such language i used without screaming racist, KKK, slavery, bigot, But just give it a shot, instead of trying to understand terrorists...and brainwashed lunatics...try and understand your fellow Americans who simply have different political leaning to you...and don't view things by race but by actions.
For example GZ see's a suspicious person, person happens to be black. GZ see's a suspicious person is the verdict.
Not GZ see's a suspicious person, the person is black, GZ profilled him GZ is prejudice & probably racist.
Or
Evidence shows self defense, wont stand up in court, no arrest made. - Logical given the evidence.
Evidence shows self defense, wont stand up in court, no arrest made - WTF i guess blacks gonna realize the system is just against them.
Anyway enough claptrap. Time to address race. While GZ may not have profilled, people do. Time to stop calling people prejudice or racist or bigotted, but rather look at the statistics and say, these criminals are the reason why, and lets stop these criminals, blame these criminals, not the person doing what is natural.
Ive seen people say liberalism thrives of hate, lies and anger, and how can you argue with that if this case is anything to go by. Lets stop turning criminals into victims, and normal people into racist prejudice bigots. As for black people if they want to continue to see things as racial always, and want specific black leaders, then actually have leaders that are not moronic racists like Al Sharpton, but eloquent logical reasonable people, who's sole purpose isn't to line their own pockets, cause mayhem, or make people feel angry or victims, but encourage unity.
Liberalism seems focused on it's ideals more than reality, or liberals, cos if you address the real problems, than blaming old evil slave owner whitey, biggest benefactors will be black people since even though figures show they attack whites a lot, they attack fellow blacks a lot more.
We now have people saying, hold up you really want to talk about race, well here's the facts, do something about it.
http://news.yahoo.com/black-americas-real-problem-isnt-white-racism-070000529.html
Those rape statistics are just scary. More and more people are beginning to stamp out this leftist propaganda. So while you currently have white/hispanic people being beaten up, attacked, abused, shouted at all in the name of justice from angry people citing unfair treatment of blacks by the system, or saying it's a white mans world, or acting like victims due to their race.
The statistics show a pretty damning insight into the reality. I welcome a white apologist to attempt to spin this? Seems a tough ask, i'll give kudos if it's possible.
Weird thing is, considering such statistics, it's remarkable there isn't such hatred and racism from whites towards blacks. It's certainly NOT remarkable that anyone black or white or whatever sub conciously at the very least would be more wary of in particular a young black male.
I know it's hard for liberals to process such language i used without screaming racist, KKK, slavery, bigot, But just give it a shot, instead of trying to understand terrorists...and brainwashed lunatics...try and understand your fellow Americans who simply have different political leaning to you...and don't view things by race but by actions.
For example GZ see's a suspicious person, person happens to be black. GZ see's a suspicious person is the verdict.
Not GZ see's a suspicious person, the person is black, GZ profilled him GZ is prejudice & probably racist.
Or
Evidence shows self defense, wont stand up in court, no arrest made. - Logical given the evidence.
Evidence shows self defense, wont stand up in court, no arrest made - WTF i guess blacks gonna realize the system is just against them.
Anyway enough claptrap. Time to address race. While GZ may not have profilled, people do. Time to stop calling people prejudice or racist or bigotted, but rather look at the statistics and say, these criminals are the reason why, and lets stop these criminals, blame these criminals, not the person doing what is natural.
Ive seen people say liberalism thrives of hate, lies and anger, and how can you argue with that if this case is anything to go by. Lets stop turning criminals into victims, and normal people into racist prejudice bigots. As for black people if they want to continue to see things as racial always, and want specific black leaders, then actually have leaders that are not moronic racists like Al Sharpton, but eloquent logical reasonable people, who's sole purpose isn't to line their own pockets, cause mayhem, or make people feel angry or victims, but encourage unity.
Liberalism seems focused on it's ideals more than reality, or liberals, cos if you address the real problems, than blaming old evil slave owner whitey, biggest benefactors will be black people since even though figures show they attack whites a lot, they attack fellow blacks a lot more.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
Last edited by a moderator:
^Nothing racist there!
I'd like to see your rebuttal as the article brings some pretty interesting statistics to light.
Context? How do you explain this:
I just want to hear DD's explanation one more time how a minority population can be the majority of violent crime offenders against their own and other populations yet its the WHITE(hispanic) volunteer watchmen that they need to fear.
I'll go ahead and brace myself for laws=racist; government=racist; judicial process=racist; statistic=racist; author=racist and poster=racist.
God forbid we be accountable.
Last edited by a moderator:
irony meter asplodered
Last edited by a moderator:
jputahraptor
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 41 (100%)
http://youngcons.com/sean-hannity-had-a-great-interview-with-naacp-director-can-you-name-one-person-by-name-that-died-in-chicago-during-the-zimmerman-trial/
Watching this interview you can see why many black people are upset or angry. This NAACP guy says GZ stalked, assauted then shot.
And at the end he says GZ said he was looking specificly for black people Lol. Dude just makes things up.
Then claims the answer to Chicago is gun control. Because sure it's a gun problem, not a gang or black problem. And finally Hannity asks him to name 1 of the 61 black teens killed in Chicago during the Zimmerman trial. He couldn't name one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9pCOekFEKs&feature=youtu.be EX gang member, i was a racist, i blamed white people, now i think outside of the box. Al Sharpton is a racist
http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/07/19/watch-black-pastor-urges-congregation-stop-seeing-world-and-zimmerman-verdict-through Black Pastor says black people had Zimmerman as guilty 'years ago' because they're black. Although he seems a bit crazy in the video i applaud certain points. The paranoid pot point is one ive already made. Though he insinuates GZ profilled him because he was black which i disagee with.
I'm not even looking for this stuff but it's interesting the more and more things im coming across that seem to signal a swing from irrational lynching, to more reasoned analysis.
Watching this interview you can see why many black people are upset or angry. This NAACP guy says GZ stalked, assauted then shot.
And at the end he says GZ said he was looking specificly for black people Lol. Dude just makes things up.
Then claims the answer to Chicago is gun control. Because sure it's a gun problem, not a gang or black problem. And finally Hannity asks him to name 1 of the 61 black teens killed in Chicago during the Zimmerman trial. He couldn't name one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9pCOekFEKs&feature=youtu.be EX gang member, i was a racist, i blamed white people, now i think outside of the box. Al Sharpton is a racist
http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/07/19/watch-black-pastor-urges-congregation-stop-seeing-world-and-zimmerman-verdict-through Black Pastor says black people had Zimmerman as guilty 'years ago' because they're black. Although he seems a bit crazy in the video i applaud certain points. The paranoid pot point is one ive already made. Though he insinuates GZ profilled him because he was black which i disagee with.
I'm not even looking for this stuff but it's interesting the more and more things im coming across that seem to signal a swing from irrational lynching, to more reasoned analysis.
This is nice and all, but even William Buckley, the crypto-nazi himself, called Pat Buchanan and anti-semite. Or maybe you and dilemna agree with him in regards to the Holocaust being overblown or how black people should be grateful that whites took them out of Africa? I know of at least one CAG that does. But hey, I'm just not so eager to side with someone so repugnant, but you two seem to enjoy playing in a pool of ignorance that you don't give a crap about the quality of content of your posts as long as you "win" the argument.
So there's no evidence he racially profilled him. It actually seems likely he didn't given what we know. Very likely. But Obama says
''It could have been me'' Clearly bringing race into it, and somewhat making a connection with race. Dude is an unprofessional pres. He had a lot of time to write something to prepare for what he was going to say today. And unless it's some sort of appeasment to the anger or rioting, what he said is just so far the wrong thing to say.
http://patdollard.com/2013/07/brad-thor-in-tense-exchange-with-windy-city-live-panel-over-offer-to-buy-zimmerman-a-new-gun/ Dude offers to buy GZ a new gun if he doesn't get his gun back. He then makes the point you're a racist if you think only white people can be racist. The black woman responded, you can be prejudice, but you can only be racist if you have power. What the
''It could have been me'' Clearly bringing race into it, and somewhat making a connection with race. Dude is an unprofessional pres. He had a lot of time to write something to prepare for what he was going to say today. And unless it's some sort of appeasment to the anger or rioting, what he said is just so far the wrong thing to say.
http://patdollard.com/2013/07/brad-thor-in-tense-exchange-with-windy-city-live-panel-over-offer-to-buy-zimmerman-a-new-gun/ Dude offers to buy GZ a new gun if he doesn't get his gun back. He then makes the point you're a racist if you think only white people can be racist. The black woman responded, you can be prejudice, but you can only be racist if you have power. What the
Last edited by a moderator:
Should Martin have waited until he had already experienced great bodily harm before he hypothetically shot Zimmerman?
bread's done