Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 3:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/16/2013 3:15:00 PM (view original):
What was he supposed to do in the rain?  Take his hoodie off?

GZ saw someone, said he was a ******* *******, assuming he was guilty of something.  He knew nothing about him except for what he saw.

I don't think it's unreasonable for me to conclude that he was racially profiling based on this.

Beats me what he was supposed to do.  Not punch anyone in the face would have been a start.   Just saying.

Some people talk like that all the time.   "*******" and "*******" are just part of their vocabulary.   He didn't assume he was guilty of anything.   He was just intent on finding out why he was doing what he was doing.

I think it's HIGHLY unreasonable to assume it was racial profiling.

Fine, we'll differ there. 

"******* ******** get away with everything."

What does he mean when he says this?

I'll assume the "******* ********" are criminals.    You know, people who don't belong in the neighborhood. 

Are you implying that only black people can be "******* ********"?

I'll disagree.  

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/16/2013 3:15:00 PM (view original):
What was he supposed to do in the rain?  Take his hoodie off?

GZ saw someone, said he was a ******* *******, assuming he was guilty of something.  He knew nothing about him except for what he saw.

I don't think it's unreasonable for me to conclude that he was racially profiling based on this.

It's actually not unreasonable for you to conclude that, but you don't have anything more than speculation about it.  It would not pass as a conclusion based on any evidence.  Plus, racial profiling is also not a crime, nor is it supporting evidence of a crime even if he did profile.

If GZ hated TM because he was black, profiled TM due to TM being black, and still shot him in self-defense, he would STILL not be guilty of murder or manslaughter based on the evidence presented...as unpleasant as that would be if there was a racial component.

That said, I have yet to see one shred of actual evidence that race played a role in any crime, verdict, or lack thereof.  Still waiting on BL to address the question as to why he came to that conclusion.  It's been asked numerous times...

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 3:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 3:10:00 PM (view original):
It's neighborhood watch, not neighborhood follow and kill.

What do they do when they see something suspicious?

Call the cops. Not get involved. That's a basic rule of all neighborhood watch organizations.

Posted by silentpadna on 7/16/2013 3:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/16/2013 3:15:00 PM (view original):
What was he supposed to do in the rain?  Take his hoodie off?

GZ saw someone, said he was a ******* *******, assuming he was guilty of something.  He knew nothing about him except for what he saw.

I don't think it's unreasonable for me to conclude that he was racially profiling based on this.

It's actually not unreasonable for you to conclude that, but you don't have anything more than speculation about it.  It would not pass as a conclusion based on any evidence.  Plus, racial profiling is also not a crime, nor is it supporting evidence of a crime even if he did profile.

If GZ hated TM because he was black, profiled TM due to TM being black, and still shot him in self-defense, he would STILL not be guilty of murder or manslaughter based on the evidence presented...as unpleasant as that would be if there was a racial component.

That said, I have yet to see one shred of actual evidence that race played a role in any crime, verdict, or lack thereof.  Still waiting on BL to address the question as to why he came to that conclusion.  It's been asked numerous times...

I'm arguing it was likely he was profiling.  I recognize that's not a crime, and I've argued the jury made the right decision.  

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 3:24:00 PM (view original):
I'll assume the "******* ********" are criminals.    You know, people who don't belong in the neighborhood. 

Why did he think Trayvon was a criminal?

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 3:25:00 PM (view original):
Are you implying that only black people can be "******* ********"?

I'll disagree.  

I am not.

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/16/2013 3:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 3:24:00 PM (view original):
I'll assume the "******* ********" are criminals.    You know, people who don't belong in the neighborhood. 

Why did he think Trayvon was a criminal?

He did not recognize him.  There had been burglaries in the neighborhood.    Again, "*******" and "*******" are part of some people's every day speech.

Posted by silentpadna on 7/16/2013 3:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/16/2013 3:15:00 PM (view original):
What was he supposed to do in the rain?  Take his hoodie off?

GZ saw someone, said he was a ******* *******, assuming he was guilty of something.  He knew nothing about him except for what he saw.

I don't think it's unreasonable for me to conclude that he was racially profiling based on this.

It's actually not unreasonable for you to conclude that, but you don't have anything more than speculation about it.  It would not pass as a conclusion based on any evidence.  Plus, racial profiling is also not a crime, nor is it supporting evidence of a crime even if he did profile.

If GZ hated TM because he was black, profiled TM due to TM being black, and still shot him in self-defense, he would STILL not be guilty of murder or manslaughter based on the evidence presented...as unpleasant as that would be if there was a racial component.

That said, I have yet to see one shred of actual evidence that race played a role in any crime, verdict, or lack thereof.  Still waiting on BL to address the question as to why he came to that conclusion.  It's been asked numerous times...

It's purely my opinion. I've said that multiple times.

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/16/2013 3:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 3:25:00 PM (view original):
Are you implying that only black people can be "******* ********"?

I'll disagree.  

I am not.

Then why is "******* *******" racial profiling?

I have a hypothetical.

What if, during the struggle, Martin took the gun away and shot Zimmerman. Two questions: do you think he would have walked free? Do you think he should have walked free?

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 12:35:00 PM (view original):
The Sanford police didn't arrest Zimmerman because of the evidence on the scene.    After some outcry of a racial killing, with pictures of a 12 y/o Marting plastered all over the place, they were forced to arrest him.

FWIW, Zimmerman is likely a POS who was looking for a reason to be a "hero" in his mind.   Martin gave it to him.  No idea if skin color played into it all.   Or if Zimmerman had any intention of firing his weapon at any point in time.   But, when he was unexpectedly getting his *** kicked, he had the laws of self-defense on his side.

I didn't follow the trial at all and don't really know that much about the story, but did Zimmerman start the fight/confrontation?  If he did, is it really self-defense to kill the guy that kicked your *** in the fight you started?  He probably should be in prison for at the very least, killing an unarmed person "by accident".

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 3:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 7/16/2013 3:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 3:25:00 PM (view original):
Are you implying that only black people can be "******* ********"?

I'll disagree.  

I am not.

Then why is "******* *******" racial profiling?

He's angry at someone he doesn't know.  Why is he angry at him?  What is he getting away with?  Why is he suspicious?  I'm arguing that the explanation is that he's black, and maybe this rash of burglaries was done by black men.  He is suspicious of him because he is black. 

I curse more than the average person.  But if I call someone a "******* *******" there's generally a reason why.