Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 12:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/16/2013 12:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 11:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by silentpadna on 7/16/2013 11:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 11:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 7/16/2013 11:06:00 AM (view original):
Blame the media.  Racism makes for a good story, and makes money for the media outlets.

This should NOT have been a national story.  If the story was "adult man accused of shooting unarmed teenage boy", it very likely would not have been publicized outside of the community in which it occurred.  But once the media decides to embellish it as "white man (actually Hispanic, but white makes for a much better story) shoots unarmed black teenager", it takes on a much different feeling.  Emotions are inflamed, sides are taken, and racial divisiveness rules the day.  And that is a story that sells.

How does that help to curb racist attitudes in this country? I don't believe it does; it just continues to propagate racial divisiveness, an attitude of "us against them".  It's very sad to me that in 2013, we're unable to move forward in combating racism.

Ignoring obvious racism doesn't help us move forward in combating racism.

What actual evidence do you have that is was obvious racism?  Unless, of course, you are talking about the media outlets  being racist (especially NBC that edited the 911 tape to make it LOOK like racism).

I'm not saying racism wasn't involved, but if is "obvious" to you, how do you know specifically?

Purely my opinion, no evidence.

I think Zimmerman followed Martin because Martin was black. That's racism, whether or not Zimmerman hates black people.

I think the Florida law is terrible. It allowed Zimmerman to (credit John Oliver):

Get a gun. Follow an unarmed minor.
Call the police. Have them explicitly tell you to stop following him.

Then choose to ignore that. Keep following the minor.

Get into a confrontation with him and then, if at any point you get scared, you can shoot the minor to death and the state of Florida will say, "well look, you did what you could."

I think the jury was able to relate to Zimmerman's fear of a black person and had an easier time finding him not guilty. When other juries in Florida have returned guilty verdicts in much clearer cases of self defense, see Marissa Alexander.

It's not KKK, out-to-lynch-a-black-kid racism. It's systematic, subtle racism and it allowed this trial to be about the fear of an unknown black person instead of the murder of an unarmed teenager.

Again, all just my opinion, no actual evidence.

Maybe it's not a great idea to offer your "opinion, no actual evidence" as fact.

Seriously, that's the kind of attitude that just propagates racist attitudes in this country.  People are quick to jump on the "RACIST!!!!" bandwagon without knowing (or often even caring about) the facts.  And that is fueled by the media. 

IIRC, the Trayvon Martin story was already national news before the body was cold, and people were calling for Zimmerman's head in the name of "JUSTICE!!!" without knowing a single ******* fact about what did or didn't happen.  George Zimmerman was guilty of a racially motivated crime in the court of public opinion before the kid was buried.

I'll be the first to admit, I didn't care to follow this case or this trial beyond the unavoidable "in your face" coverage plastered all over the evening news and CNN.com.  For all I know, George Zimmerman may have had "I HATE N*****S" tatooed in four inch letters across his chest.  But unless and until you know any facts about what happened and why it happened, crying "RACIST!!!" does a hell of a lot more harm than good.  It inflames people and creates divisiveness, quite possibly for no supported reason.

I see what your problem is. You take everything as fact (this seems to be a running theme with you). You'd literally have to be retarded to think that my first statement was fact instead of opinion.

"Ignoring obvious racism doesn't help us move forward in combating racism."

Sorry.  When people refer to something as "obvious", I don't assume that they mean "in their opinion".

You'd literally have to be retarded to think that somebody who refers to something as "obvious" really means "in my opinion".

In my opinion, the racism is obvious. Why are you so stupid?

Because a guy on neighborhood watch asked a stranger what he was doing it's obvious racism?

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 12:45:00 PM (view original):

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.

The law is horrible.

You pick a fight with an unarmed kid and if you get scared, murder him.

You know what, if you pick a fight with an unarmed kid, get scared and murder him, then it would be murder.  Fortunately, that's not what happened here - at least according to the evidence.

If it was a murder, then it would have to be proven so.  It was not, so implying that Martin was murdered is intellectually dishonest.  Saying it outright is simply not factual.

There are multiple problems with your assumptions.

First, you have zero evidence to suggest that Zimmerman knows for a fact that the person he sees is a minor.
Second, you have no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman pursued him because of his race.
Third, you have no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman started the confrontation (picked a fight) or wanted a fight in the first place.

Back to the "racism".  For those that believe the verdict did not deliver justice because of race, you are essentially insulting each of the jurors by implying they were racist in their verdict.

As to the law:

You can carry in Florida.
You can stand your ground in Florida.
You can walk where you want to (within reason)

Which law did Zimmerman break?  Which law would you repeal and why?

Is it not okay to stand your ground?
Is it not okay to use lethal force when your life is threatened or perceived to be threatened?  What would you do if you had the means to stop a beating that could potentially kill you?

The circumstances of this case are uncomfortable.  They are tragic.  Racism sucks.  But none of know if it was a factor.

Your opinions may be totally correct about what happened.  But they are based entirely in speculation and feeling, not on the provable facts.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 12:56:00 PM (view original):
Because a guy on neighborhood watch asked a stranger what he was doing it's obvious racism?

Or did he confront an innocent teenager with a gun after the police told him to stay in his car?

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 12:58:00 PM (view original):
In my opinion, the racism is obvious. Why are you so stupid?

Okay, I'll be little more direct with this, since you are now claiming this as opinion, rather than fact...

Why is the racism obvious?  An honest question.  And if possible, can you be specific about what leads you to that conclusion?  I would hope it's not "obvious" to you just because you have a strong feeling about it.  Hopefully you have something more to go on than that.

Posted by silentpadna on 7/16/2013 12:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 12:45:00 PM (view original):

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.

The law is horrible.

You pick a fight with an unarmed kid and if you get scared, murder him.

You know what, if you pick a fight with an unarmed kid, get scared and murder him, then it would be murder.  Fortunately, that's not what happened here - at least according to the evidence.

If it was a murder, then it would have to be proven so.  It was not, so implying that Martin was murdered is intellectually dishonest.  Saying it outright is simply not factual.

There are multiple problems with your assumptions.

First, you have zero evidence to suggest that Zimmerman knows for a fact that the person he sees is a minor.
Second, you have no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman pursued him because of his race.
Third, you have no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman started the confrontation (picked a fight) or wanted a fight in the first place.

Back to the "racism".  For those that believe the verdict did not deliver justice because of race, you are essentially insulting each of the jurors by implying they were racist in their verdict.

As to the law:

You can carry in Florida.
You can stand your ground in Florida.
You can walk where you want to (within reason)

Which law did Zimmerman break?  Which law would you repeal and why?

Is it not okay to stand your ground?
Is it not okay to use lethal force when your life is threatened or perceived to be threatened?  What would you do if you had the means to stop a beating that could potentially kill you?

The circumstances of this case are uncomfortable.  They are tragic.  Racism sucks.  But none of know if it was a factor.

Your opinions may be totally correct about what happened.  But they are based entirely in speculation and feeling, not on the provable facts.

I never said it was fact. Just my opinion.

Here are facts:
Zimmerman followed Martin.
Martin was a minor.
Martin wasn't doing anything wrong.
911 told Zimmerman to stay in the car.
Zimmerman had a gun.
Martin didn't.
A confrontation broke out.
Zimmerman shot Martin.

In my opinion, the law is flawed if it allows Zimmerman to initiate a confrontation and then claim self defense in the killing.

BL, question - if Martin was in fact reaching for Zimmerman's gun as Zim said, and his head was being bashed against the ground...what should GZ have done once he had his gun in his hand?

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 12:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 12:56:00 PM (view original):
Because a guy on neighborhood watch asked a stranger what he was doing it's obvious racism?

Or did he confront an innocent teenager with a gun after the police told him to stay in his car?

Or did he confront follow a an innocent teenager with a gun after the police 911 Operator told him to stay in his car?

Since you don't know who confronted whom, or what a 911 operator (a dispatcher) is, I thought I'd make your question a little more in line with what actually happened.

Posted by silentpadna on 7/16/2013 1:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 12:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 12:56:00 PM (view original):
Because a guy on neighborhood watch asked a stranger what he was doing it's obvious racism?

Or did he confront an innocent teenager with a gun after the police told him to stay in his car?

Or did he confront follow a an innocent teenager with a gun after the police 911 Operator told him to stay in his car?

Since you don't know who confronted whom, or what a 911 operator (a dispatcher) is, I thought I'd make your question a little more in line with what actually happened.

Much more apt a question. In fact it is relevant. 

Thank you for being BL's interpreter. He desperately needs one.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 12:58:00 PM (view original):
In my opinion, the racism is obvious. Why are you so stupid?

Hypothetical situation:

Two guys jump a third dude as he exits a bar at 2am, and beat the **** out of him.

Is that racially motivated?

Posted by tecwrg on 7/16/2013 1:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 12:58:00 PM (view original):
In my opinion, the racism is obvious. Why are you so stupid?

Hypothetical situation:

Two guys jump a third dude as he exits a bar at 2am, and beat the **** out of him.

Is that racially motivated?

Probably not.

What makes it seem racially motivated is that he followed him in the first place, said he looked suspicious, and mentioned something along the lines of "******* ******** get away with everything."  What was so suspicious?  What was he getting away with?  Makes you wonder if it was some white kid walking around, if he would have thought the same thing.  If you think that sounds wrong of me to say, I understand.

BL, I gotta say, you are persistant.  Charge racism, then when you put a list of "facts" there, leave out anything that might construe this event as having any racism involved....

Then, while stating in your "facts" that "A confrontation broke out", in your concluding sentence turn around and state the law allowed Zimmerman to "initiate a confrontation"....again, something you simply cannot know...

Posted by silentpadna on 7/16/2013 1:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2013 12:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/16/2013 12:56:00 PM (view original):
Because a guy on neighborhood watch asked a stranger what he was doing it's obvious racism?

Or did he confront an innocent teenager with a gun after the police told him to stay in his car?

Or did he confront follow a an innocent teenager with a gun after the police 911 Operator told him to stay in his car?

Since you don't know who confronted whom, or what a 911 operator (a dispatcher) is, I thought I'd make your question a little more in line with what actually happened.

Up until the confrontation, Martin was completely innocent. I don't see why we give the benefit of the doubt to the guy that lived but not the guy that got killed.

Martin wasn't following Zimmerman. Zimmerman stays in the car like 911 told him to and nothing happens. That's my disgust with this case. Until Zimmerman decides to get his gun and start following Martin, no one was in danger.

While it was perfectly legal for Zimmerman to follow Martin, Zimmerman's actions were the proximate cause of the confrontation. If we can argue that Zimmerman should be able to stand his ground and defend himself, don't we also have to grant Martin that right?