posted
Sevenar, for someone so defiantly smug about speaking the truth and disapproving of lies, you might want to get (most of) your facts straight. First: Martin lived nearby, so calling it an 'unfamiliar neighborhood' is misleading and inaccurate at best. Two, he wasn't subject to a curfew. Three, when people say profiling they are pretty sure not to mean it in the 'civic institution' sense but rather the 'saw a scary black man and immediately assumed he was a criminal' and four, Zimmerman had made up his mind that Martin was a criminal, hence the whole 'people using a close term' thing.
There's quite a bit of reason to think Zimmerman should walk. Completely fair case to make. What you're saying is tripe.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hardly. He thought he look suspicious, and followed him to see if he could help the police, whom he had called, locate him.
I think he will walk, and with the horrible job the prosecutor did almost every legal expert agrees.
They BOTH had the right to do what they did, up to the point of the fight. Every piece of physical evidence seems to back Zimmerman's story up, and the only inconsistencies I have heard from him are completely understandable considering the stress of what had happened.
If they BOTH had a right to walk along that path, all the crap that happened before is moot.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hardly. He thought he look suspicious, and followed him to see if he could help the police, whom he had called, locate him.
Obviously. The question is, why? Why was Zimmerman so sure on sight that Martin was a criminal? We can't really know, of course, but it'd be great if we could all stop pretending like there aren't some very obvious reasons that center on, yknow, scary black kid.
As for the physical evidence, it (somewhat) backs up (parts of) Zimmerman's account, but goes almost nowhere towards corroborating the most important parts, such as who actually started it. Which is a good reason to want Zimmerman to walk. But-again-that's not at all the same thing as saying 'the trial has proved Zimmerman's story'. It hasn't.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sevenar: But Private citizens can't "profile" anybody.
You completely and to a ridiculous extent are buffeting or fail to understand what people mean when they talk about racial profiling.
Here's the short form: when people are talking about racial profiling, they are obviously not using a term or concept of profiling which is not applicable to individuals. We're talking about a thing which I or you can do easily as individuals, or that individuals can do as groups, or that organizations can do as an entity, or that the state can do.
The use of the term is obviously modeled after the phenomenon as used to describe racial profiling by police and law enforcement.
If you are going to absolutely insist that we must follow some prescriptive legal technical whatever that makes this SO TOTALLY WRONG than we could write up some sort of script that replaces any instance of 'racial profiling' with 'discriminatory racial targeting' just to keep this from being an issue even though people are still going to mean the exact same thing, so
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why was Zimmerman so sure on sight that Martin was a criminal?
Zimmerman *suspected* Martin was a criminal, there's a difference between suspecting someone for something and being "so sure on sight".
And he offered his explanation at the call: "It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about" "looking at all the houses" -- namely the things that a burglar would do, investigating which houses to burgle.
Now you may want to say that's just an lie and it was really because Martin was black?
Except that there were more than 40 minutes between the time Trayvon Martin bought that tea and skittle, and the time Zimmerman saw him and called the police; so it actually matches up with the timeline what Zimmerman said: Martin was provably not in a haste to return home even though it was raining.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aris, you should just stop making proposals to apparently Inquisitive Minds about what we should rightly think Martin was doing or how to read the actions of Zimmerman. Because we already know what you have decided of Martin and Zimmerman, and how they influence your emotional position and what you say, and in no realm of the unknowns of this case are they not, ultimately, disgusting.
In addition, you would be wildly positively served by learning how to, if not to not be susceptible to race-baiting polemic, to at least try to conceal your racism.
You can even pretend you aren't racist. We'll play along as long as you keep shut about Martin's "tribe" or "tribal politics." Forever.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: There's quite a bit of reason to think Zimmerman should walk. Completely fair case to make.
I actually ATM think that from a legal perspective, the state has not adequately made the case necessary to justify the imprisonment of Zimmerman under Murder 2, and categorically he should not be convicted.
I suppose that in Florida one of the greater effective defenses provided in tandem with the terrible SYG/castle doctrine laws is that you can possibly expect for the prosecution to either be incompetent or give you a free pass (subject to being the right kind of guy, of course, and in this case it seems pretty evident that the police had limited effort or interest in detailing this case for a future prosecution).
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if he is not convicted as you've described will it be because of general incompetence or because it was ultimately the correct verdict?
I realize both can be true, but your description reads like Zimmerman (potentially) not being convicted will primarily be a result of incompetence and not justice. Is that your opinion?
Posts: 135 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's easy for us to sit here and armchair-convict Zimmerman. It's actually extraordinarily easy, because Zimmerman's five (!) conflicting accounts are easy to poke holes through, and his actions after the event including his perjury and the litany of circumspect acts and recorded history as a caller/wannabe vigilante make it so that had the police done a full investigation and hadn't been obviously uninterested in committing to prosecuting zimmerman and/or incompetent in making their charges, zimmerman could have easily been sent away for what I consider him to be at least guilty of: negligent acts leading to the death of Martin.
But to prosecute someone, you damn well better be able to make the case in court. And even if I think other state prosecutors could easily have done so, this one hasn't. They haven't made a good enough case for that at all. I think if there's still any chance that the prosecution gets anything at all, it's not because of a compelling case by the prosecution but because of dysfunction and stupidity on the part of the defense during this case.
And you can't prosecute someone with layman presumption of guilt or probable guilt. I don't accept criminal punishment without a successful criminal case.
So even as a person who presumes Zimmerman is most likely guilty of at least criminal negligence spawning from his lack of sense and his big vigilante complex (and who knows may have flat out just murdered the kid) and should receive some jail time for it and/or be used as a seminal moment in the case for the destruction of SYG and other similarly terrible laws, I do not see a case justifying imprisonment.
quote:I realize both can be true, but your description reads like Zimmerman (potentially) not being convicted will primarily be a result of incompetence and not justice. Is that your opinion?
I can't have an opinion on that without knowing what "justice" is intended to mean. I don't think "justice" is a meaningful enough concept on its own. Zimmerman not going to jail could be "justice" in the sense that it is unjust to send someone to jail without compelling and valid prosecution of charges, but also "unjust" in that it could simultaneously involve that Zimmerman did turn out to have done something that warrants imprisonment, like murdering Martin cold. And even if Zimmerman did murder Martin, it's not exactly "just" to convict him for murder if you have no evidence reasonably confirming this murder. "justice" becomes a rather weak or contradictory concept in the face of a world of ambiguities.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because we already know what you have decided of Martin and Zimmerman, and how they influence your emotional position and what you say, and in no realm of the unknowns of this case are they not, ultimately, disgusting.
Oh, I'm accustomed to be considered "disgusting" by various vile individuals of all sorts.
I'm disgusting because I didn't support the Serbs against the Muslims, though Serbs were the politically correct allied tribe for a good Greek, a good Orthodox, a good anti-imperialist leftist.
I'm disgusting because I don't support Arabs against the Israelis, though Arabs are the politically correct allied tribe for a good Greek, a good anti-imperialist, a good apartheid-opposing leftist.
(EDIT: More recently I'm disgusting because I don't blame the Germans for Greece's woes, as every good Greek is supposed to be doing)
And I'm disgusting because I don't support Martin against Zimmerman, though Martin is of the politically correct allied tribe for a good supposedly anti-racist American.
Yes, I've heard your tribal politics before. I've been hearing them decades now, since highschool even. Stick to the politically correct tribe. Bash individuals of the enemy tribe.
quote:You can even pretend you aren't racist.
...According to some definitions all white people are racists, given how they all enjoy racial power and privilege over other races. ...According to my own past usage, I believe every single human being is a racist, given how they all unconsciously group people together and have their perceptions be biased according to such groupings.
Those are two definitions (just as an example of many more) by which I clearly *am* racist and would be incapable to not be one. What definition are you're using by which I could 'pretend' to *not* be racist?
quote:We'll play along as long as you keep shut about Martin's "tribe" or "tribal politics." Forever.
No. I'll never shut up about that. The whole case is *purely* about tribal politics.
You are of course as free to call me a "racist" as I am free to call you one.
Hell, give me a precise definition of "racist", and I'll even tell you straight out if I qualify or not. It differs based on what definition you use.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The whole case is *purely* about tribal politics.
Cool I thought it was about a guy shooting a kid, and might circumstantially involve some racial issues. Silly me.
quote:What definition are you're using by which I could 'pretend' to *not* be racist?
One in which you at least conceal your racism by not doing things like dismissing some people's support of Martin to be because they are part of his "tribe," or call blacks a "tribe" with their "tribal politics" that allies them "tribally" with democrats, conclude that Martin was a "bloodthirsty thug" or "violent thug" (I didn't know you were a mindreader thank you for determining martin's mindset for us with your majicks) with his "tribal" "gangsta" culture do you see a theme here
quote:Oh, I'm accustomed to be considered "disgusting" by various vile individuals of all sorts.
Yeah you're a dude who said you're essentially glad Martin got killed because he was totally going to grow up to be a murderer anyway. You basically conclude that Martin deserved to be shot, in absence of compelling evidence, and then you whinge about "tribal politics" just in case people didn't start to figure out how idiotic you sound when you, a dude who probably hardly knows any black people and are practially literally on the other side of the world from the united states while presuming to lecture us about our racial issues.
To be considered vile by you for this is, ultimately, a compliment. Your behavior in the threads about this support that.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, you're not going to offer a definition, you're just saying that I did things you don't like. Cool, the new definition of racist, ladies and gentlemen: "Whatever Samprimary doesn't like."
quote:You basically conclude that Martin deserved to be shot,
Yes. As I've said already, I cannot forgive someone beating a person who's on the ground shouting for help.
You may choose to find this disgusting, and I likewise find it disgusting that you are willing to excuse such people.
quote:a dude who probably hardly knows any black people and are practically literally on the other side of the world from the united states while presuming to lecture us about our racial issues.
That I'm not involved with either of your tribes, neither Democrats, nor Republicans, nor African Americans, nor white Americans, nor Latino Americans, if anything makes me more objective.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, you're not going to offer a definition, you're just saying that I did things you don't like. Cool, the new definition of racist, ladies and gentlemen: "Whatever Samprimary doesn't like."
ok so you don't see the pattern. got it.
quote:Yes. As I've said already, I cannot forgive someone beating a person who's on the ground shouting for help.
And I'm glad you are part of the precognitive crimes division which is sure that this is absolutely what happened and come to this conclusion devoid of context for how one person ended up probably under the other person on the ground and that you may self-righteously conclude that they deserved to die.
quote:That I'm not involved with either of your tribes, neither Democrats, nor Republicans, nor African Americans, nor white Americans, nor Latino Americans, if anything makes me more objective.
Sure, that's the kind of erroneous version of events that the naturally feeble-minded people in your part of the world can't rise above. I mean, that's kind of just the hallmark of your tribe, and so I suppose you should be forgiven for having such limited sociological prescience.
And don't dare contradict my summary of your tribe or your politics! As someone not involved with them at all, I am more objective about you guys than you could ever be OH WAIT DID I BLOW A HOLE IN THAT TERRIBLE REASONING I guess I did.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
and just to make sure that it is around for posterity I just want everyone to know exactly why I use the language 'disgusting' to describe your statements in regard to this case.
quote:Originally Posted By Aris "Tribal Politics" Katsaris if I had to say "glad or sad" I'd pick *glad* that Martin is dead, because such a person would have turned murderer on *someone* sooner or later.
If Zimmerman was not armed, this might have even been Martin's first murder.
quote:Originally Posted By Aris "Tribal Politics" Katsaris Martin would have eventually found *someone* who pissed him off enough to bash his head against the concrete. It's probably a lucky happenstance that his first victim happened to be armed.
quelle surrrrprise. it was martin on trial all along. He has been convicted in absentia by Precog Crimes Division Aris of being a pretty much guaranteed future murderer (those bloodthirsty thugs, yanno). The sentence is righteous death at the hands of the guy who may or may not have killed him in self defense.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
With my awesome mindreading powers I've figured out your trick: You turned discussion towards your insults of me, in order to distract from the facts I mentioned.
Rakeesh asked a direct question. "How come Zimmerman was so sure on sight" -- by which Rakeesh implied racial profiling. I answered him directly, that Zimmerman just suspected, never claimed certainty, and that Zimmerman had offered his reasons for why he suspected based on Martin's observed behaviour.
You also meant to distract from another inconvenient fact I mentioned. That it was more than 40 minutes earlier that Martin had been to the store, and this fits with Martin NOT just focusing on returning home; but strangely delaying, as Zimmerman observed.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and btw, I still stand by those statements.
Thanks for screenshotting that, I urge people to read the comment in its entirety, as I still stand by the whole comment in question.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm terribly sorry, Aris, but Zimmerman's remarks about which bleepers 'always get away' doesn't indicate 'suspicion' to me.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
He starts his call with "a real suspicious guy" and saying "looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something". Then later he says "he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is".
These all indicate uncertainty to me. Saying "these a$$holes get away", okay, that sounds less uncertain, but it's just one statement in the midst of a half dozen others that claim uncertainty.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:With my awesome mindreading powers I've figured out your trick: You turned discussion towards your insults of me, in order to distract from the facts I mentioned.
Rakeesh asked a direct question. "How come Zimmerman was so sure on sight" -- by which Rakeesh implied racial profiling. I answered him directly, that Zimmerman just suspected, never claimed certainty, and that Zimmerman had offered his reasons for why he suspected based on Martin's observed behaviour.
Cool dude, I'm sure that's what's totally going on here is me actually talking about that, and the overall ridiculousness of your "tribal politics" presumed objectivity and expertise, your racially problematic language and racebaiting, and ridiculous conclusion of Martin being a bloodthirsty thug who you are glad was killed and who deserved death are all just extra credit on a test I already passed to "distract from the facts [you] mentioned." Haha, wait, no.
Well, I think this will escape you anyway (and you will probably rely yet again on some kind of seemingly profound statement in response about how you are capable of disagreeing with me - woa!) but here goes.
AHEM.
Here's the deal.
You are a dude who claims some or any level of expertise and objectivity in "tribal politics" and in turn offer ridiculous sentiments stemming from this that show what your actual 'expertise and objectivity' actually is — and it's not. It's bad, and you're silly. Rakeesh & co have already done a super fine job of picking apart the little bits, but it escapes you entirely. I'll pick apart the big and ridiculous racial crap you've decided to stand proudly by!
Like the idea that you can talk about black culture or black american cultural issues to blacks or to us better than we can represent them because you are not "involved with that tribe."
Yeah, not involved with them (and probably honestly don't hardly even know or interface with black people or a black community at all) and thus are more objective than we can be and see no problem with talking over connected experiences, all the while dismissing people's support of martin as being an overriding "tribal" loyalty from negroes to negroes, etc, and so forth.
And then all while claiming this proficiency in "tribal politics" you show how actually proficient you are in matters of racial issues by effectively racebaiting your way through three threads (and counting) and then when people correctly call you out on it you go "golly what is race baiting I do not know what that is??" — wow, who would have guessed?
I can't make this up. I could not even properly satirize the Aris™ take on this trial.
You're blitzing forward on a jet rocket powered by pure dunning-kruger for race issues or the actual complexity of this case. Be sure to tell your inevitable one or two black guys you kind of know (well, maybe not in your case) how awesome you are at summing up a race debate in florida that people have their knickers in a twist about and shouldn't, cause the black kid was obviously a future murderer and needed to get killed, and people are only irrationally defending him if they are part of his own "tribe." I mean even the idea that I can type this all out for you and you still don't see how insanely and conspicuously moronic this all is? It's almost poetic, in a way.
I'm just basically wolf blitzer right now, delving into this maelstrom of crazy and remembering all the separate parts about it, including your fantastically emotional flame-outs that even ended up with you told to leave the previous thread.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: He starts his call with "a real suspicious guy" and saying "looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something". Then later he says "he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is".
These all indicate uncertainty to me. Saying "these a$$holes get away", okay, that sounds less uncertain, but it's just one statement in the midst of a half dozen others that claim uncertainty.
I can only point out that those quotes of yours clearly *don't* indicate someone who is uncertain whether someone else is a bad guy. Of those four quotes, only the third actually shows much uncertainty at all-until you factor in that Zimmerman has *called the cops* on the guy and that rather lowers the prospect of whether or not he hadn't made up his mind.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And lemme also point out that the fourth quote doesnt indicate uncertainty at all. It's a clear statement that, to him, Martin is a criminal who will escape.
Not long after this 'criminal' who was heading home with candy turned up dead. It would be nice if you could credit people viewing that with deep *suspicion* with something other than dishonesty, but that doesn't seem likely.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It would be nice if you could credit people viewing that with deep *suspicion* with something other than dishonesty, but that doesn't seem likely.
Such a reasonable person you sound like here, Rakeesh.
Are you willing to treat me as an honest individual, that I should treat you the same?
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's an interesting assertion of grievance considering your stance has been to assume that opponents here aren't just lying, but are so mired in deceit you can't even be sure they notice.
If you're willing to stop doing that...well, I guess I wouldn't continue challenging you with it?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
At least Zimmerman was brought to trial, even if he's not convicted. If he hadn't been brought to trial, it might have started a wave of murdering young black men in Florida, and then trying to use the SYG defense.
The one good thing about all the handgun addiction is that non-gun-owners like me are very unlikely to be shot, relative to gun owners. The odds of someone getting shot in your home go WAY, WAY up if you own guns. I don't. It's a risk taken mostly by idiots, that mostly just affects those same idiots.
I don't like living in a country where simply going for a walk late at night can get me stalked and potentially shot, though. Surely there are better outcomes for a young man's life than dying at the gunpoint of George Zimmerman.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find some humor in the fact that we're talking about a murdertrial and no one is looking to the law: mens rea, actus reus, burden of proof, the affirmative defenses here. This is a trial governed by Florida Law, morality and personal opinion has nothing to do with it.
As angry as you get about certain things, can you explain how under Florida law self-defense is proven? Most likely not. I'm always amazed how often people argue about the law and know next to nothing about it.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: At least Zimmerman was brought to trial, even if he's not convicted. If he hadn't been brought to trial, it might have started a wave of murdering young black men in Florida, and then trying to use the SYG defense.
The one good thing about all the handgun addiction is that non-gun-owners like me are very unlikely to be shot, relative to gun owners. The odds of someone getting shot in your home go WAY, WAY up if you own guns. I don't. It's a risk taken mostly by idiots, that mostly just affects those same idiots.
I don't like living in a country where simply going for a walk late at night can get me stalked and potentially shot, though. Surely there are better outcomes for a young man's life than dying at the gunpoint of George Zimmerman.
Do you even know how the SYG defense works? You realize in this instance he still needs to prove that he was attacked. The Florida statute, from my 10 second analysis, seems to require at least that when you're in a place that you are lawfully allowed to be.
Also, I'm fairly certain that the individuals that would do such acts are not being held back by the law.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: The one good thing about all the handgun addiction is that non-gun-owners like me are very unlikely to be shot, relative to gun owners.
Yes, and the one good thing about all the drinking and driving is that people like me who don't drink and drive are less likely, relatively speaking, to die as a result of drunk driving. What a strange comment.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: I find some humor in the fact that we're talking about a murdertrial and no one is looking to the law: mens rea, actus reus, burden of proof, the affirmative defenses here. This is a trial governed by Florida Law, morality and personal opinion has nothing to do with it.
As angry as you get about certain things, can you explain how under Florida law self-defense is proven? Most likely not. I'm always amazed how often people argue about the law and know next to nothing about it.
We kind of totally were? There was a discussion that went back and forth about what either side had to prove re: florida self defense laws/SYG.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Are you willing to treat me as an honest individual, that I should treat you the same?
quote:That's an interesting assertion of grievance considering your stance has been to assume that opponents here aren't just lying, but are so mired in deceit you can't even be sure they notice.
If you're willing to stop doing that...well, I guess I wouldn't continue challenging you with it?
I asked if you would treat me as an honest individual if I treated you as an honest individual.
Your counteroffer seems to me to be that I must accuse *nobody* of deceit (not just you), and in return you will simply not mention that I accuse people of deceit.
That's a rather different bargain, since it would still allow *you* to accuse me of lying, while preventing me to respond in kind. Given how one of your customary tactics in the previous thread on the topic was indeed to accuse me of lying, when I had done nothing of the sort, I obviously don't see that bargain as fair.
So, it seems we have no bargain, alas, alas.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: The one good thing about all the handgun addiction is that non-gun-owners like me are very unlikely to be shot, relative to gun owners.
Yes, and the one good thing about all the drinking and driving is that people like me who don't drink and drive are less likely, relatively speaking, to die as a result of drunk driving. What a strange comment.
The difference being that a drunk driver is endangering everyone on the road he encounters while drunk. Gun owners, at most, are endangering people in their home/property, and possibly neighbors. That's assuming the gun is kept in the home.
If someone is carrying it out and about, like Zimmerman, things change. To be fair, though, most gun owners are like everyone else--they spend the largest part of their free time at home, which means the gun (and the danger) is there.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: [QUOTE]Originally posted by steven: [qb] Also, I'm fairly certain that the individuals that would do such acts are not being held back by the law.
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: [QUOTE]Originally posted by steven: [qb] Also, I'm fairly certain that the individuals that would do such acts are not being held back by the law.
You have proof?
Well that's easy. It has been illegal to murder people pretty much since law was invented, yet murders still happen.
I'll admit that if Zimmerman gets off, it MAY embolden certain "vigilante" types to be a bit more trigger happy. Then again, an equal or greater number might see all the trouble this has caused Zimmerman despite the acquittal that they may actually be discouraged to do such things without absolute necessity. My guess is that it changes nothing but of course, I have zero proof for any of it because it is impossible to make any sure assertions about the effects of an event that hasn't even happened yet (the event being Zimmerman's acquittal).
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's a rather different bargain, since it would still allow *you* to accuse me of lying, while preventing me to respond in kind. Given how one of your customary tactics in the previous thread on the topic was indeed to accuse me of lying, when I had done nothing of the sort, I obviously don't see that bargain as fair.
It's almost as though you were never serious about the 'bargain' in the first place, and used it only as a means to assert your own victim status. Or something like that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's almost as though you were never serious about the 'bargain' in the first place, and used it only as a means to assert your own victim status.
Why, did you just again accuse me of deceit and dishonesty? While arguing that I wrongly present myself as having been accused of deceit and dishonesty? Why, yes, you did.
quote:Originally posted by Black Fox: [QUOTE]Originally posted by steven: [qb] Also, I'm fairly certain that the individuals that would do such acts are not being held back by the law.
You have proof?
Well that's easy. It has been illegal to murder people pretty much since law was invented, yet murders still happen.
I'll admit that if Zimmerman gets off, it MAY embolden certain "vigilante" types to be a bit more trigger happy. Then again, an equal or greater number might see all the trouble this has caused Zimmerman despite the acquittal that they may actually be discouraged to do such things without absolute necessity. My guess is that it changes nothing but of course, I have zero proof for any of it because it is impossible to make any sure assertions about the effects of an event that hasn't even happened yet (the event being Zimmerman's acquittal).
IOW, no proof. Yeah, I'm not shocked.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh and by the way, I checked just now, Aris: your *very first* post on the subject was to claim that all of the testimony and all of the evidence supported Zimmerman, and everything else-your own words-was 'racially motivated bullshit'. Anyone who would like to check may do so in the thread 'How to kill a child and get away with with' back in 2012.
That was before anyone had said anything to you at all on this topic. Your starting premise was that *anyone* who claimed doubts about Zimmerman's account were, themselves, racists.
You didn't like it in that thread when that sort of crap was pointed out and I suspect you won't like it now. If so, I'm not even asking you stop acting like you're a victim (because obviously you won't)-just to stop trying to sneak it into contention.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your starting premise was that *anyone* who claimed doubts about Zimmerman's account were, themselves, racists.
Hardly. Since myself in that post I offered 20% probability that Zimmerman wasn't struggling for his life, it's obvious that there were even higher doubts about his account as a whole.
And, btw, "race-motivated" and "racists" are far from the same thing. According to some definitions of racism anyway. I don't know what you're using as a definition.
Btw pretty much every post of yours on the topic of Zimmerman-vs-Martin mentioned race. You had 7 comments before I added my own thought, and they had the following sentences: 1st post: "We are *almost* to the point where, as a society, we default to disbelief and scorn for the suspect if he killed a white guy as if when he kills a black guy." 2nd post: "How will he then feel safe enough to keep an eye on the dangerous skittles eating black teens out there? So dangerous! Scary! " 3rd post: "Hidden in there I think is the subconscious notion that the only racial issues that matter are white/everyone else" 4th post: "And maybe I flatter myself that I'm not a fool, but I'm certainly not a racist." 5th post: "...because let's face it, black teen wearing...well, a hoodie but damn near anything at all will do...a black teen in YOUR neighborhood that you don't already know? Who wouldn't be a little scared!" 7th post: "I will be surprised if racism doesn't play a key role in Zimmerman's motives for whatever happened"
So in 6 out of 7 posts, you interjected talk of race and racism, and then you complain when I judge the whole thing to be race-motivated?
Ha. Ha. Ha. Yes, for you and Samprimary at least it's COMPLETELY race-motivated. You're the huge anti-racist warriors, and for *you* anti-racism meaning defending black people from white oppression.
quote:Anyone who would like to check may do so in the thread 'How to kill a child and get away with with' back in 2012.
Why go to the bother, I'll quote my whole post, exactly:
quote:We know that Zimmerman had injuries on both the back and the front of his head. Trayvon on the other hand didn't seem to have any injuries other than the killing shot.
This seems consistent with Trayvon attacking Zimmerman, not vice versa.
All the rest is race-motivated bullshit. I'd bet 80% in favour that Zimmerman *was* struggling for his life at the time he shot Tray. He is being witch-hunted by people that *assume* he was the bad guy. Celebrities like Roseanne Barr and Spike Lee attempted to form lynch mobs, attempting to tweet his address and posting things like "nobody can hide" and "reach out and touch him".
This is unacceptable. This is *criminal*.
quote:I find it rather sad that you are so willing to scapegoat the victim here Kwea. I'm over six feet tall. Now all I need is a few minor drug offenses (god knows, it could have happened when I was in school), and I won't be an angel if someone shoots me.
Yeah, well, I suggest you don't go around bashing people's heads on pavements, Orincoro. If the people whose heads you bash on pavements are armed, you may indeed get shot.
Right now every piece of physical evidence seems in favour of Zimmerman, and every piece of testimony seems to be in favour of Zimmerman.
And to the contrary we have what, exactly? Just a popular narrative that in every confrontation between a black guy and a white guy, the white guy is most likely the villain.
Well, find a better case than this one, because right now Zimmerman is not looking a villain. Atleast he looks far from *certainly* a villain.
I stand by my above post, except in my probabilistic estimations which subsequent evidence in favour of Zimmerman have caused to have gone up to 99.5% or so.
That "every piece of testimony" supported Zimmerman was amusingly made clear even by the trial itself, where the prosecution's own witnesses ended up offering evidence in favour of Zimmerman, as many people have noted.
I urge anyone who's interested to read that entire thread (http://www.hatrack.com/cgi-bin/ubbmain/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=058858;p=0&r=nfx), to see what kind of bullshit is that I was talking about.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In regards (or with regards?) to Zimmerman being acquitted and people thinking it's okay to do what he did, I couldn't disagree more. I doubt I would have ever put myself in the position he did, but I'm damn sure I won't ever do that now because I don't want to end up in his situation. If I'm ever driving through my neighborhood and I see a suspicious character walking around, if the thought would've even crossed my mind to get out of my car to help give the police a more accurate description of where he is (the only situation in which I can think of that I would consider getting out of my car) I'm sure as heck not doing it after this incident. I'll call the police and go on my way. I learned from his mistake.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: wow the comment basically proves what rakeesh was saying, cool
No it doesn't.
I'm very glad that aris has noted ally and arbiter of truth capax on his side in this thread, he needed the help
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When did Hatrack discussions become so petty and full of personal attacks? Bunch of n00bs, ya'll are.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boys and girls, can't we instead be annoyed with the jury that is still deliberating, and making my F5 key tired?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
