All you Zimmerman-lovers in the Great Debates thread are...

[al27052]

Originally Posted by voltaire

That you're an idiot.


It is not a tiny fraction. And "talking about appearance" is part of the reason a lot of people believe it to be a tiny fraction.

So is it your contention that Hispanics discriminate against Blacks to a greater degree/frequency than Whites discriminate against Blacks, or vice versa?

Go back and read what I said, if you think I was saying something else.

I re-read what you said. You said there's no more enmity between blacks and hispanics than between any other groups. I'd say those poll numbers proved otherwise, though.

You can call me an idiot. I probably am one. You're the bigger one, though, for siding with Bricker and the cowboys.

[John Mace]

I don't see any hint of bigotry in Bricker's post. But I suspect a lot of Hispanics are bigots. As are most humans.

[Little Nemo]

I've often disagreed with Bricker on both the substance of issues and the manner in which he debates issues. But I've never felt there was any evidence of bigotry in anything he's posted.

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by al27052

Well actually, black AND hispanic comedians will joke about this from time to time. It's common knowledge in those subcultures.

Yeah I get all of my information about racial interaction in society from stand-up comedy.

[voltaire]

Originally Posted by Absolute

According to Wikipedia, 2.5% of hispanics fall into this "black hispanic" overly-specific categorization. That is a tiny fraction. 1 in 40.

That's limited to the U.S. population, not that I believe the accuracy of those numbers, anyway.

But whatever, we're straying far afield from the topic of what an idiot the OP is.

From here:

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news...21f9640dc13754

And that doesn't really contradict what I said.

Originally Posted by al27052

I re-read what you said. You said there's no more enmity between blacks and hispanics than between any other groups. I'd say those poll numbers proved otherwise, though.

No, they didn't. If you weren't such an idiot, you might understand how glaringly obvious it is that mixing politics into it would MAJORLY skew the numbers. HINT: Most racist White people wouldn't be voting for a Democrat in the first place.

You can call me an idiot. I probably am one. You're the bigger one, though, for siding with Bricker and the cowboys.

As further proof of your idiocy, you assume I'm on Bricker's "side"* of the Zimmerman/Martin case. HINT: You might want to read what I've written on that topic before you decide what side of it I'm on.

* - I wrote "side" in quotes because, as near as I can tell, Bricker doesn't have a side in that debate other than "whatever is legal is right" or somewhere thereabouts.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Buck Godot

I think you're mostly correct, but given that all 5 of Zimmermans calls to 911 about suspicious people happened to be black, makes me think that there was some at least latent racism on his part.

There were way more than 5 calls to "911" (they were mostly to non-emergency number, including the last one) that Zimmerman made, and they definitely were not all about suspicious black people. I remember there were suspicious whites and suspicious Hispanics. Don't think there were any suspicious Asians though. Maybe Zimmerman is a secret Asian supremacist.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by al27052

If I am one, then I am.

But the 3 or 4 people who've told me how poorly blacks and hispanics get along, in general, were all black. Co-workers, acquaintances, etc..

Were THEY bigots too? Relating their impressions of how well two groups of people tend to get along?

Um, yes? You just got through admitting that minorities can be racist. That's the only way calling Bricker racist makes sense, seeing as he's (El) Salvadoran. The black people you are talking about are disparaging Hispanic people as a race.

And, while I'm a bit P.O.'d at the man right now for going around rubbing people's faces in the Walker win, Bricker has never said or done anything that would make me think he is racist. He has, as far as I can tell, two flaws: overlegalizing things--and he's getting better at that--and a bit of blindness when his political party doctrine contradicts compassion/Christianity--and he's a lot better than most in that.

There are racists on this board, but Bricker is not amongst them at all. He's a decent guy who just happens to be wrong about a few things.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by voltaire

I wrote "side" in quotes because, as near as I can tell, Bricker doesn't have a side in that debate other than "whatever is legal is right" or somewhere thereabouts.

It's not even quite that, as he's come down pretty hard on the Stand Your Ground law. And he believes the prosecutor must have some strong evidence against Zimmerman, or else they would have dropped charges. So he's actually slightly on the anti-Zimmerman side.

And he pretty much convinced me to be there, too, though I came from the opposite direction.

The one person I think might have needed to be pitted for his pro-Zimmerman stance was magiver (sp?), and, even then, it's only because he acts like he's being neutral while clearly taking the Zimmerman side, using a few disclaimers to try to appear neutral. I honestly don't have a problem with his side.

[Steophan]

I'm on the side of people being allowed to defend themselves against vicious, unprovoked attacks without being effectively tried and convicted by the media, and also on the side of people being allowed to call the police on people fitting the profile of suspected criminals without being criticised for it.

While we're at it, I'm on the side of people being judged on the actual evidence, not on vague feelings people have about "what must have happened", and applying the actual laws whether you agree with them or not.

On the latter two situations, that puts me firmly on Zimmerman's side, and I think anyone who disagrees is far more dangerous than any individual murderer, as they put everyone at risk by ignoring the process of law. As for the first, it will depend if his story holds up.

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

Yeah I get all of my information about racial interaction in society from stand-up comedy.

To be fair, he didn't say he got all of his information from those sources; only that he got some of his information from them.

(Sorry, this is a sensitive point of form for me...)

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by Terr

There were way more than 5 calls to "911" (they were mostly to non-emergency number, including the last one) that Zimmerman made, and they definitely were not all about suspicious black people. I remember there were suspicious whites and suspicious Hispanics. Don't think there were any suspicious Asians though. Maybe Zimmerman is a secret Asian supremacist.

The non-black suspect calls were all with cause...e.g. he saw someone with a slim jim (they were locked out of their car)

Every call he made that was just on pure speculation were black, does that mean he is racist, no but if you look at the demographics in that area it is a pretty good indication he was profiling..

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Steophan

....to call the police on people fitting the profile of suspected criminals without being criticised for it.....

You really need to think this one over. Seriously, no kidding around. This is not a good idea.

[Ambivalid]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

To be fair, he didn't say he got all of his information from those sources; only that he got some of his information from them.

(Sorry, this is a sensitive point of form for me...)

Right; the rest of his information on racial interaction between blacks and hispanics he got from those "three or four people" he's talked to.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by elucidator

You really need to think this one over. Seriously, no kidding around. This is not a good idea.

No, I don't. It's absolutely right, if there have been burglaries committed in your area by young black men, to call the police if you see a young black man acting suspiciously, such as walking slowly in the rain looking closely at houses in the area.

The same would, of course, apply to middle-aged white women, or any other demographic you care to mention. If you think people should willingly be victims of crime due to political correctness, you are a fucking moron.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by rat avatar

The non-black suspect calls were all with cause...e.g. he saw someone with a slim jim (they were locked out of their car)

Every call he made that was just on pure speculation were black, does that mean he is racist, no but if you look at the demographics in that area it is a pretty good indication he was profiling..

The call about Trayvon Martin was not pure speculation, it was based on observed suspicious behaviour. That those suspicions turned out to be false doesn't mean he was wrong to have them.

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by Steophan

The call about Trayvon Martin was not pure speculation, it was based on observed suspicious behaviour. That those suspicions turned out to be false doesn't mean he was wrong to have them.

Getting in out of the rain was suspicious?

Or do you have access to no public information?

[elucidator]

...you are a fucking moron.

No, but what I am is a guy who has been hassled by cops because someone decided I looked suspicious. And I know that the minor irritation I dealt with is chickenfeed compared to the daily life of a young black men. I also know its wrong.

And even a moron doesn't need to know more.

[Blank Slate]

Originally Posted by Steophan

I'm on the side of people being allowed to defend themselves against vicious, unprovoked attacks without being effectively tried and convicted by the media, and also on the side of people being allowed to call the police on people fitting the profile of suspected criminals without being criticised for it.

While we're at it, I'm on the side of people being judged on the actual evidence, not on vague feelings people have about "what must have happened", and applying the actual laws whether you agree with them or not.

On the latter two situations, that puts me firmly on Zimmerman's side, and I think anyone who disagrees is far more dangerous than any individual murderer, as they put everyone at risk by ignoring the process of law. As for the first, it will depend if his story holds up.

Translation: Speaking as a reactionary, right-wing gun nut, I fully support Zimmerman even though I have no idea what happened that night. I will blindly accept the self-serving account of the shooter even though it defies logic. It does not trouble me at all that the cops didn't believe Zimmerman's account because Martin was a hardcore thug and he deserved to be profiled, stalked, harassed and shot. He should have run home faster, like a good boy.

You're the dangerous one, mate.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Blank Slate

Translation: Speaking as a reactionary, right-wing gun nut, I fully support Zimmerman even though I have no idea what happened that night. I will blindly accept the self-serving account of the shooter even though it defies logic. It does not trouble me at all that the cops didn't believe Zimmerman's account because Martin was a hardcore thug and he deserved to be profiled, stalked, harassed and shot. He should have run home faster, like a good boy.

You're the dangerous one, mate.

Nope, I'm not blindly accepting anything. I'm looking at the actual evidence - which at the moment points to Zimmerman acting stupidly but legally, and getting beaten up, and defending himself. If evidence comes out that disproves his statement, then I'll accept that it's false, but the default is to believe him until there's reason to do otherwise. It should be obvious that if he's lying, the witness and physical evidence will make it clear.

Martin could have done many things - ignored Zimmerman, called the police, explained what he was doing, or yes, run home. Whilst the latter would frankly have been the most sensible, he's not obliged to do it - or expected to. What he couldn't do was launch an unprovoked attack on Zimmerman, and the evidence that's in the public domain suggests that's what happened.

No-one was stalked or harassed, there's no way Zimmerman could have done that, as he'd not encountered Martin before that evening. By "profiling", you mean "observing suspicious behaviour", and Zimmerman was correct to call the police, and within his rights to follow and question Martin.

As for "gun nut", maybe you should stop making assumptions. I'd prefer they didn't exist, but I also think that, if you live somewhere they are prevalent, you'd be an idiot not to have one.

You're correct about right-wing, though.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by elucidator

No, but what I am is a guy who has been hassled by cops because someone decided I looked suspicious. And I know that the minor irritation I dealt with is chickenfeed compared to the daily life of a young black men. I also know its wrong.

And even a moron doesn't need to know more.

If you'd been hassled even if you didn't look suspicious, you'd have a point. If you were questioned by the police because you had the misfortune to look or act in a way that, due to circumstances you were unaware of, caused someone to be suspicious, that's unfortunate but necessary. Not wrong.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by Steophan

people being allowed to call the police on people fitting the profile of suspected criminals without being criticised for it

How about the side of chasing scared kids through the dark?


Just what about Martin fitted the profile? Was it the iced tea, and skittles? Chatting his girl friend? The weather resisting hoodie? Was it being black in the wrong neighborhood?

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

How about the side of chasing scared kids through the dark?

If he chased, that's a problem. If, as he claims, he followed so the police could find him, it isn't. Do you have any reason to assume he chased?

Just what about Martin fitted the profile? Was it the iced tea, and skittles? Chatting his girl friend? The weather resisting hoodie? Was it being black in the wrong neighborhood?

Walking around a private, gated neighbourhood he didn't live in, looking at the houses, whilst fitting the description of burglars who'd been active there.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Steophan

The call about Trayvon Martin was not pure speculation, it was based on observed suspicious behaviour.

Being born black and male was the "suspicious behavior" in question. I expect Zimmerman knew that for most purposes murdering black men is effectively legal and decided to go for it and indulge his Rambo fantasies; he just had the misfortune of the case getting into the media's collective eye so the cops and courts can't just decide to ignore it like they usually would.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by Steophan

No, I don't. It's absolutely right, if there have been burglaries committed in your area by young black men, to call the police if you see a young black man acting suspiciously, such as walking slowly in the rain looking closely at houses in the area.

The same would, of course, apply to middle-aged white women, or any other demographic you care to mention. If you think people should willingly be victims of crime due to political correctness, you are a fucking moron.

Ahh I guess it's the being black without a permit.

There's always crime. It is no excuse to trash civil rights. Martin, who was not stealing anything, wasn't harming anyone, was stalked, to his fright, by this creep with a gun.

Unless you wish to call his girlfriend a liar, we have documented testimony he found Zimmerman's nutball stalking, stalking he was requested not to do, but chose to anyway, to be scary. Did Martin deserve that for being black?

There are "reports" of a young black male stealing things, so all young black males have to be punished by being singled out for abuse?

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Being born black and male was the "suspicious behavior" in question. I expect Zimmerman knew that for most purposes murdering black men is effectively legal and decided to go for it and indulge his Rambo fantasies; he just had the misfortune of the case getting into the media's collective eye so the cops and courts can't just decide to ignore it like they usually would.

Your paranoid fantasies have no basis in the actual facts of the case. The most important one being that Zimmerman was an anti-racist activist. It's possible he murdered Martin, and if so, frankly, he's probably stupid enough that he'll give himself away, based on his handling of the bail issue. But there's no reason to think race is a factor.

I'm not quite sure how wanting to protect your community from criminals has become a bad thing. Are people just ignoring the fact that there had been several burglaries in the area, or do you think that people should just ignore suspicious behaviour and willingly become victims of crime, just so as not to be accused of racism?

[florez]

Originally Posted by al27052

If I am one, then I am.

But the 3 or 4 people who've told me how poorly blacks and hispanics get along, in general, were all black. Co-workers, acquaintances, etc..

Were THEY bigots too? Relating their impressions of how well two groups of people tend to get along?

I can only give my impression of what I hear from Hispanic family members and friends in California, but they are overwhelmingly disgusted with the actions of Zimmerman, and relate more to the problems of being under suspicion for no good reason.
Also where I am from in LA and in the San Diego area, it has been my experience that Hispanics are often in buffer zone neighborhoods between whites and blacks, and by and large we relate better with the black neighbors.
Another thing I have noticed, is that white people are the ones who generally move away when either blacks or Hispanics start to move into majority white neighborhoods.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by Steophan

If he chased, that's a problem. If, as he claims, he followed so the police could find him, it isn't. Do you have any reason to assume he chased?

Are you calling Martin's girlfriend a liar? He was not acting on behalf of the police, 911 requested he not do that. His following scared Martin bad.

If I tell you not to bring me a tea, but you bring me one anyway against my wishes you were not acting on my behalf.

Walking around a private, gated neighbourhood he didn't live in, looking at the houses, whilst fitting the description of burglars who'd been active there.

A young black man could never be visiting friends or family in a gated community?

I look at houses when I walk too, clearly I'm a burglar.

Can you give me a description of those burglars beyond "young and black"? Do all young and black men look alike to you?

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

Ahh I guess it's the being black without a permit.

No. Try actually reading my posts.

There's always crime. It is no excuse to trash civil rights. Martin, who was not stealing anything, wasn't harming anyone, was stalked, to his fright, by this creep with a gun.

He was not stalked. You should probably find out what that word means.

Unless you wish to call his girlfriend a liar, we have documented testimony he found Zimmerman's nutball stalking, stalking he was requested not to do, but chose to anyway, to be scary. Did Martin deserve that for being black?

I don't find the evidence of someone who waits several weeks after their boyfriend has been killed to call the police overly credible, and the fact that she'd been in repeated communication with Martin's family's lawyer before calling the police doesn't help matters.

Also, "deserve" is irrelevant. What matters is whether Zimmerman's behaviour was legal. Following someone is. There was no possibility of stalking - again, find out what that word means.

There are "reports" of a young black male stealing things, so all young black males have to be punished by being singled out for abuse?

There was no punishment, and no abuse that we know of. If there was, then Zimmerman needs to be prosecuted for it, but that must only happen if there's actual evidence for it, not an assumption that the action must have been racist, just because Martin was black.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

A young black man could never be visiting friends or family in a gated community?

Of course he could, in fact that is what he was doing. Which I'm sure could have been cleared up if he'd told the police that, instead of punching Zimmerman to the floor, then bashing his head against the ground.

I look at houses when I walk too, clearly I'm a burglar.

I suggest you find out the difference between "acting suspiciously" and "being a criminal"

Can you give me a description of those burglars beyond "young and black"? Do all young and black men look alike to you?

No, and no. If Zimmerman had called the police on every black youth he saw, there would be a problem. It's the combination of appearance and suspicious behaviour that means there isn't.

[elucidator]

... looking at the houses...

How do you walk around a neighborhood without looking at houses? Count cracks in the sidewalk? Stare at the clouds? Blindfolded?

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by Steophan

No. Try actually reading my posts.



He was not stalked. You should probably find out what that word means.



I don't find the evidence of someone who waits several weeks after their boyfriend has been killed to call the police overly credible, and the fact that she'd been in repeated communication with Martin's family's lawyer before calling the police doesn't help matters.

Also, "deserve" is irrelevant. What matters is whether Zimmerman's behaviour was legal. Following someone is. There was no possibility of stalking - again, find out what that word means.



There was no punishment, and no abuse that we know of. If there was, then Zimmerman needs to be prosecuted for it, but that must only happen if there's actual evidence for it, not an assumption that the action must have been racist, just because Martin was black.

Before I bother with this, please answer my question, is there anything beyond "young black man" for the reported "theft"?

If not how is that at all a helpful description? It matches tens of millions of Americans. It's about as vague and useful as Ms Swan's "He looked like a man".

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by elucidator

How do you walk around a neighborhood without looking at houses? Count cracks in the sidewalk? Stare at the clouds? Blindfolded?

Stop being disingenuous. You know exactly what is meant by "looking at houses" in the context of suspicious behaviour where burglary is concerned. Either that, or you really are the moron I hyperbolically referred to you as earlier.

What actually appears to have happened is that Martin, being new to the area, was looking around far more intently than most people would do, and Zimmerman, concerned about the burglaries that had occurred, interpreted that as suspicious. An interpretation that I consider reasonable under the circumstances, although one that turned out to be incorrect. Which is unfortunate, but had Martin acted differently when he became aware of Zimmerman, it could have easily been cleared up.

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally Posted by al27052

Blacks and Hispanics aren't exactly known for their cross-community respect, admiration, and love

I'm guessing you don't see the slight problem with using a racial stereotype as proof that someone else is a bigot.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

Before I bother with this, please answer my question, is there anything beyond "young black man" for the reported "theft"?

If not how is that at all a helpful description? It matches tens of millions of Americans. It's about as vague and useful as Ms Swan's "He looked like a man".

Not to my knowledge.

If the only description we have is "a man", and a man is seen acting suspiciously, it's reasonable to call the police.

If you don't think Zimmerman's suspicion of Martin was reasonable, please explain why. Don't forget that this happened in a private neighbourhood, of which Martin was not a resident.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Steophan

Stop being disingenuous. You know exactly what is meant by "looking at houses" in the context of suspicious behaviour where burglary is concerned....

Actually, no, no I don't know what is meant, short of walking about peering into windows, is that what he was doing? No? Trying the doors, see if they were locked? But he was looking at them! Ah! Was he squinting at them, then, is that what is "suspicious"?

You seem to demand that this word "suspicious" carry a lot of weight without any actual definition. Or at least none that you are willing to share.

[voltaire]

Originally Posted by Steophan

Your paranoid fantasies have no basis in the actual facts of the case. The most important one being that Zimmerman was an anti-racist activist.

Your most important "fact" is bullshit. Even if you believe Zimmerman's family (which haven't exactly shown themselves to be deserving of such), he was at most an agitator against police misconduct. And there is some reason to believe that he had ulterior motives for even that.

And I don't even personally believe that Zimmerman was a racist going out looking to kill someone - but calling him an "anti-racist activist" is at about the same level of unsupported hyperbole.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Actually, no, no I don't know what is meant, short of walking about peering into windows, is that what he was doing? No? Trying the doors, see if they were locked? But he was looking at them! Ah! Was he squinting at them, then, is that what is "suspicious"?

Paying more than usual attention to them. Most people, contrary to one of your earlier assertions, don't walk around slowly looking at every house when they are walking. It is unusual behaviour. As it happens, Martin had a perfectly legitimate reason for his behaviour. As it also happens, Zimmerman had a perfectly legitimate reason for his suspicion.

Now, you may argue, there is no problem with walking in public slowly, looking at stuff. You'd be right, but you're forgetting it wasn't in public.

I assume you're aware that it's generally considered a civic duty to call the police when you see suspicious behaviour happening?

You seem to demand that this word "suspicious" carry a lot of weight without any actual definition. Or at least none that you are willing to share.

Behaviour that would lead a reasonable person to think he may be in the process of committing a crime will do as a definition for now. Please note the "may".

I think that's actually too narrow a definition, but it's an inherently fuzzy concept, and a precise definition, or list of activities that are suspicious, is neither possible nor desirable.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Steophan

Your paranoid fantasies have no basis in the actual facts of the case.

Don't confuse cynicism with paranoia.

Originally Posted by Steophan

It's possible he murdered Martin, and if so, frankly, he's probably stupid enough that he'll give himself away, based on his handling of the bail issue. But there's no reason to think race is a factor.

Of course there is; you yourself are demonstrating that fact by your insistence that "black man looking at houses" is sufficient grounds for pursuit leading to a killing. It doesn't matter much if Zimmerman is racist or not; he lives in a society that is, and unless he's an idiot he knows he was going after someone that the police, courts and society at large are going to bend over backwards to assume is a criminal who deserves death. Which is exactly what we see from Zimmerman's supporters, and from you.

Originally Posted by Steophan

I'm not quite sure how wanting to protect your community from criminals has become a bad thing. Are people just ignoring the fact that there had been several burglaries in the area, or do you think that people should just ignore suspicious behaviour and willingly become victims of crime, just so as not to be accused of racism?

If the end result of "wanting to protect your community from criminals" is bystanders being murdered, yes. You again demonstrate the racism infusing this situation, when you portray letting someone playing amateur cop to (supposedly) stop burglary is worth a man's life, as long as he's black.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by voltaire

Your most important "fact" is bullshit. Even if you believe Zimmerman's family (which haven't exactly shown themselves to be deserving of such), he was at most an agitator against police misconduct. And there is some reason to believe that he had ulterior motives for even that.

And I don't even personally believe that Zimmerman was a racist going out looking to kill someone - but calling him an "anti-racist activist" is at about the same level of unsupported hyperbole.

So you don't consider a campaign to create awareness of racism in his local police force to be anti-racism activism? Or mentoring black children - and it's the family of the children in question that say this, and that he's not racist, not Zimmerman's on family. Cite.

I know it must be upsetting to you that Zimmerman doesn't fit your prejudices, but maybe this can be a learning experience.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Of course there is; you yourself are demonstrating that fact by your insistence that "black man looking at houses" is sufficient grounds for pursuit leading to a killing. It doesn't matter much if Zimmerman is racist or not; he lives in a society that is, and unless he's an idiot he knows he was going after someone that the police, courts and society at large are going to bend over backwards to assume is a criminal who deserves death. Which is exactly what we see from Zimmerman's supporters, and from you.

It wasn't the "pursuit" that lead to the killing, it was Martin's attack on Zimmerman - assuming that Zimmerman is telling the truth. If he isn't, we will find out, and he will be appropriately punished. As it stands, though, Zimmerman is the victim of crime, not the criminal.

If the end result of "wanting to protect your community from criminals" is bystanders being murdered, yes. You again demonstrate the racism infusing this situation, when you portray letting someone playing amateur cop to (supposedly) stop burglary is worth a man's life, as long as he's black.

Martin was not a bystander in this situation. Had he been, and continued about his business, he would have been back at the house he was staying at before Zimmerman caught up to him, for one thing. Not that he's in any way obliged to do this, but by changing his actions, he stops being a bystander and becomes a participant.

If he attacked Zimmerman, as it appears he did, it is that act that caused his death. That doesn't make it any less of a tragedy, but it also makes it not Zimmerman's fault.

You are aware that Zimmerman was perfectly entitled to follow Martin, yes?

[Randvek]

Originally Posted by Steophan

That doesn't make it any less of a tragedy, but it also makes it not Zimmerman's fault.

Unless you believe that Martin reached over and pulled the trigger, you are using a rather peculiar definition of the word "fault" that I am unfamiliar with.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Randvek

Unless you believe that Martin reached over and pulled the trigger, you are using a rather peculiar definition of the word "fault" that I am unfamiliar with.

I'm using one where using legitimate self defence isn't a fault.

[voltaire]

Originally Posted by Steophan

So you don't consider a campaign to create awareness of racism in his local police force to be anti-racism activism? Or mentoring black children - and it's the family of the children in question that say this, and that he's not racist, not Zimmerman's on family. Cite.

Do you realize your "cite" is nothing but completely unsupported statements and assertions from Zimmerman's former lawyer, and one of his friends, and NOT the parents of someone he mentored? (Which, BTW, has fuck-all to do with "anti-racism activism.")

You're about as good at lying as Zimmerman is - IOW, not very good. [cite]

First of all, there was no campaign to create awareness of racism in his local police force, it was about misconduct and nepotism in the police force. And there was no need to "create awareness" of anything, particularly locally, as the incident was already NATIONAL news at the time, not that I'd expect you to know that. Second, it's pretty patronizing to suggest that the black community in Sanford needed Zimmerman to make them aware of racism, don't you think?

There was long-standing turmoil within and around the Sanford Police Department predating any of Zimmerman's involvement with "agitating for change." There were opposing factions within the department, one consisted of "good old boys" who protected their own, and another that consisted of those who stood against such unprofessional behavior.

Also, it is a well known fact that Zimmerman had aspirations of becoming a police officer and had some connections to the department. It just so happens that the police chief that Zimmerman focused his attacks on was the outgoing (soon to retire, anyway) chief Brian Tooley. It just so happens that the lawyer AND the family of the man who was beaten by the son of a police officer, who was not arrested, feel that Brian Tooley was used as a convenient scapegoat. And ZImmerman was scaping that lame-duck goat pretty hard. Why?

Cite and quote:

Police Chief Bill Lee denied knowing Zimmerman, who was a criminal justice student at the same community college where Lee conducted police academy training for new recruits. A video released last week by the state attorney prosecuting the case shows Zimmerman, a bandage on his head, walking unescorted at the police station three days after the killing. Records show Lee and Zimmerman exchanged courteous emails last fall, when the volunteer wrote to praise a police department employee.
“The deeper questions here are: What are the relationships?” said Natalie Jackson, an attorney for Trayvon’s family. “We have always had a concern about the relationships.”
Jackson was also the attorney for Sherman Ware, a homeless man whose December 2010 beating led to the ouster of former police chief Brian Tooley.
<snip>
Since the claims about Zimmerman’s involvement in the Ware case first surfaced last month, Jackson denied that Zimmerman was among those who participated in community activism on Ware’s behalf. She said she found Zimmerman’s emphatic statements against the police chief in 2011 curious, because even Ware’s family and attorney had no beef with the former top cop. If anything, she said, they believed Tooley and another official were scape-goated for leaking information when none of the officers or supervisors responsible for dragging their feet on Collison’s case were disciplined.
Jackson said all of Sanford — not just the black community — was in an uproar over the case, because of the perception that Collison’s wealthy, influential family had intervened.
“People wanted Justin so bad,” Jackson said. “They wanted to use Sherman to get Justin. Nobody really cared about Sherman. They cared about a little rich boy getting everything he wants.”

At least get your facts straight before you try to bend them to suit your narrative. Asshole.

[Steophan]

I'm sorry Zimmerman isn't the evil monster you want him to be to make everything easy for you. I'm not the one bending anything, I'm not the one inventing racism out of nothing, and cherry picking facts. That applies to the people who want to see him punished whether or not he's committed any crime, or even if he's a victim of crime. They, and by the sound of it you, are the arseholes.

If you've got any evidence that Martin didn't punch Zimmerman to the ground, and the witnesses were mistaken when they saw Martin on top of him in the fight, cite it. Until then, I'll continue to believe that Zimmerman shot in self defence, not out of some racist desire to kill a black man.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by Steophan

Not to my knowledge.

If the only description we have is "a man", and a man is seen acting suspiciously, it's reasonable to call the police.

So as long as there's a conveniently vague description out there, vigilantes, never mind the police, can profile with impunity?

Some idiot, who thinks they "all look alike" reports a black man, because he's too stupid or bigoted to tell them apart, so all black men are subject to harassment?

If you don't think Zimmerman's suspicion of Martin was reasonable, please explain why.

I already have you stupid, infected, cunt scab.

Don't forget that this happened in a private neighborhood, of which Martin was not a resident.

Except his family lives there. Are you such an evil fucking bigot you think a black child would never have anyone to visit in a gated community, or that this isn't a relatively common occurrence?

Oh he looked at houses, he wasn't a good black child who knew his place, looking at the dirt. Right? There's residences, dirt, and concrete there. What's he supposed to look at? Is he supposed to keep his head down like a good "boy"?

Kindly go fuck yourself.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

So as long as there's a conveniently vague description out there, vigilantes, never mind the police, can profile with impunity?

Some idiot, who thinks they "all look alike" reports a black man, because he's too stupid or bigoted to tell them apart, so all black men are subject to harassment?

What harassment? This has nothing to do with "all black men look alike", or any other racist view. Zimmerman was, according to all reports, not racist, and there is nothing observably racist in his behaviour.

If he called the police on a black youth who was not acting suspiciously, you might have a point. But he didn't, so you don't.

I already have you stupid, infected, cunt scab.

No, you haven't. You've stated that he wasn't doing anything wrong, which is both correct and irrelevant.

Except his family lives there. Are you such an evil fucking bigot you think a black child would never have anyone to visit in a gated community, or that this isn't a relatively common occurrence?

No, they don't, but again don't let facts get in the way of your argument. His being black has nothing to do with the likelihood of his being entitled to be there.

Oh he looked at houses, he wasn't a good black child who knew his place, looking at the dirt. Right? There's residences, dirt, and concrete there. What's he supposed to look at? Is he supposed to keep his head down like a good "boy"?

Ah, you're as stupid as elucidator. Have you actually bothered to read my posts?

I'll try to explain again, in more detail for the hard of thinking. If you're walking round Disneyland, of course you're going to be looking at everything around you. If you're walking through a residential area you belong in, usual behaviour is to look where you're going, and especially when it's raining get on with going there. Walking slowly in the rain, looking at all the houses around you, is unusual behaviour, and when there's been several burglaries in the are gives rise to reasonable suspicion. Suspicion, of course, that could easily have been cleared up if Martin had waited for the police, and told them he was staying at his father's girlfriend's house - or even more sensibly, called the police if he was threatened by a strange man following him.

Anything, really, apart from punching Zimmerman to the ground and bashing his head against the ground. Are you forgetting that part again?

Kindly go fuck yourself.

Truly, you are a master debater. Does this tactic often work when you realise you can't refute someone's argument?

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Steophan

. and the witnesses were mistaken when they saw Martin on top of him in the fight, cite it. ....

About those witnesses. Apparently, you don't keep up, or at least not to stuff you aren't going to like. It was all over the news, and you missed it?

http://www.thefloridanewsjournal.com...some-more-once

One of many, about how the "witnesses" are....lets be generous....not quite as solid as you might like to pretend.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by elucidator

About those witnesses. Apparently, you don't keep up, or at least not to stuff you aren't going to like. It was all over the news, and you missed it?

http://www.thefloridanewsjournal.com...some-more-once

One of many, about how the "witnesses" are....lets be generous....not quite as solid as you might like to pretend.

Fortunately, this will all come out in the trial. Including the witnesses explaining why they were mistaken at first, but so certain several months later. It's possible, of course, that they all have completely legitimate reasons for changing their stories that aren't related to all the negative stories about Zimmerman, but they would still need to explain why they gave false information to the police in the first place.

Then, of course, there's the fact that the physical evidence suggests that Zimmerman was injured in the fight, and was on his back for at least some of it, and that the only injury Martin received prior to being shot was to his fist.

Ultimately, it will come down to whether Zimmerman's story is consistent both internally and with the physical evidence. If it is, it would be perverse not to believe it. If not, he will quite probably spend a good while in prison.

I will continue to believe his story until I have reason to do otherwise.

[elucidator]

All well and good, talking about why the witnesses changed their story. But change their story they did, and yet, here you are, presenting your "witnesses" as if nothing had ever happened.

Not the best.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by elucidator

All well and good, talking about why the witnesses changed their story. But change their story they did, and yet, here you are, presenting your "witnesses" as if nothing had ever happened.

Not the best.

Fair point.

That said, I think that having several witnesses change their story is going to make it harder for the prosecution to make their case, unless Zimmerman has said something stupid (which, as I've said earlier, is a very real possibility), and harder for people to be certain of what really happened.

I'll continue to default to believing Zimmerman until there's convincing evidence otherwise.

Do you have any reason to think that the witnesses new stories are more credible than their original ones? If so, that could make a big difference.