Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   The BBQ Pit (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Shodan, HurricaneDitka, and George Zimmerman: Three Racist Peas in a Racist Pod (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=866775)

Babale 12-06-2018 12:46 PM

Shodan, HurricaneDitka, and George Zimmerman: Three Racist Peas in a Racist Pod
 
In a recent thread, inspired by manson1972's controversial thread, I made the mistake of bringing up George Zimmerman. Boy, did that bring the racists out of the woodwork...

Shodan, you get to go first. You really need to realize that laws aren't always just, and that sometimes, a person can be a fucked up individual even if he isn't found guilty of a crime. Case in point, Zimmerman. Even if the story is exactly as you tell it -- Zimmerman followed Martin around, eventually losing him; then Martin stalked him and attacked him*, but Zimmerman was able to overpower him and shoot Martin -- then ZIMMERMAN IS STILL A FUCKED UP RACIST PIECE OF SHIT. Who died and made him Sheriff? Can you accept that even if it's totally legal, Zimmerman is human filth whose behavior makes the world LESS SAFE, not MORE? Especially considering how many violent gun-related incidents this motherfucker has been involved in since then?

No, of course you can't. Because he's a white man, and using a gun in "self defense", and so is beyond reproach.

*Apparently, we know Martin was the sort of deranged and violent individual who would do such a thing, because at one point he claimed to be a "no limit nigga" -- a heinous crime that clearly deserves the death penalty, delivered by Chubby Batman, AKA George Zimmerman.


Now, HurricaneDitka, if I had just read Shodan's posts, I wouldn't think it was possible to get any more racist and depraved. Luckily, you're here to set me straight. Where do I even start? Like Shodan, you ignore any evidence that doesn't line up with your way of thinking. You ignore Zimmerman's history of violence. You portray Martin as doubling back after reaching the safety of his father's house, despite the record not showing this at all, and in fact showing the opposite: Zimmerman approached Martin, who was tired from running and not yet at his father's house. Yet of course, you ignore this, because you've got an alternate theory. For some reason, Martin followed Zimmerman around and attacked him, unprovoked. You claim to have a theory that explains this, better than our "ridiculous" theory that Martin was scared of Zimmerman and attacked him in self defense. But you won't share this theory, because you're worried we'd find it "disgusting".

Well, Ditka, it's pretty obvious why you think Trayvon is guilty, and frankly, it IS disgusting.


I think my last post in the thread sums up my opinion of you two.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babale (Post 21362945)
Let me just remind everyone what you guys are arguing...

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 21362928)
AFAICT, that history consists of shooting Martin in self-defense and later having two girlfriends accuse him of violence and then recant. Is that the "long and varied history of violence" we are to discuss?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21362356)
He was looking for a fight. Martin thought of himself as a bad-ass. Remember the whole "NO LIMIT NIGGA" thing?

He had been kicked out of school for drugs and theft and vandalism, his mother couldn't handle him, so she sent him to his father to see if his father could do any better.

Martin thought he was a tough guy. Maybe he was. Few people, however, are tougher than a bullet.

You fuck with enough people, sooner or later you find you fucked with the wrong people. He was only 17, so this was sooner.

Regards,
Shodan

So, people accuse Zimmerman of threatening them with guns, but that's no evidence that he may have done so to Martin. And yet, Martin is suspended because of possession of marijuana, and therefore he is a violent thug who most likely assaulted Zimmerman for no reason.

And your opinion of Zimmerman and Martin has nothing to do with the race of either individual.


Really Not All That Bright 12-06-2018 12:48 PM

Yay, another Zimmerman/Trayvon thread. We were really lacking for those.

Babale 12-06-2018 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright (Post 21362960)
Yay, another Zimmerman/Trayvon thread. We were really lacking for those.

Would you prefer we just allow racism to be stated on this board unchallenged?

The argument for not moderating racism is that, through the free exchange of ideas, people would realize that racist ideas are simply not as good as non-racist ideas. Well, that only works if you challenge the racists.

iiandyiiii 12-06-2018 12:55 PM

I'll endorse this Pitting. HD is a dishonest troll, and Shodan thinks it's okay to sometimes refer to black people by the n-word, and justifies this by citing a Chris Rock comedy bit: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...6&postcount=58

Babale 12-06-2018 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21362987)
I'll endorse this Pitting. HD is a dishonest troll, and Shodan thinks it's okay to sometimes refer to black people by the n-word, and justifies this by citing a Chris Rock comedy bit: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...6&postcount=58

Holy fucking shit.

Shodan 12-06-2018 01:57 PM

There has been discussion on the SDMB that liberals have trouble understanding the motivations of conservatives. The reverse isn't nearly as true - conservatives and independents are more likely to be able to accurately define what drives liberals. I think that might be what is going on here.

White guy (okay, half-Hispanic/half-white) shoots black kid. There is no room in your brain for any explanation except the one - it has to be racist. That's not a conclusion; it's an assumption. And there is no room in your teeny little brain for any other explanation - Zimmerman shot a black kid (who attacked him and was sitting on his chest trying to bash his head in), so Zimmerman is a racist racist who is racist.

Then I point out that the reason Zimmerman shot him is because Martin was sitting on his chest trying to bash his head in. That doesn't fit into your head - it requires the ability to set aside what you have been conditioned to do, and actually think analytically. That's hard work. So, it's easier not to do that - I must be a racist racist who is racist too. I get that.

There is a currently active thread in GD about how liberals talk differently to black people, because the liberals are afraid of being thought racist. Conservatives don't do that, according to the study, because conservatives don't worry as much about being thought of as racist. I think some of that is going on here as well.

The accusation of racism as thrown about by liberals has evolved, to some extent. It is no longer enough to treat black people the same as everyone else - that's racism. You have to talk down to them, and use softer, more agreeable language to them. Otherwise, they might call you racist. Similarly, you can't apply a standard that asks, might shooting someone be a reasonable response to that someone's attacking you and trying to bash your head in. No no - even asking that question is racist racist racist.

But, at least in the case of this particular conservative, I have been called racist for applying the same standard to people no matter what their race, that I care very little about it.

'Zimmerman shot Martin. That was racist.'

'Martin had attacked him, and was sitting on his chest trying to smash his head in.'

'For saying that - I am going to call you a racist.'

Maybe I cared about it the first four hundred times it happened. Now - not so much.

Regards,
Shodan

PS - As I have mentioned before, iiandyiiii, if your idea of not engaging with me on race is to drop your turd into every Pitting, you have an interesting, not to say stupid, interpretation of "not engaging".

iiandyiiii 12-06-2018 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21363166)
There has been discussion on the SDMB that liberals have trouble understanding the motivations of conservatives. The reverse isn't nearly as true - conservatives and independents are more likely to be able to accurately define what drives liberals. I think that might be what is going on here.

White guy (okay, half-Hispanic/half-white) shoots black kid. There is no room in your brain for any explanation except the one - it has to be racist. That's not a conclusion; it's an assumption. And there is no room in your teeny little brain for any other explanation - Zimmerman shot a black kid (who attacked him and was sitting on his chest trying to bash his head in), so Zimmerman is a racist racist who is racist.

Then I point out that the reason Zimmerman shot him is because Martin was sitting on his chest trying to bash his head in. That doesn't fit into your head - it requires the ability to set aside what you have been conditioned to do, and actually think analytically. That's hard work. So, it's easier not to do that - I must be a racist racist who is racist too. I get that.

There is a currently active thread in GD about how liberals talk differently to black people, because the liberals are afraid of being thought racist. Conservatives don't do that, according to the study, because conservatives don't worry as much about being thought of as racist. I think some of that is going on here as well.

The accusation of racism as thrown about by liberals has evolved, to some extent. It is no longer enough to treat black people the same as everyone else - that's racism. You have to talk down to them, and use softer, more agreeable language to them. Otherwise, they might call you racist. Similarly, you can't apply a standard that asks, might shooting someone be a reasonable response to that someone's attacking you and trying to bash your head in. No no - even asking that question is racist racist racist.

But, at least in the case of this particular conservative, I have been called racist for applying the same standard to people no matter what their race, that I care very little about it.

'Zimmerman shot Martin. That was racist.'

'Martin had attacked him, and was sitting on his chest trying to smash his head in.'

'For saying that - I am going to call you a racist.'

Maybe I cared about it the first four hundred times it happened. Now - not so much.

Regards,
Shodan

PS - As I have mentioned before, iiandyiiii, if your idea of not engaging with me on race is to drop your turd into every Pitting, you have an interesting, not to say stupid, interpretation of "not engaging".

"Engaging" is like this -- the post above is full of falsehoods, half-truths, and incredible bullshit. Do I sometimes violate my own rules of engaging? Sure.

Not engaging is pointing out to others that it's not worth engaging you about race because you're an unconscious (or maybe conscious, I don't know) racist who thinks it's reasonable to refer to black people as the n-word based on the ludicrous justification of a long-disavowed/regretted-by-the-comedian comedy routine.

Cheesesteak 12-06-2018 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21363166)
conservatives don't worry as much about being thought of as racist.

I submit this quote for the "no shit, Sherlock" observation of the year.

Thing Fish 12-06-2018 02:28 PM

Yep. What a trio of worthless assholes.

Babale 12-06-2018 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21363166)
There has been discussion on the SDMB that liberals have trouble understanding the motivations of conservatives. The reverse isn't nearly as true - conservatives and independents are more likely to be able to accurately define what drives liberals. I think that might be what is going on here.

You know, I used to consider myself an independent. But since 2016 assholes like you have made me question every conservative position I've held. I still hold many of those positions, but I had to have a good, hard think about it, because the fact that I agree with someone who is THIS blind or hateful is kinda disturbing.

Quote:

White guy (okay, half-Hispanic/half-white) shoots black kid. There is no room in your brain for any explanation except the one - it has to be racist. That's not a conclusion; it's an assumption. And there is no room in your teeny little brain for any other explanation - Zimmerman shot a black kid (who attacked him and was sitting on his chest trying to bash his head in), so Zimmerman is a racist racist who is racist.
Hmmm, no, try again. Let's think about what actually happened. White guy followed a black kid around, demanded to know what he was doing, then got in a fight with him, then shot the black kid.

At the end of the day, an unarmed black kid who was not committing any crimes before Zimmerman came on the scene is dead. Before we move forward, can we just agree that this is a bad thing? That even if Zimmerman was right to fear for his life, it was tragic that Trayvon ended up dead? Because as far as I can tell, neither you nor HurricaneDitka ever acknowledged this.

Now, why did Trayvon Martin end up dead? Because Zimmerman shot him. Why were Trayvon and Zimmerman in contact in the first place? Because Zimmerman followed Trayvon despite being told not to. Why did he do this?

Well, this is where we should take another quick pause. Can we at least agree that George Zimmerman is a piece of shit individual? Regardless of whether this particular shooting was justified, do you understand that his behavior is not beneficial to our society? Even if he had stopped Trayvon, had a short chat with him, and sent him on our way, that would still be a bad thing, because who the bloody FUCK is George Zimmerman to stop random people on the street and demand to know their business? We have police officers for that, and fuckheads like Zimmerman, with his history of questionable behavior (can you just agree to THAT? That Zimmerman is a person with a history of bad judgement? Because regardless of the Trayvon Martin case, that's still a fact!) should not be patrolling our streets, armed with a gun?

OK, now that we've addressed that -- so Zimmerman is following Trayvon. Why? I'm not asking you what you can "prove beyond reasonable doubt". Based on your experience with the human fucking race, why do you think that Zimmerman was following Trayvon? Do you think it might be because he was black? Do you understand that these types of encounters between blacks and law enforcement -- even when they end up totally peaceful, and the cop and black man just converse and go about their days -- still lead to a hostile relationship between the African American community and our law enforcement? And do you agree that a fat fuck like George Zimmerman is much less qualified to handle that complex relationship than a trained officer of the law? Because these are very important issues to consider when we look at what happened that night.

Now, based on the relationship between law enforcement (and I realize that Zimmerman isn't law enforcement, but when he stops and questions Martin, he's acting in that capacity -- but without any of the respect that comes from the badge, and from being a public servant in the employee of our - hopefully at least somewhat - trusted government) and the African American community, do you see why Martin might feel threatened here? Based on the long, long history of lynching and hate crimes carried out in the South, which I am sure that you condemn just as much as I do, do you see why Trayvon Martin might fear for his life in that moment? You and HurricaneDitka are both very quick to point out that asking someone "what are you doing around here?" isn't a threat, but between 1865 and 1968, how many encounters between blacks and whites that started off with that exact sentence ended up with the black man hanging from a tree? Do you really not see why Trayvon Martin might fear for his life in that situation?

Quote:

Then I point out that the reason Zimmerman shot him is because Martin was sitting on his chest trying to bash his head in. That doesn't fit into your head - it requires the ability to set aside what you have been conditioned to do, and actually think analytically. That's hard work. So, it's easier not to do that - I must be a racist racist who is racist too. I get that.
No, that's not it at all. But you're refusing to consider WHY Martin would do such a thing. Martin was a human being, a rational, thinking human person. Not an animal. He must have had some reason to attack Zimmerman. That reason could have been that Zimmerman had a nice watch and Trayvon wanted to take it, for example. But we can't just make up a reason -- we need to examine what we know.

What we know is that Trayvon Martin was a 17 year old kid who was scared. We know he was scared because he fled from the mail shed at a run, and he explained his actions over the phone to his girlfriend. He told her that he was afraid of the man who was following him.

Do you recognize that for a 17 year old kid, outside after dark, realizing that you are being followed is scary? Do you realize that for a black man in the South, being followed by a white man is even scarier?

Trayvon ran, and eventually he reached his father's street. He said that he was "right outside", but he continued walking, until he saw the man who was following him again. I know you keep insisting that he had made it to his father's doorstep, but as I pointed out in the other thread, that's not consistent with the testimony that HurricaneDitka cited. And we know that he was scared again, because that's what the evidence shows us. Why would he be scared? Well, sometimes you think that someone is following you; but then you turn a corner and they're gone. But if you lose sight of them, and then see them again, that confirms the suspicion: they really are following you.

Trayvon was talking to his girlfriend, telling her how scared he was. Does that sound like the type of thing a big, bad thug looking for a fight would do?

Trayvon didn't run -- according to his girlfriend, he was too winded. Even if that wasn't the case, I believe he has the right to "stand his ground", doesn't he? When Zimmerman approached, he asked him why he was following him. Zimmerman didn't identify himself as a concerned citizen, a member of the neighborhood watch, someone protecting the community. He just demanded to know what Trayvon was doing. Why does Zimmerman do this? What gave him the right to wander around after dark, but forbids Trayvon from doing it? It's pretty obvious that this is a racial issue. Trayvon is suspicious because he's black. You might deny it, Zimmerman might deny it, but come on. Give it a rest. It's a racial issue, and you know it, deep inside. Study after study has shown that race has a real, measurable impact on these sorts of decisions, even among people who aren't racist. And based on Zimmerman's other actions -- for example, his tweets calling Obama a baboon, or setting his profile picture to a confederate flag -- all show that he IS a racist. You can admit that. It doesn't invalidate your "self defense" argument, and it doesn't weaken your gun rights. Even if Zimmerman was fully justified in shooting Trayvon, he's still a racist, as is evidenced by plenty of other actions that he's taken.

So here's Trayvon, on a dark street with a grown man -- a grown white man -- who is demanding to know what his business is. At this point, the facts get blurry. But we know that Trayvon struck Zimmerman and eventually ended up on top of him. What do you think led him to do this? Is it just the fact that he's a 'thug', that the hormones in his body drove him mad, and with no more reason than a wild beast he attacked Zimmerman? Because that's the story you told in the other thread. If you don't see how that narrative lines up precisely with the racist ideology of the South during the height of the Jim Crow era, then you shouldn't be calling anyone else "little brained". And if you DO see it, but you stand by that argument, then you're a racist, plain and simple.

That was your explanation. That Trayvon is some sort of madman, who attacked Zimmerman for the simple pleasure of a fight. I ask you if that lines up at all with Dee Dee's testimony. If the boy who ran away scared is really the man who savagely attacked Zimmerman. I don't believe it, but you apparently do.

I think it's much more likely that, fully aware of the history of his people in the South, Trayvon was scared shitless. Perhaps irrationally -- he is, after all, a 17 year old boy -- when Zimmerman approached him, he decided that Zimmerman was stopping him because of his race, and meant to do harm to him. Maybe he was wrong about that, and Zimmerman was pure of heart, but based on the history involved, I hope you can agree that it isn't too much of a stretch. Maybe he even saw the gun. Humans are notoriously bad at risk assessment, and 17 year olds especially so. Maybe Trayvon decided that Zimmerman was going to hurt him because of his race, and so he tried to defend himself.

Is it really so ridiculous to think that this is possible? You act as if the South has no problems with racism. As if there weren't over 2,000 hate crimes committed against blacks in 2012, the year that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin.

That's why I call you racist. Because you choose to ignore the fact that black people are still discriminated against today, and are even still violently attacked at times. You choose to pretend that Trayvon Martin's killing had nothing to do with race. And you choose to pretend that Zimmerman is a fine Southern gentleman and an example to us all.

I know you probably won't read all of this, or will respond to it with a one-line dismissal. But I chose to believe that maybe you do care about honest debate, so I took the time to explain my thinking. I won't bother responding directly to your accusations -- that I use the label "racist" to discredit you lightly. Hopefully my reasoning is refutation enough.

Babale 12-06-2018 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21363187)
"Engaging" is like this -- the post above is full of falsehoods, half-truths, and incredible bullshit. Do I sometimes violate my own rules of engaging? Sure.

Not engaging is pointing out to others that it's not worth engaging you about race because you're an unconscious (or maybe conscious, I don't know) racist who thinks it's reasonable to refer to black people as the n-word based on the ludicrous justification of a long-disavowed/regretted-by-the-comedian comedy routine.

As someone who generally agrees with you and likes you as a poster -- well, I hope you're wrong, is all I can say, because I just spent the last 45 minutes of my life responding to his post in detail. I hope he's at least open to considering other points of view. I guess we'll find out.

Thing Fish 12-06-2018 03:48 PM

You've been here since 2008, and you still hope Shodan is open to other points of view? Good luck with that.

Your post is excellent, though. It accurately identifies what racists do; they refuse to entertain the possibility of racism as a motivating factor for any behavior, absent some ridiculously high standard of evidence being met. No matter how obvious it is from historical and social context that racism is a highly plausible explanation for some action, they insist that to even raise that possibility is to engage in malicious and intellectually dishonest false accusation. And they will keep doing it no matter how many times it is pointed out to them, because they're not about the truth, they're about the racism.

Wolf333 12-06-2018 04:13 PM

Shodan is a piece of shit racist troll who is somehow still around because he’s one of the “good” conservatives around here (how shitty is that?).

At the same time he regularly whines about moderator bias against conservatives.

Ditka is Shodan’s less intelligent little brother.

ElvisL1ves 12-06-2018 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolf333 (Post 21363590)
Shodan...regularly whines about moderator bias against conservatives.

Despite the fact that Mr. Regards is the most notable beneficiary of their Affirmative Action program.

Ravenman 12-06-2018 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21363166)
There is a currently active thread in GD about how liberals talk differently to black people, because the liberals are afraid of being thought racist. Conservatives don't do that, according to the study, because conservatives don't worry as much about being thought of as racist.

Other conservative facts:

1. There were WMD found in Iraq
2. Reagan scared the Iranians into returning the hostages
3. Trump's inauguration was the biggest one ever

Shodan 12-06-2018 04:22 PM

I think we covered most if not all of this, but...
Quote:

Originally Posted by Babale (Post 21363339)
Hmmm, no, try again. Let's think about what actually happened. White guy followed a black kid around, demanded to know what he was doing, then got in a fight with him, then shot the black kid.

At the end of the day, an unarmed black kid who was not committing any crimes before Zimmerman came on the scene is dead. Before we move forward, can we just agree that this is a bad thing? That even if Zimmerman was right to fear for his life, it was tragic that Trayvon ended up dead? Because as far as I can tell, neither you nor HurricaneDitka ever acknowledged this.

Yes, it was tragic that Martin died, and I said so in my first post to your thread.
Quote:

Now, why did Trayvon Martin end up dead? Because Zimmerman shot him. Why were Trayvon and Zimmerman in contact in the first place? Because Zimmerman followed Trayvon despite being told not to. Why did he do this?
Zimmerman followed Martin originally because he felt Martin was acting suspiciously, in a neighborhood that had experienced a number of recent break-ins. Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch guy.

He also stopped following Martin when the NEN dispatcher asked him to. This has no legal or moral force, IMO. But he did stop after losing sight of Martin. It was while Zimmerman was trying to find a street sign that would give a precise location that Martin doubled back and confronted Zimmerman.
Quote:

Well, this is where we should take another quick pause. Can we at least agree that George Zimmerman is a piece of shit individual?
No.
Quote:

Regardless of whether this particular shooting was justified, do you understand that his behavior is not beneficial to our society? Even if he had stopped Trayvon, had a short chat with him, and sent him on our way, that would still be a bad thing, because who the bloody FUCK is George Zimmerman to stop random people on the street and demand to know their business?
I do not agree that, in principle, having a neighborhood watch is bad for society.

Quote:

OK, now that we've addressed that -- so Zimmerman is following Trayvon. Why? I'm not asking you what you can "prove beyond reasonable doubt". Based on your experience with the human fucking race, why do you think that Zimmerman was following Trayvon?
Because he was the neighborhood watch guy, in a neighborhood that had experienced a number of recent break-ins.
Quote:

Do you think it might be because he was black?
Maybe here is where you are going wrong. There is no evidence that Zimmerman was following Martin because he was black.
Quote:

Do you understand that these types of encounters between blacks and law enforcement -- even when they end up totally peaceful, and the cop and black man just converse and go about their days -- still lead to a hostile relationship between the African American community and our law enforcement? And do you agree that a fat fuck like George Zimmerman is much less qualified to handle that complex relationship than a trained officer of the law? Because these are very important issues to consider when we look at what happened that night.
Zimmerman was not law enforcement. What he did has nothing to do with law enforcement. Zimmerman was a private citizen, with the same rights and responsibilities as Martin or anyone else.
Quote:

Do you really not see why Trayvon Martin might fear for his life in that situation?
As I have mentioned several times, if Martin was scared of being lynched, all he had to do was walk into his own living room. The fact that he did not, but instead doubled back and confronted the person of whom he was allegedly so scared, indicates that he was not scared of being lynched. His motives for going back and confronting Zimmerman were probably other than that.
Quote:

Do you recognize that for a 17 year old kid, outside after dark, realizing that you are being followed is scary? Do you realize that for a black man in the South, being followed by a white man is even scarier?
See above. He was so scared at being followed that he did not enter his own house, but went back looking for Zimmerman.
Quote:

Trayvon ran, and eventually he reached his father's street. He said that he was "right outside", but he continued walking, until he saw the man who was following him again. I know you keep insisting that he had made it to his father's doorstep, but as I pointed out in the other thread, that's not consistent with the testimony that HurricaneDitka cited. And we know that he was scared again, because that's what the evidence shows us.
No, it is actually consistent. If you look at diagrams as to where Zimmerman originally spotted Martin, where Martin's house was, and where the fight took place, you will note that it is consistent with someone doubling back from Martin's house to where the confrontation and the fight took place.

We hashed this out in several of the monster threads.

Quote:

Trayvon didn't run -- according to his girlfriend, he was too winded. Even if that wasn't the case, I believe he has the right to "stand his ground", doesn't he?
If Zimmerman had attacked Martin, Martin would have been entirely within his rights to stand his ground. Likewise, if Martin attacked Zimmerman, which is what the evidence indicates happened, Zimmerman would have been within his rights to stand his ground. Zimmerman didn't get the chance - it is hard to stand with someone sitting on your chest banging your head on the ground.
Quote:

When Zimmerman approached, he asked him why he was following him. Zimmerman didn't identify himself as a concerned citizen, a member of the neighborhood watch, someone protecting the community. He just demanded to know what Trayvon was doing. Why does Zimmerman do this?
Because he was the neighborhood watch guy.
Quote:

What gave him the right to wander around after dark, but forbids Trayvon from doing it?
Nothing forbids either of them from wandering around, or forbids them from asking anyone they please what they are doing. Both are forbidden from attacking people on the street, even if they ask what you are doing.
Quote:

It's pretty obvious that this is a racial issue. Trayvon is suspicious because he's black.
If by "pretty obvious" you mean "something you are assuming without a scrap of evidence", OK.
Quote:

You might deny it, Zimmerman might deny it, but come on. Give it a rest. It's a racial issue, and you know it, deep inside.
No, I don't know anything of the sort.

As I mentioned above, this might be an example where you literally cannot comprehend the thinking of someone who declines to share your automatic assumptions.

If you mean it is a racial issue to you , sure. If you mean either I or Zimmerman are motivated by racism, no.
Quote:

So here's Trayvon, on a dark street with a grown man -- a grown white man -- who is demanding to know what his business is. At this point, the facts get blurry. But we know that Trayvon struck Zimmerman and eventually ended up on top of him. What do you think led him to do this? Is it just the fact that he's a 'thug', that the hormones in his body drove him mad, and with no more reason than a wild beast he attacked Zimmerman? Because that's the story you told in the other thread.
Martin doubled back, confronted and attacked Zimmerman, because he was a hot-headed, unstable teen ager with a history of acting out. He had been kicked out of school for theft, vandalism, and drugs, and was sent to his father to see if his father could do any better with him. That's the story I told in the other thread.
Quote:

If you don't see how that narrative lines up precisely with the racist ideology of the South during the height of the Jim Crow era, then you shouldn't be calling anyone else "little brained". And if you DO see it, but you stand by that argument, then you're a racist, plain and simple.
See my earlier post.

Being called a racist doesn't bother me, especially not when I am arguing based on facts and evidence and the accuser is not. Perhaps it should, but it doesn't.
Quote:

And you choose to pretend that Zimmerman is a fine Southern gentleman and an example to us all.
No doubt you can quote me where I have said anything of this sort.
Quote:

Hopefully my reasoning is refutation enough.
It isn't.

Regards,
Shodan

Morgyn 12-06-2018 04:23 PM

Babale, I don't recall seeing you around here before, although I see you've been a member for years. That was a truly admirable bit of writing. Thank you. I intend to start looking for your posts.

Shodan 12-06-2018 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ravenman (Post 21363617)
Other conservative facts:

1. There were WMD found in Iraq
2. Reagan scared the Iranians into returning the hostages
3. Trump's inauguration was the biggest one ever

Liberal facts
  1. Nuh-uh! and
  2. Racist!
Regards,
Shodan

Babale 12-06-2018 04:30 PM

To everyone who said I was wasting my time, you were right and I was wrong.

Edit: no, you know what? Morgyn, Thing Fish, thanks for your support :)

Babale 12-06-2018 04:40 PM

From the GD thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 21363650)
Whether Martin was 'defending himself' or 'attacking' hinges on who started the physical altercation. Merely seeing a holstered gun does not justify assault (see open-carriers, for example).

Anyone know how to save a post? This one's gonna come in REAL handy next time the cops shoot an unarmed black man at 50 feet and this asshole is defending them.

iiandyiiii 12-06-2018 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21363618)
Being called a racist doesn't bother me, especially not when I am arguing based on facts and evidence and the accuser is not.

So apparently Shodan thinks it's "arguing based on facts and evidence" to believe that it's totally fine to refer to some black people by the n-word, and justify this by citing a (long-disavowed and regretted by the comedian) Chris Rock comedy bit. 'Cause that's why I called him a racist. In case anyone thinks it might be worthwhile to talk with him about any issue related to race.

Sadly, most racists don't know that they are racist. They think they have good reasons (like a disavowed and regretted comedy bit!?) for various racist assertions. And very rarely are they capable of looking within themselves and realizing this. I suppose there's a chance that Shodan could become one of these rare individuals... we can always hope.

The Tooth 12-06-2018 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak (Post 21363239)
I submit this quote for the "no shit, Sherlock" observation of the year.

It must have concerned them at one point, judging from the pointy hoods that hid their faces.

Babale 12-06-2018 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Tooth (Post 21363701)
It must have concerned them at one point, judging from the pointy hoods that hid their faces.

Now they march in the open, heads and tiki torches held high as the ol' Stars and Bars waves behind them. Truly, we've come so far.

Sunny Daze 12-06-2018 05:08 PM

I admire your fortitude, Babale.

bucketybuck 12-06-2018 05:16 PM

Two cunts and George Zimmerman.

Heffalump and Roo 12-06-2018 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babale (Post 21363339)
Is it really so ridiculous to think that this is possible?

Well, I read every word of your post. I wasn't thinking too much about this issue when it happened, so I just went along with the narrative that it was racist. Your rendition is making me think twice about that.

Sure, your interpretation is possible. Anything is possible. You're insisting that your version is the *only* one that's possible. I'm buying that less after reading your post.

Of course, there has been more information about Zimmerman later that may tip the scales, but again, I haven't been paying that much attention to the specifics.

If someone sees someone in their neighborhood who they don't think lives there or is obviously visiting someone there, and that person happens to be African American, what are their options if they think the police won't arrive in time to stop any potential bad activity?

The Tooth 12-06-2018 06:20 PM

Minding their own business springs to mind.

The Tooth 12-06-2018 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babale (Post 21363706)
Now they march in the open, heads and tiki torches held high as the ol' Stars and Bars waves behind them. Truly, we've come so far.

If they want to make themselves easy to identify I won't stop them.

Babale 12-06-2018 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heffalump and Roo (Post 21363898)
Well, I read every word of your post. I wasn't thinking too much about this issue when it happened, so I just went along with the narrative that it was racist. Your rendition is making me think twice about that.

Sure, your interpretation is possible. Anything is possible. You're insisting that your version is the *only* one that's possible. I'm buying that less after reading your post.

Of course, there has been more information about Zimmerman later that may tip the scales, but again, I haven't been paying that much attention to the specifics.

If someone sees someone in their neighborhood who they don't think lives there or is obviously visiting someone there, and that person happens to be African American, what are their options if they think the police won't arrive in time to stop any potential bad activity?

But that's exactly the point. What was suspicious about Trayvon aside from his race?

Dacien 12-06-2018 06:31 PM

The thing I remember most about the trial was when the detective said that he played a trick on Zimmerman, stating that the entire altercation had been caught on a security camera. Typically, he said, a guilty person will reel a bit and begin to slowly walk back their story. An innocent person will be overcome with relief, ostensibly because their accurate telling of events will be proven by video evidence.

According to the detective, Zimmerman was overcome with relief.

A couple questions though.

1. Is Zimmerman still a "white Hispanic", or is he just white now?

2. Isn't racism, in the absence of some obvious indicator (uttering a racial slur, for example), an unfalsifiable crime of the mind that can't possibly be defended against? Like a cop of pulling over a person who happens to be black and saying it's a racist stop. The cop cannot possibly prove he's not a racist.

Heffalump and Roo 12-06-2018 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babale (Post 21363925)
But that's exactly the point. What was suspicious about Trayvon aside from his race?

I wasn't there, and that's not my question.

I live in a place where I know the people who live around me. I generally know the people visiting them. If I see someone wandering around their places that doesn't look like they belong, what are the options I have?

Do the options differ based on the color of their skin?

Babale 12-06-2018 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dacien (Post 21363926)
A couple questions though.

1. Is Zimmerman still a "white Hispanic", or is he just white now?

well, Trayvon thought he was white, so when we are discussing Trayvon's frame of mind, it doesn't matter.

Hispanics can be racist just like blacks can, so it's also irrelevant when discussing Zimmerman's frame of mind.

Why are you asking?

Quote:

2. Isn't racism, in the absence of some obvious indicator (uttering a racial slur, for example), an unfalsifiable crime
No, because racism isn't a crime. Acting on it can be.

Babale 12-06-2018 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heffalump and Roo (Post 21363946)
I wasn't there, and that's not my question.

I live in a place where I know the people who live around me. I generally know the people visiting them. If I see someone wandering around their places that doesn't look like they belong, what are the options I have?

Do the options differ based on the color of their skin?

Why do you say Trayvon didn't belong? His father lived in that community and Trayvon was living with him. Do you think Zimmerman personally knew every person in the area? If not, what reason did he have for thinking that Trayvon was "suspicious" aside from race?

As for your options:
1) mind your own business.
2) no, that's it.

You don't get to say someone looks like he "doesn't belong". If they are doing something illegal, or something that looks like it might be illegal, you call the cops. If they just look like they don't "belong" you mind your own business.

Dacien 12-06-2018 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babale (Post 21363956)
well, Trayvon thought he was white, so when we are discussing Trayvon's frame of mind, it doesn't matter.

Hispanics can be racist just like blacks can, so it's also irrelevant when discussing Zimmerman's frame of mind.

Why are you asking?

Because at the time they were referring to him as a white Hispanic in media reports, and it was pointed out that if Zimmerman had been up for a Nobel prize, no such distinction would have been made. Indeed, such a distinction would be seen as inappropriate.

It seemed odd at the time that it was so important to insert whiteness into the person who shot Trayvon. But OP simply refers to him as white, so I was curious if the perplexing racial categorization of Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic" had been abandoned completely.

And did Trayvon think he was white? I never heard that. Did Zimmerman relay a white-related epithet uttered by Trayvon? Honest question, I haven't heard of that.


Quote:

No, because racism isn't a crime. Acting on it can be.

"Crime of the mind" is a turn of phrase that simply means having a thought that is considered bad or immoral, not that an actual crime has been committed.

RaftPeople 12-06-2018 08:12 PM

Outside observer that did not really follow the details of the incident when it happened:
Based on the data that appears to be available (I only read the GD thread and the wiki recap), it seems that nobody knows who started the altercation.

Regardless of either parties past history or activities that night, the altercation could easily have been started by either party.


Not sure why anyone can be so convinced that they know what happened.

RaftPeople 12-06-2018 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babale (Post 21363964)
As for your options:
1) mind your own business.


Counter examples:
1 - Neighbor called the police due to 4 suspicious looking individuals, they broke into the other neighbors house before the police arrived

2 - I spotted some suspicious looking guys walking down the street as I drove past a neighbors house to work. I turned around at the next street and came back to catch them stealing neighbors bike.

3 - Neighbor (older woman) hired a handy man to work on house and my wife and I picked up some odd signals that were tough to identify, something felt off with this person, like manipulative, too friendly, and some other things. We called neighbor's daughter and mentioned our concerns that he seemed really "suspicious" and to watch out for her stuff. A few days later the cops were at the house, the guy had stolen her car, jewelry and a bunch of tools from the garage.


Ignoring data is not smart. Sure you need to try not to let bias and bigotry influence the process, but that doesn't mean you ignore all data until someone commits a crime.


fyi: all people in above examples were white, race is not automatically the issue in all cases, but I do have black friends and they tell me about how often they get pulled over, so I get there is a lot of it.

Heffalump and Roo 12-06-2018 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babale (Post 21363964)
You don't get to say someone looks like he "doesn't belong". If they are doing something illegal, or something that looks like it might be illegal, you call the cops. If they just look like they don't "belong" you mind your own business.

Along with RaftPeople's examples, I have a bunch of my own.

A neighbor sees someone shining a flashlight into someone's window. Stopping to ask why they're doing that seems more reasonable than watching them continue or waiting to see if he really does break in.

A neighbor sees someone sitting out in the street, talking to someone on the phone. They don't go in a house. They just sit there, for an hour or more. They get up to go toward an empty house every once in a while.

A neighbor sees someone coming out of someone's yard. They are unfamiliar with them and don't see their neighbor that they are familiar with, at the house.


You're saying that the only option available is to call the police when asking might clarify what's going on.

Little Nemo 12-06-2018 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21363166)
There has been discussion on the SDMB that liberals have trouble understanding the motivations of conservatives. The reverse isn't nearly as true - conservatives and independents are more likely to be able to accurately define what drives liberals. I think that might be what is going on here.

Bullshit. Here's what I understand about the motivations of conservatives like George Zimmerman: they're cowards.

People like Zimmerman are scared of black people. Because they're cowards. But they don't see themselves as cowards. They imagine themselves as rugged All-American he-men. They imagine they're really brave. So when a conservative gets scared because he sees a black teenager, he figures that black teenagers must be incredibly scary if they can scare somebody as brave as the conservative imagines he is.

So when they step forward to confront that black teenager, they imagine themselves as the brave knight stepping forward to confront a dragon. They expect everyone around them to admire and respect the courage they are showing. And they figure they're braver than everyone else because they were the only one willing to step forward and confront the threat that they imagine everyone was seeing.

But that's not what everyone else is seeing. Nobody else was scared of the black teenager or felt threatened just because he was walking down the street. So when the conservative confronted the black teenager, their thought was not "That brave man is defending us all" - it was "Why is that asshole harassing that kid for no reason?"

Little Nemo 12-06-2018 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaftPeople (Post 21364092)
Counter examples:
1 - Neighbor called the police due to 4 suspicious looking individuals, they broke into the other neighbors house before the police arrived

2 - I spotted some suspicious looking guys walking down the street as I drove past a neighbors house to work. I turned around at the next street and came back to catch them stealing neighbors bike.

3 - Neighbor (older woman) hired a handy man to work on house and my wife and I picked up some odd signals that were tough to identify, something felt off with this person, like manipulative, too friendly, and some other things. We called neighbor's daughter and mentioned our concerns that he seemed really "suspicious" and to watch out for her stuff. A few days later the cops were at the house, the guy had stolen her car, jewelry and a bunch of tools from the garage.


Ignoring data is not smart. Sure you need to try not to let bias and bigotry influence the process, but that doesn't mean you ignore all data until someone commits a crime.


fyi: all people in above examples were white, race is not automatically the issue in all cases, but I do have black friends and they tell me about how often they get pulled over, so I get there is a lot of it.

Data? What data? All you said was that these people looked "suspicious".

pool 12-06-2018 10:38 PM

Maybe Zimmerman was racist and profiling, maybe he wasn't. But his action of shooting a guy bashing his head into concrete is not a racist action it's survival instinct. I had a sort of reverse situation occur in real life, when I had to pee so badly that I pulled over into this neighborhood on the side of the road, walked down the street and urinated near some bushes. I'm white and a black guy came out of his house and asked what I was doing in his neighborhood and told me to leave. Now it was impossible from the house he came out of that he saw me peeing. I told him the truth but he wouldn't accept my answer and proceeded to basically chest bump me and tried to physically intimidate me. I had a conceal/carry handgun on my person but I just defused the situation and told him I was leaving even as he was still in my face and even hit my car window as I walked to and got inside my car.

The guy did cross the line and physically pushed me a little bit but if it had crossed a certain threshold and he started bashing my head into the curb I don't think I would have been racist or in the wrong to shoot such a person if I didn't think or know that they would stop. I agree with Shodan but I don't expect most posters on this board to agree with me.

octopus 12-07-2018 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21363699)
So apparently Shodan thinks it's "arguing based on facts and evidence" to believe that it's totally fine to refer to some black people by the n-word, and justify this by citing a (long-disavowed and regretted by the comedian) Chris Rock comedy bit. 'Cause that's why I called him a racist. In case anyone thinks it might be worthwhile to talk with him about any issue related to race.

Sadly, most racists don't know that they are racist. They think they have good reasons (like a disavowed and regretted comedy bit!?) for various racist assertions. And very rarely are they capable of looking within themselves and realizing this. I suppose there's a chance that Shodan could become one of these rare individuals... we can always hope.

Maybe you should post that link another 20 times? Truth is Chris Rock did do that comedy routine and probably made millions off of it. Truth is other comedians make race based comedy. Itís not surprising that sometimes other people Knight use the exact same language. Was Chris Rock an evil racist!!11! for the original routine. Of course you will refuse to answer that with a permutation of your own race based reasoning.

yendis 12-07-2018 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pool (Post 21364315)
Maybe Zimmerman was racist and profiling, maybe he wasn't. But his action of shooting a guy bashing his head into concrete is not a racist action it's survival instinct. I had a sort of reverse situation occur in real life, when I had to pee so badly that I pulled over into this neighborhood on the side of the road, walked down the street and urinated near some bushes. I'm white and a black guy came out of his house and asked what I was doing in his neighborhood and told me to leave. Now it was impossible from the house he came out of that he saw me peeing. I told him the truth but he wouldn't accept my answer and proceeded to basically chest bump me and tried to physically intimidate me. I had a conceal/carry handgun on my person but I just defused the situation and told him I was leaving even as he was still in my face and even hit my car window as I walked to and got inside my car.

But in this story you are in Martin's position and the other guy is Zimmerman. So if you had defended yourself and he killed you he would be in the right. Well except that he was black and therefore guilty by default in some people's eyes.

Little Nemo 12-07-2018 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yendis (Post 21364588)
But in this story you are in Martin's position and the other guy is Zimmerman. So if you had defended yourself and he killed you he would be in the right. Well except that he was black and therefore guilty by default in some people's eyes.

I think that's the principle at work. For some people, it doesn't matter what the actual circumstances were. They'll always believe that the black guy started it and the white guy was just defending himself. Everything else can be adjusted to fit that narrative.

iiandyiiii 12-07-2018 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by octopus (Post 21364577)
Maybe you should post that link another 20 times? Truth is Chris Rock did do that comedy routine and probably made millions off of it. Truth is other comedians make race based comedy. It’s not surprising that sometimes other people Knight use the exact same language. Was Chris Rock an evil racist!!11! for the original routine. Of course you will refuse to answer that with a permutation of your own race based reasoning.

No, I don't think Rock is a racist.

Do you agree with Shodan that some black people ought to be referred to as the n word?

MrDibble 12-07-2018 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21363166)
White guy (okay, half-Hispanic/half-white)

This is not a thing.

MrDibble 12-07-2018 06:12 AM

Chris Rock doesn't regret the bit becasuse it was he himself being racist, he regrets it because it gave some semblance of plausible deniability to racist shitstains like Shodan.

Locrian 12-07-2018 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaftPeople (Post 21364069)
Outside observer that did not really follow the details of the incident when it happened:
Based on the data that appears to be available (I only read the GD thread and the wiki recap), it seems that nobody knows who started the altercation.

Regardless of either parties past history or activities that night, the altercation could easily have been started by either party.


Not sure why anyone can be so convinced that they know what happened.

This. ^^ Whether or not you followed every part of this case, we will never know who or how this altercation really started. I think Zimmerman is an asshole for thinking confrontation as a neighborhood watch person is entirely stupid. I can't say he shot Trayvon because he was black. I'd like to THINK so... 'cause, hey, that'd make this easy. But unfortunately, I do not know and will never know what really happened when they started at each other.

What is neighborhood watch? It means a citizen with eyes and ears and quick communication with the police-- the professionals (we hope) in these cases. IOW, it means any grown up with half a brain. You're no more special than me to report a crime. Zimmerman seems like the type who joined just so he could brag about how great he is. Nevertheless, I don't know what the hell really happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heffalump and Roo (Post 21364132)
Along with RaftPeople's examples, I have a bunch of my own.

A neighbor sees someone shining a flashlight into someone's window. Stopping to ask why they're doing that seems more reasonable than watching them continue or waiting to see if he really does break in.

A neighbor sees someone sitting out in the street, talking to someone on the phone. They don't go in a house. They just sit there, for an hour or more. They get up to go toward an empty house every once in a while.

A neighbor sees someone coming out of someone's yard. They are unfamiliar with them and don't see their neighbor that they are familiar with, at the house.


You're saying that the only option available is to call the police when asking might clarify what's going on.

I won't speak for anyone else, but my answer is an absolute yes, call the cops. You remember curiosity (not the Mars droid) and the cat? Someone with a flashlight at the windows of an empty neighbor's house equals call the cops. NEVER walk over and say, "'Sup, dude?" And that's for two main reasons: common sense and what happened to Trayvon. Hey, maybe you're a trained police/military person who would handle this better than me. I'm not, so... 911 it is for me on any of these examples.

So, Babale, I did really love your post. But there are assumptions we unfortunately can't make. Like I said, Zimmerman is an ass, but how and why and for what reason this happened we don't know. Do I think he's racist? Yes. Do I think he should not have confronted Trayvon? Yes. Why he shot Tayvon? I do not know why FOR SURE. All racist reasons are possible, but we can't just conclude that.

Heffalump and Roo 12-07-2018 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locrian (Post 21364725)
I won't speak for anyone else, but my answer is an absolute yes, call the cops. You remember curiosity (not the Mars droid) and the cat? Someone with a flashlight at the windows of an empty neighbor's house equals call the cops. NEVER walk over and say, "'Sup, dude?" And that's for two main reasons: common sense and what happened to Trayvon. Hey, maybe you're a trained police/military person who would handle this better than me. I'm not, so... 911 it is for me on any of these examples.

This actually happened. A neighbor saw a flashlight beam from around my place. He came over to see what was happening. It turned out that I was shining a flashlight to see something in the dark. He didn't realize I was there. I'm glad he didn't call the police because I wouldn't want to deal with them.

The other thing happened too. I saw some young people sitting around the car for a really long time. I hadn't seen them before. They were probably friends of someone in the area. After watching them for a while, I went over and asked why they were sitting out in the street. They went into the friend's house after I asked.

Neighborhood watches are organized so that people can group together and ask each other what's going on instead of calling the police for everything that seems out of place.

Shodan 12-07-2018 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locrian (Post 21364725)
What is neighborhood watch? It means a citizen with eyes and ears and quick communication with the police-- the professionals (we hope) in these cases.

Zimmerman called the non-emergency police dispatcher immediately upon spotting Martin acting (in his opinion) suspiciously. And it was while Zimmerman was trying to find a house number or street address so that he could meet up with the police, who were on their way, when Martin confronted and attacked him.
Quote:

Hey, maybe you're a trained police/military person who would handle this better than me. I'm not, so... 911 it is for me on any of these examples.
Same for Zimmerman. Which is why he did what he did.

Regards,
Shodan

Budget Player Cadet 12-07-2018 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21363166)
There has been discussion on the SDMB that liberals have trouble understanding the motivations of conservatives. The reverse isn't nearly as true - conservatives and independents are more likely to be able to accurately define what drives liberals. I think that might be what is going on here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Also Shodan, literally one sentence later (Post 21363166)
White guy (okay, half-Hispanic/half-white) shoots black kid. There is no room in your brain for any explanation except the one - it has to be racist.

Dunning-Krueger is one hell of a drug. What a stupid motherfucker.

Babale 12-07-2018 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaftPeople (Post 21364092)
Counter examples:
1 - Neighbor called the police due to 4 suspicious looking individuals, they broke into the other neighbors house before the police arrived

2 - I spotted some suspicious looking guys walking down the street as I drove past a neighbors house to work. I turned around at the next street and came back to catch them stealing neighbors bike.

3 - Neighbor (older woman) hired a handy man to work on house and my wife and I picked up some odd signals that were tough to identify, something felt off with this person, like manipulative, too friendly, and some other things. We called neighbor's daughter and mentioned our concerns that he seemed really "suspicious" and to watch out for her stuff. A few days later the cops were at the house, the guy had stolen her car, jewelry and a bunch of tools from the garage.


Ignoring data is not smart. Sure you need to try not to let bias and bigotry influence the process, but that doesn't mean you ignore all data until someone commits a crime.


fyi: all people in above examples were white, race is not automatically the issue in all cases, but I do have black friends and they tell me about how often they get pulled over, so I get there is a lot of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heffalump and Roo (Post 21364132)
Along with RaftPeople's examples, I have a bunch of my own.

A neighbor sees someone shining a flashlight into someone's window. Stopping to ask why they're doing that seems more reasonable than watching them continue or waiting to see if he really does break in.

A neighbor sees someone sitting out in the street, talking to someone on the phone. They don't go in a house. They just sit there, for an hour or more. They get up to go toward an empty house every once in a while.

A neighbor sees someone coming out of someone's yard. They are unfamiliar with them and don't see their neighbor that they are familiar with, at the house.


You're saying that the only option available is to call the police when asking might clarify what's going on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21364826)
Zimmerman called the non-emergency police dispatcher immediately upon spotting Martin acting (in his opinion) suspiciously. And it was while Zimmerman was trying to find a house number or street address so that he could meet up with the police, who were on their way, when Martin confronted and attacked him.Same for Zimmerman. Which is why he did what he did.

Regards,
Shodan

Your whole "Martin doubled back because the dirty black man lusted for white blood" narrative has been debunkeed like 50 time now. Please stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

asahi 12-07-2018 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak (Post 21363239)
I submit this quote for the "no shit, Sherlock" observation of the year.

Yeah, it used to be conservatives would say "I'm not racist, but...."

Now it's more like "Go ahead, call me a racist. I pretty much am. Har! Har!"

Heffalump and Roo 12-07-2018 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babale (Post 21364992)
Your whole "Martin doubled back because the dirty black man lusted for white blood" narrative has been debunkeed like 50 time now. Please stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

That is NOT my narrative. What Martin did or did not do did not cross my mind. I don't know what happened in that situation. I only have your description to go on.

My only point is that, regardless of race, there are situations where people might ask someone in their neighborhood that they don't recognize what they're doing there.

Babale 12-07-2018 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heffalump and Roo (Post 21365064)
That is NOT my narrative. What Martin did or did not do did not cross my mind. I don't know what happened in that situation. I only have your description to go on.

My only point is that, regardless of race, there are situations where people might ask someone in their neighborhood that they don't recognize what they're doing there.

Oh gosh, I'm sorry, I did NOT mean to quote you and RaftPeople. Only Shodan. Sorry Heffalump

Babale 12-07-2018 10:51 AM

To respond to your actual point -- there are trained professionals whose job it is to respond to reports of suspicious activity. They are called police officers. If you (or, more likely, some asswipe like George Zimmerman) decides to take the law into his own hands, and ends up getting killed, that sounds like a personal problem. If you end up killing an innocent, you should got in jail.

asahi 12-07-2018 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heffalump and Roo (Post 21365064)
My only point is that, regardless of race, there are situations where people might ask someone in their neighborhood that they don't recognize what they're doing there.

Fair enough.

But regardless, better judgment needs to prevail, and if someone is carrying a lethal weapon, then they need to exercise extremely good judgment. Zimmerman was advised by the 911 dispatcher not to pursue Martin, and there's a very good reason for that, which was pretty obvious to the dispatcher but apparently not to the guy who, as it turned out, has put himself in dire financial straits even if not officially convicted. Yes, it was legal for Zimmerman to follow Martin, but that isn't the point as far as I'm concerned.

If someone is in possession of a lethal weapon, if someone possesses lethal force, they have at least a moral/ethical responsibility to exercise good judgment. I don't know if the confrontation by itself is inherently "racist", but the language that Zimmerman used in describing his encounter with Martin ("He's up to no good", "F*cking punk, etc") clearly shows that Zimmerman had some pretty strong biases against Martin. If he had seen Martin peeking through the windows of cars or homes, he might have been justified in being biased. But there's no evidence to suggest anything other than Martin was just an unfamiliar black face walking around in unfamiliar territory.

None of that is to say that Martin was some sort of straight-A student who never found trouble, but that's really immaterial. Martin was killed as a result of circumstances that were wholly preventable by the person who initiated a confrontation while in possession of a lethal weapon. In a just world, there are consequences that must be paid.

Knowed Out 12-07-2018 11:00 AM

There's an episode of blackish that gives a hilarious take on who can say the n-word.

Here's a sample: https://youtu.be/eUQrwXdw1jw

The whole episode is worth watching, if only to alleviate some white guilt.

CaptMurdock 12-07-2018 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaftPeople (Post 21364092)
Counter examples:
1 - Neighbor called the police due to 4 suspicious looking individuals, they broke into the other neighbors house before the police arrived

2 - I spotted some suspicious looking guys walking down the street as I drove past a neighbors house to work. I turned around at the next street and came back to catch them stealing neighbors bike.

3 - Neighbor (older woman) hired a handy man to work on house and my wife and I picked up some odd signals that were tough to identify, something felt off with this person, like manipulative, too friendly, and some other things. We called neighbor's daughter and mentioned our concerns that he seemed really "suspicious" and to watch out for her stuff. A few days later the cops were at the house, the guy had stolen her car, jewelry and a bunch of tools from the garage.


Ignoring data is not smart. Sure you need to try not to let bias and bigotry influence the process, but that doesn't mean you ignore all data until someone commits a crime.


fyi: all people in above examples were white, race is not automatically the issue in all cases, but I do have black friends and they tell me about how often they get pulled over, so I get there is a lot of it.

Swell. In any of the cited cases, did the neighbors note down physical descriptions? Clothing? Vehicles, esp. license numbers? Snap any pics with the oh-so-handy phone cameras that damn near everybody has these days?

Neighborhood Watch means just that. Watch. Not go off like suburban vigilantes. And nobody is asking anybody to "ignore data." :rolleyes:

Wolf333 12-07-2018 11:29 AM

One of my favorite bits of this whole thing is that Martin gets labeled a thug.

Which one of these two is known to have killed someone and has had several negative interactions with law enforcement?

octopus 12-07-2018 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21364672)
No, I don't think Rock is a racist.

Do you agree with Shodan that some black people ought to be referred to as the n word?

Itís funny but obviously not surprising you have that race based double standard on language. With regards to using ugly language? We are in a time where the hysterical Pavlovian response to certain words is so extreme you must be crazy to think I want to discuss something that requires maturity and nuance and honesty in the Pit.

So, in general, I think itís best not to go through life being needlessly offensive.

Gyrate 12-07-2018 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolf333 (Post 21363590)
Shodan is a piece of shit racist troll who is somehow still around because heís one of the ďgoodĒ conservatives around here (how shitty is that?).

At the same time he regularly whines about moderator bias against conservatives.

Ditka is Shodanís less intelligent little brother.

No, he and Ditka are around because they stay within the rules. Being a dishonest, amoral asshole is not in itself cause for banning as long as one observes the requirements of the forum in which one is posting, and both are scrupulous in doing so.

Incidentally both posters are, outside of threads with any political content, capable of thoughtful and constructive comment (unlike certain other recently-booted right-wing posters who were idiotic across the board).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babale (Post 21363658)
From the GD thread:Anyone know how to save a post? This one's gonna come in REAL handy next time the cops shoot an unarmed black man at 50 feet and this asshole is defending them.

It won't matter. Shodan in particular is fond of the "As long as I can concoct a post-hoc rationalization for the shooting of yet another black man it's all good" school of debate. Then he'll ignore any counterarguments or questions while blatantly misinterpreting what other people have said and blaming them for it. But as I said, he does so in a way that stays within the rules so he hasn't been banned for trolling yet.

iiandyiiii 12-07-2018 12:00 PM

One more point in the "Shodan is a racist" argument's favor: In many threads on the subject, I've asked him point blank if he believes that black people are inherently inferior in intelligence, on average, due to genetics. He's always refused to answer. Based on this (and his doth-protests in this thread), I think he actually is a bit fearful of being called a racist. Most racists (conscious or unconscious) are also at least a bit cowardly, in my experience, so this wouldn't be out of the ordinary.

And if you're reading this, Shodan, you're not too old to change. It's not that unusual for an older white American guy to have some racist inclinations. Decent folks look within themselves to try and find flaws like this so they can fix them, IMO.

octopus 12-07-2018 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babale (Post 21365132)
To respond to your actual point -- there are trained professionals whose job it is to respond to reports of suspicious activity. They are called police officers. If you (or, more likely, some asswipe like George Zimmerman) decides to take the law into his own hands, and ends up getting killed, that sounds like a personal problem. If you end up killing an innocent, you should got in jail.

That is correct. But self defense is a thing. So if you shoot someone who is beating you pretty good you might be doing the legal thing.

The problem with Floridaís law is that it can lead to a bad set of circumstances if two or more hot heads encounter each other.

octopus 12-07-2018 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21365322)
One more point in the "Shodan is a racist" argument's favor: In many threads on the subject, I've asked him point blank if he believes that black people are inherently inferior in intelligence, on average, due to genetics. He's always refused to answer. Based on this (and his doth-protests in this thread), I think he actually is a bit fearful of being called a racist. Most racists (conscious or unconscious) are also at least a bit cowardly, in my experience, so this wouldn't be out of the ordinary.

And if you're reading this, Shodan, you're not too old to change. It's not that unusual for an older white American guy to have some racist inclinations. Decent folks look within themselves to try and find flaws like this so they can fix them, IMO.

You know how those threads go. They are pointless. All group based genetic threads on this board are pointless because even defining a group or a trait or how to measure a trait are impossible. And then you got to deal with the hijacks and whining.

iiandyiiii 12-07-2018 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by octopus (Post 21365316)
It’s funny but obviously not surprising you have that race based double standard on language.

I don't. If Shodan was a comedian doing a satirical bit on language and the absurdity of racism, then I'd evaluate it differently. Satirical comedy bits are different than serious assertions about the appropriate usage of hateful slurs.

Quote:

With regards to using ugly language? We are in a time where the hysterical Pavlovian response to certain words is so extreme you must be crazy to think I want to discuss something that requires maturity and nuance and honesty in the Pit.
So you're afraid? We've had decent discussions in the Pit before. But if you're scared, then you don't have to take part.

Here's what I think -- the n-word (that specific slur in Standard American English -- not the inocuous slang word used similarly to "dude" in African American Vernacular English) has been used for over a century to denigrate the very humanity of black people in America. And this denigration of their humanity served a purpose -- to allow otherwise decent people to tolerate, support, and even participate in abominable acts of violence, brutality, and oppression of black people. Decent people generally are incapable of beating, raping, or lynching an inoffensive stranger. But if they're not really human, and more like vermin, then suddenly decent people are capable of being persuaded to take part (and certainly capable of tolerating and even supporting such acts and policies).

It's impossible to separate that word from that history. Every time it's used in anger as a slur, it's a reminder to the target that your forebears were bought and sold, beaten and raped, shot and hanged, just because of the color of their skin. The idea that some humans actuall would qualify for that kind of thing is terrible for our society, and just adding to the gigantic heap of shit that black people already have to deal with.

Shodan says he's not afraid. I wonder if he's "brave" enough to actually refer to black person (say, a violent criminal) by that word in the presence of any of his African American friends and neighbors. If not, why do you think that is? Is it because he thinks those friends and neighbors (I'm assuming he does actually have some black friends and neighbors) are pathetic liberal snowflakes who can't handle naughty words? Or is it because he knows that using that word really might pull up some deep-seated, awful but reasonably-held negative feelings, based on their own personal and family history, that would be wrong to instill in others, simply so that he could use a certain word he'd like to use? Assuming I'm correct, and he would refrain from doing so, I think it's because of this last reason, as opposed to a fear of violence -- because he does have some decency within him, and has no interest in causing such legitimate pain to other decent people. And thus some part of him (I'm guessing) probably knows that using that word is wrong, but another part him is too proud to let him admit it -- to liberals, certainly, but maybe even to himself as well.

So there's some "maturity and nuance and honesty", if you're at all interested. All speculation, of course -- I'm no mind reader.

octopus 12-07-2018 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21365353)
I don't. If Shodan was a comedian doing a satirical bit on language and the absurdity of racism, then I'd evaluate it differently. Satirical comedy bits are different than serious assertions about the appropriate usage of hateful slurs.



So you're afraid? We've had decent discussions in the Pit before. But if you're scared, then you don't have to take part.

Here's what I think -- the n-word (that specific slur in Standard American English -- not the inocuous slang word used similarly to "dude" in African American Vernacular English) has been used for over a century to denigrate the very humanity of black people in America. And this denigration of their humanity served a purpose -- to allow otherwise decent people to tolerate, support, and even participate in abominable acts of violence, brutality, and oppression of black people. Decent people generally are incapable of beating, raping, or lynching an inoffensive stranger. But if they're not really human, and more like vermin, then suddenly decent people are capable of being persuaded to take part (and certainly capable of tolerating and even supporting such acts and policies).

It's impossible to separate that word from that history. Every time it's used in anger as a slur, it's a reminder to the target that your forebears were bought and sold, beaten and raped, shot and hanged, just because of the color of their skin. The idea that some humans actuall would qualify for that kind of thing is terrible for our society, and just adding to the gigantic heap of shit that black people already have to deal with.

Shodan says he's not afraid. I wonder if he's "brave" enough to actually refer to black person (say, a violent criminal) by that word in the presence of any of his African American friends and neighbors. If not, why do you think that is? Is it because he thinks those friends and neighbors (I'm assuming he does actually have some black friends and neighbors) are pathetic liberal snowflakes who can't handle naughty words? Or is it because he knows that using that word really might pull up some deep-seated, awful but reasonably-held negative feelings, based on their own personal and family history, that would be wrong to instill in others, simply so that he could use a certain word he'd like to use? Assuming I'm correct, and he would refrain from doing so, I think it's because of this last reason, as opposed to a fear of violence -- because he does have some decency within him, and has no interest in causing such legitimate pain to other decent people. And thus some part of him (I'm guessing) probably knows that using that word is wrong, but another part him is too proud to let him admit it -- to liberals, certainly, but maybe even to himself as well.

So there's some "maturity and nuance and honesty", if you're at all interested. All speculation, of course -- I'm no mind reader.

Afraid? No. Itís pointless. Furthermore, I donít think personal history is a way to encourage different standards.

Anyways you almost had me suckered in! Look, iiandyiiii, you arenít the typical forum member and even you use non-nuanced and weaponized language as a social approval cudgel. You are being disingenuous.

Therefore the discussion is pointless. Iím surprised the forum just doesnít ban that sort of talk altogether.

iiandyiiii 12-07-2018 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by octopus (Post 21365374)
Afraid? No. It’s pointless. Furthermore, I don’t think personal history is a way to encourage different standards.

Anyways you almost had me suckered in! Look, iiandyiiii, you aren’t the typical forum member and even you use non-nuanced and weaponized language as a social approval cudgel. You are being disingenuous.

Therefore the discussion is pointless. I’m surprised the forum just doesn’t ban that sort of talk altogether.

Okay, a cryptic non-response (and an accusation of dishonesty). And no idea what you mean about "personal history" -- I use different standards for satirical comedy bits than for serious assertions about how one ought to behave. I guess you weren't really interested in any sort of "maturity and nuance and honesty". I gave it a shot; it's still there if you change your mind. You can tell me where I'm wrong if you like, or just make excuses and complain about the board if you'd prefer to do that.

Budget Player Cadet 12-07-2018 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by octopus (Post 21365316)
It’s funny but obviously not surprising you have that race based double standard on language.

C O N T E X T M A T T E R S

(I'd write that in fire, 30 feet high, if I could, but I can't, so we'll have to go with this instead.)

It's not a double standard because of context. Specifically, the context of reclaiming a slur. A black man saying to another man, "Mah Nigga!" simply means something different to a white man calling a black man "Nigger!" - specifically, the way Shodan seems insistent on using the term. I don't know why it's so hard for conservatives to grasp this.

iiandyiiii 12-07-2018 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet (Post 21365402)
C O N T E X T M A T T E R S

(I'd write that in fire, 30 feet high, if I could, but I can't, so we'll have to go with this instead.)

It's not a double standard because of context. Specifically, the context of reclaiming a slur. A black man saying to another man, "Mah Nigga!" simply means something different to a white man calling a black man "Nigger!" - specifically, the way Shodan seems insistent on using the term. I don't know why it's so hard for conservatives to grasp this.

It's even more than that -- two different words (though with very closely related linguistic backgrounds), generally used in two different dialects of English.

octopus 12-07-2018 12:55 PM

Well, they aren’t different words.

Ugh... must resist...

iiandyiiii 12-07-2018 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by octopus (Post 21365428)
Well, they aren’t different words.

Study up (and note the differences in spelling), if you like.

Quote:

Ugh... must resist...
...discussion? I know! With discussion, people can learn, or god forbid, even change their minds!

Evil Economist 12-07-2018 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by octopus (Post 21365428)
Well, they arenít different words.

Ugh... must resist...

They're spelled differently, pronounced differently, and mean different things, but you don't think they're different words?

octopus 12-07-2018 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Economist (Post 21365444)
They're spelled differently, pronounced differently, and mean different things, but you don't think they're different words?

Yeah. And in Boston car is a different word.

iiandyiiii 12-07-2018 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by octopus (Post 21365588)
Yeah. And in Boston car is a different word.

"Car" is spelled differently and has a different meaning? Could you provide a cite for this, please?

orcenio 12-07-2018 02:30 PM

Just a continuation of the historic "unless you're black" *wink* *wink* rule.

All Americans have a right to: bear arms, vote, freedom of unreasonable search and seizure, etc... unless you're black; then violations are to be defended to the death because...reasons.

andros 12-07-2018 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21365612)
"Car" is spelled differently and has a different meaning? Could you provide a cite for this, please?

I imagine he's getting caught up a bit both on the derivation of "nigga" as the non-rhotic AAVE pronunciation of "nigger" and as a reclamation of a slur. The one derived from the other; they are no longer the same.

Budget Player Cadet 12-07-2018 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andros (Post 21365694)
I imagine he's getting caught up a bit both on the derivation of "nigga" as the non-rhotic AAVE pronunciation of "nigger" and as a reclamation of a slur. The one derived from the other; they are no longer the same.

Even if they were, the context matters. Just like with literally every other piece of language.

BigT 12-07-2018 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dacien (Post 21363970)
us if the perplexing racial categorization of Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic" had been abandoned completely.

There's nothing perplexing about it. He's a white man with Latino heritage. The vast majority of lighter skinned Latinos identify as white. The US census has race and ethnicity separate specifically because of this.

And, FYI, we are aware of the "just asking questions" concept. You are in fact making insinuations about people on the left. You're taking a normal term (which you would have known about simply by Googling it) and implying it really meant something else.

madsircool 12-07-2018 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 21366226)
There's nothing perplexing about it. He's a white man with Latino heritage. The vast majority of lighter skinned Latinos identify as white. The US census has race and ethnicity separate specifically because of this.

And, FYI, we are aware of the "just asking questions" concept. You are in fact making insinuations about people on the left. You're taking a normal term (which you would have known about simply by Googling it) and implying it really meant something else.

Believe it or not but Euros migrated to Latin America as either conquers, immigrants or refugees. Both the legendary TV host Don Francisco and legendary footie Announcer Andres Cantor has relatives fleeing Nazi Germany. Mexican beer was developed by central Euro immigrants.

K2500 12-09-2018 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andros (Post 21365694)
I imagine he's getting caught up a bit both on the derivation of "nigga" as the non-rhotic AAVE pronunciation of "nigger" and as a reclamation of a slur. The one derived from the other; they are no longer the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet (Post 21365723)
Even if they were, the context matters. Just like with literally every other piece of language.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Economist (Post 21365444)
They're spelled differently, pronounced differently, and mean different things, but you don't think they're different words?

As BPC notes, context is everything. I can assure you that both forms can be spoken to mean the exact same thing.

septimus 12-10-2018 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pool (Post 21364315)
... I don't think I would have been racist or in the wrong to shoot such a person if I didn't think or know that they would stop. I agree with Shodan but I don't expect most posters on this board to agree with me.

In your worldview, pool trying to urinate in private, and Zimmerman confronting a stranger with hostility are comparable events? :confused: Did you take your gun with you hoping to have an argument?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babale (Post 21363339)
At the end of the day, an unarmed black kid who was not committing any crimes before Zimmerman came on the scene is dead. Before we move forward, can we just agree that this is a bad thing? That even if Zimmerman was right to fear for his life, it was tragic that Trayvon ended up dead? Because as far as I can tell, neither you nor HurricaneDitka ever acknowledged this.

I'm also curious whether Hurricane and his ilk would be capable of acknowledging this in their hearts. But I don't think their responses in the thread would answer this one way or the other. They might be happy a nigger was killed but pretend otherwise to keep up their "I am not a racist" charade. Or, they might understand that the manslaughter was a tragedy but fear that to admit it would undermine their case.

What we can agree on is that they take great pride in being ruled by their amygdalae and reptilian brains. While liberals are dawdling to make assessments of guilt or innocence, Hurricane and his ilk will have bravely shot all the possible "bad guys" dead, leaving God to sort them out.

andros 12-10-2018 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by K2500 (Post 21369174)
As BPC notes, context is everything. I can assure you that both forms can be spoken to mean the exact same thing.

"Can be," certainly. "Nigga" admittedly exists in a liminal space of derivation; I would argue that it has clearly moved past simply being a variant of "nigger."

K2500 12-10-2018 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andros (Post 21369687)
"Can be," certainly. "Nigga" admittedly exists in a liminal space of derivation; I would argue that it has clearly moved past simply being a variant of "nigger."

But still a variant, and still very context dependent. They're close enough that for me, among the whitest of whites, the chances that that divergence will be recognized by the listener are so small as to be indistinguishable. Of course it could just be the delivery, I'm well known for being so dry its hard to tell humor from seriousness.

iiandyiiii 06-10-2019 08:34 AM

What a shock that Shodan, who thinks it's sometimes okay to call black people by the n-word, makes a GD quasi-pitting thread about a black Democratic US representative, baselessly implying incest and implicitly spreading baseless and slanderous conspiracy theories about her.

I wonder if Shodan thinks she qualifies to be called by the n-word? Also, I wonder if he's not too cowardly to actually say whether he thinks so or not?

Shodan 06-10-2019 08:52 AM

Didn't read the cites, did you? Ah well.

Regards,
Shodan

iiandyiiii 06-10-2019 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21689968)
Didn't read the cites, did you? Ah well.



Regards,

Shodan

I read all your cites, actually. But I take it you are, in fact, afraid to tell us if you feel Omar qualifies as the N word? Just a yes or no would suffice.

Ravenman 06-10-2019 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21689968)
Didn't read the cites, did you? Ah well.

Is this the entirety of what you're basing your accusation of incest upon?

Quote:

During the investigation, the Omar committee provided responses explaining that after Rep. Omar won the primary for Minnesota House of Representatives District 60B in August 2016, a blog posted an article with allegations that Rep. Omar was not married to the person she referred to as her husband, and that she was actually married to her brother as part of an immigration scheme. The Omar committee created a crisis committee to respond to the allegations.
Based on what you have presented, there's more sourcing to the allegations that a pizza parlor in DC is actually a secret child sex ring run by the Clintons.

iiandyiiii 06-10-2019 09:37 AM

There is no evidence put forward in any of the cites, or in Snopes, that Omar married her brother. It's an evidence free smear.

Gyrate 06-10-2019 09:57 AM

It's Shodan's new SOP - make a claim that people didn't read his cites (regardless of whether they did or not), add a hefty serving of snide insinuation that they therefore haven't rebutted his points while carefully avoiding actually saying that to avoid having to defend his position, and then ignore all material follow-up questions. It's his new method of "who, me?" trolling.

He used to be much more circumspect about his approach but he's definitely creeping over the line more and more these days.

Chefguy 06-10-2019 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gyrate (Post 21690076)
It's Shodan's new SOP - make a claim that people didn't read his cites (regardless of whether they did or not), add a hefty serving of snide insinuation that they therefore haven't rebutted his points while carefully avoiding actually saying that to avoid having to defend his position, and then ignore all material follow-up questions. It's his new method of "who, me?" trolling.

He used to be much more circumspect about his approach but he's definitely creeping over the line more and more these days.

This is a guy who thinks that "Hispanic" is a race, as per his first post in this thread saying that Zimmerman was "half Hispanic/half white". You can't fix stupid.

iiandyiiii 06-10-2019 10:53 AM

And he's warned about it, with the thread closed: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...4&postcount=27

WillFarnaby 06-10-2019 12:15 PM

I agree that Zimmerman should be held responsible for Martinís death because he stalked and killed an unarmed individual who was not committing aggression against person or property.

That said, there is no evidence that he acted the way he did because he is racist or harbored racist feelings towards Martin or ďblackĒ people in general. That part has been fabricated out of whole cloth. Even if Zimmerman was shown to be a racist before and after the murder, there is no way to say if that is what caused him to kill Martin.

I donít understand the racist angle in the case to be so important to the anti-Zimmermans. It will only provoke knee-jerk reactions and an inability to discuss the case.

WillFarnaby 06-10-2019 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chefguy (Post 21690118)
This is a guy who thinks that "Hispanic" is a race, as per his first post in this thread saying that Zimmerman was "half Hispanic/half white". You can't fix stupid.

This is a guy who thinks race isnít a social construct, therefore ďHispanicĒ could very well be a race just as easily as ďblackĒ or ďwhiteĒ.

Please tell me more about your scientific approach to race identification.

Buck Godot 06-10-2019 12:22 PM

nm

Chefguy 06-10-2019 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby (Post 21690406)
This is a guy who thinks race isnít a social construct, therefore ďHispanicĒ could very well be a race just as easily as ďblackĒ or ďwhiteĒ.

Please tell me more about your scientific approach to race identification.

Fuck off, troll.

Shodan 06-10-2019 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chefguy (Post 21690118)
This is a guy who thinks that "Hispanic" is a race, as per his first post in this thread saying that Zimmerman was "half Hispanic/half white".

It's apparently not just my cites - you people don't appear to read anything, like the OP of this thread, which said, referring to Zimmerman
Quote:

Because he's a white man, and using a gun in "self defense", and so is beyond reproach.
Quote:

You can't fix stupid.
Apparently not.

Regards,
Shodan

GIGObuster 06-10-2019 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21690694)
It's apparently not just my cites - you people don't appear to read anything, like the OP of this thread, which said, referring to Zimmerman
Apparently not.

Regards,
Shodan

So says the certified troll.

Disregards...

iiandyiiii 06-10-2019 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21690694)
It's apparently not just my cites

Which cites of yours provided even a shred of evidence that Omar married her brother?

Ravenman 06-10-2019 03:09 PM

Hey, can someone post something accusing Shodan of being a goat fucker, so we can all follow him around the message board noting that he's an accused goat fucker?

Shodan 06-10-2019 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii
Which cites of yours provided even a shred of evidence that Omar married her brother?

So you didn't read the title of my OP either.

Regards,
Shodan

iiandyiiii 06-10-2019 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21690825)
So you didn't read the title of my OP either.

Apologies. I just want to make it clear that Shodan is NOT a habitual wife-beater. Probably. It's difficult to be sure. Unproven, really.

QuickSilver 06-10-2019 03:35 PM

I think we need to see his birth certificate proving he was really born in Hawaii.

Shodan 06-10-2019 03:37 PM

Now, was that so hard?

Regards,
Shodan

iiandyiiii 06-10-2019 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21690889)
Now, was that so hard?



Regards,

Shodan

It probably sucks to be caught for trolling, but that's what happens when you make it so obvious outside the Pit. Hopefully you'll learn from this mistake and go forth and troll no more!

sps49sd 06-10-2019 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby (Post 21690398)
I agree that Zimmerman should be held responsible for Martinís death because he stalked and killed an unarmed individual who was not committing aggression against person or property.

...

...

Maybe you could read the Wikipedia page on the tragedy, complete with cites to the witnesses and court case, which shows you are wrong.

Nobody did in the dedicated SMDB thread, so I'll be surprised if you do.

Inner Stickler 06-10-2019 08:27 PM

I heard Shodan makes his wife check for Ilhan Omar in the closet before he can go to sleep at night.

CaptMurdock 06-10-2019 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler (Post 21691377)
I heard Shodan makes his wife check for Ilhan Omar in the closet before he can go to sleep at night.

And under the bed for AOC. :rolleyes:

raventhief 06-10-2019 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21690843)
Apologies. I just want to make it clear that Shodan is NOT a habitual wife-beater. Probably. It's difficult to be sure. Unproven, really.

Also, Shodan is most definitely NOT someone who indulges in romantic urges toward sheep. Nor goats*. And if someone were to say otherwise, I will...I will...I will start a thread in Great Debates! See if I don't! **


*I make no such statements about any other other barnyard animal.

** I won't.

manson1972 06-10-2019 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21690843)
Apologies. I just want to make it clear that Shodan is NOT a habitual wife-beater. Probably. It's difficult to be sure. Unproven, really.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inner Stickler (Post 21691377)
I heard Shodan makes his wife check for Ilhan Omar in the closet before he can go to sleep at night.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptMurdock (Post 21691385)
And under the bed for AOC. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by raventhief (Post 21691408)
Also, Shodan is most definitely NOT someone who indulges in romantic urges toward sheep. Nor goats*. And if someone were to say otherwise, I will...I will...I will start a thread in Great Debates! See if I don't! **


*I make no such statements about any other other barnyard animal.

** I won't.

I disagree with Shodan on a lot of things, but I'm curious on why you guys do this? Is there some sort of enjoyment you get denigrating an anonymous poster on a message board? It's not enough to simply disagree with his POV?

raventhief 06-10-2019 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21691412)
I disagree with Shodan on a lot of things, but I'm curious on why you guys do this? Is there some sort of enjoyment you get denigrating an anonymous poster on a message board? It's not enough to simply disagree with his POV?

Perhaps for the same reason that he created a thread called " Ilhan Omar is NOT Married to Her Brother" - except ours was done in the appropriate forum.

manson1972 06-10-2019 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raventhief (Post 21691429)
Perhaps for the same reason that he created a thread called " Ilhan Omar is NOT Married to Her Brother" - except ours was done in the appropriate forum.

And what reason would that be?

raventhief 06-10-2019 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21691437)
And what reason would that be?

To make a bit of a point, really. He wanted to call attention to the rumor that she married her brother, by ostensibly denying said rumor. I wanted to call attention to the rumor* that he had sex with farm animals, but also deny it, because spreading those rumors would be very. very wrong.


*I read the rumor in this VERY THREAD, so it is definitely a real rumor. Definitely.

manson1972 06-10-2019 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raventhief (Post 21691443)
To make a bit of a point, really. He wanted to call attention to the rumor that she married her brother, by ostensibly denying said rumor. I wanted to call attention to the rumor* that he had sex with farm animals, but also deny it, because spreading those rumors would be very. very wrong.

Sure, but his point was moronic and not supported by anything. Is your point the same? You want to be associated with points that are moronic and not supported by anything?

TokyoBayer 06-10-2019 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21691446)
Sure, but his point was moronic and not supported by anything. Is your point the same? You want to be associated with points that are moronic and not supported by anything?

It’s called mocking and if anyone deserves to being mocked, it’s that racist piece of shit.

At least he isn’t fucking cows. Sheep? Who knows?

iiandyiiii 06-11-2019 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21691412)
I disagree with Shodan on a lot of things, but I'm curious on why you guys do this? Is there some sort of enjoyment you get denigrating an anonymous poster on a message board? It's not enough to simply disagree with his POV?

Mocking ridiculous posts is fun. If someone makes a ridiculous post spreading a bullshit and slanderous conspiracy theory, they might get mocked. No big deal.

Gyrate 06-11-2019 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TokyoBayer (Post 21691605)
Itís called mocking and if anyone deserves to being mocked, itís that racist piece of shit.

At least he isnít fucking cows. Sheep? Who knows?

Definitely not pigs. You have to be a member of the Bullingdon Club for that.

bucketybuck 06-11-2019 07:40 AM

Two cunts and George Zimmerman.

Vinyl Turnip 06-11-2019 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21691446)
Sure, but his point was moronic and not supported by anything. Is your point the same? You want to be associated with points that are moronic and not supported by anything?

I took the high road once. Almost died of loneliness.

Red Wiggler 06-11-2019 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21691412)
I disagree with Shodan on a lot of things, but I'm curious on why you guys do this? Is there some sort of enjoyment you get denigrating an anonymous poster on a message board? It's not enough to simply disagree with his POV?

When the poster is a smug and pretentious asshole without a trace of self-awareness, it's the right thing to do.

Gyrate 06-11-2019 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Wiggler (Post 21691990)
When the poster is a smug and pretentious asshole without a trace of self-awareness, it's the right thing to do.

To be fair, that description covers a significant percentage of this messageboard at least some of the time, myself included.

The problem isn't "disagreement with a POV". It's disagreement with a fundamentally dishonest approach. Someone who constantly argues in bad faith, refuses to constructively engage and/or actively trolls ought to be called out on it.

Ludovic 06-11-2019 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip (Post 21691984)
I took the high road once. Almost died of loneliness.

Trying moving to Colorado, you'll have plenty of company. I am of course talking about the high road to Mount Evans.

CarnalK 06-11-2019 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21690825)
So you didn't read the title of my OP either.

Regards,
Shodan

It feels like you've really gone around a bend but maybe with the slower traffic nowadays behavior like this just stands out more. Tell me, 19 years ago when you joined up here, did you ever think you would be repeating unsubstantiated incest rumours just to piss off the libtards?

WillFarnaby 06-11-2019 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sps49sd (Post 21690978)
Maybe you could read the Wikipedia page on the tragedy, complete with cites to the witnesses and court case, which shows you are wrong.

Nobody did in the dedicated SMDB thread, so I'll be surprised if you do.

Perhaps you can summarize the evidence which say Iím wrong. Was Martin committing crimes against person or property while he was being pursued by an armed Zimmerman? If not I find it hard to excuse Zimmermanís conduct.

Havenít got into the case for some time. I watched Zimmermanís walkthrough of the crime scene at one point and from his perspective he had no legitimate reason to pursue Martin.

Shodan 06-11-2019 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby (Post 21692178)
Was Martin committing crimes against person or property while he was being pursued by an armed Zimmerman?

No, Martin wasn't committing any crimes while Zimmerman was pursuing him. That came later.
Quote:

Perhaps you can summarize the evidence which say Iím wrong.
OK.
Quote:

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby
I agree that Zimmerman should be held responsible for Martinís death because he stalked and killed an unarmed individual who was not committing aggression against person or property.

A summary of the evidence that Martin was committing aggression against Zimmerman would include that Martin punched Zimmerman in the face (evidence: marks on Martin's knuckles consistent with having punched someone, Zimmerman's facial injuries, lack of any damage to Martin apart from the single gunshot wound), Martin knocked Zimmerman down and sat on his chest bashing his head on the ground (evidence: lacerations to Zimmerman's head, grass stains and moisture on Zimmerman's back and Martin's knees, witness testimony stating that Martin was on top of Zimmerman), and that Martin did so because Zimmerman asked him "what are you doing around here" (evidence: Dee Dee's testimony on what she heard Martin and Zimmerman say to each other).
Quote:

I watched Zimmermanís walkthrough of the crime scene at one point and from his perspective he had no legitimate reason to pursue Martin.
From Zimmerman's perspective, his reason to follow Martin was that there had been multiple break-ins in the neighborhood and at least one shooting, and Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch.

If by "legitimate" you mean "legal", it is legal to follow someone and to ask what they are doing. Trials are about what's legal. Thus following somebody is legal, attacking them and smashing their head into the ground is not.

Regards,
Shodan

Helmut Doork 06-11-2019 01:19 PM

What Zimmerman did pre-fight was tacky, dumb, racist, but 100% legal. What Martin did when he approached Zimmerman in the street was 100% illegal, and in that state, Zimmerman's response was within the law. So would it have happened if Zimmerman wasn't as a-hole? No. But it also wouldn't have happened if Martin had not gone out in search of him, either. Or if Martin had gone out, found him, and engaged in a verbal confrontation (e.g. What's your deal a-hole? Why are you following me?) Bashing anyone's head in the street because you are mad they were following you, whatever the dumb reasoning or intent, is not a reasonable reaction in the eyes of the law. So while you can empathisize with Martin's feelings and reactions, and the senseless loss of life, the truth is he would be alive if he had not initiated a violent life-threatening confrontation with someone who was NOT putting his life in immediate jeopardy. The fact Zimmerman is basically glad it happened and would love to do it again makes it all the more sickening and offensive, but the only law broken here unfortunately was by Martin.

There was a recent incident where a racist woman challenged a black man's reason for being in her apartment building, and it turned out, he lived there. If his reaction to this had been jumping on her and bashing her head on the ground, he would be guilty of a crime, she would not- pretty much same thing here.

Czarcasm 06-11-2019 01:28 PM

Congratulations on yet another successful self-serving hijacking of a topic, Shodan.

Shodan 06-11-2019 01:41 PM

You can't manage to sustain a Pitting, and that's supposed to be my fault? Pardon my lack of contrition.

Regards,
Shodan

Gyrate 06-11-2019 01:42 PM

It's not a hijack. He's just helpfully providing more material for the thread topic.

CarnalK 06-11-2019 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21692616)
You can't manage to sustain a Pitting, and that's supposed to be my fault? Pardon my lack of contrition.

Regards,
Shodan

I guess you're an empty nester now and making a loud display of your lack of contrition is just the hobby you decided to go with. I'm more of a golf guy.

iiandyiiii 06-11-2019 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarnalK (Post 21692640)
I guess you're an empty nester now and making a loud display of your lack of contrition is just the hobby you decided to go with. I'm more of a golf guy.

By his posts, introspection is not Shodan's style (I really like the question you asked in post #122). Which is a shame, because I think it's clear he's a smart guy.

manson1972 06-11-2019 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21691858)
Mocking ridiculous posts is fun. If someone makes a ridiculous post spreading a bullshit and slanderous conspiracy theory, they might get mocked. No big deal.

Sure, I like mocking. But it's possible to mock someone without resorting to "haha, he fucks sheep! Or maybe he doesn't! DERP!" :rolleyes:


see?

:)

Shodan 06-11-2019 02:24 PM

Oh come on - it's all in good fun.

Go Molest a Baboon,
Shodan

manson1972 06-11-2019 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21692714)
Oh come on - it's all in good fun.

Go Molest a Baboon,
Shodan

Shut up sheep fucker!

iiandyiiii 06-11-2019 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21692680)
Sure, I like mocking. But it's possible to mock someone without resorting to "haha, he fucks sheep! Or maybe he doesn't! DERP!" :rolleyes:





see?



:)

There are many ways to mock...

Helmut Doork 06-11-2019 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21692717)
There are many ways to mock...

yes, but the thread would be a better read if more people aimed for South Park instead of Brickleberry, Bill Hicks instead of Carlos Mencia:)

Shodan 06-11-2019 02:34 PM

...Some of which are creative and entertaining, and the rest come from Czarcasm.

Regards,
Shodan

septimus 06-11-2019 02:54 PM

I started reading the thread but was taken aback by the following, even before I got to the "bump."
Quote:

Originally Posted by Babale (Post 21363964)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Heffalump and Roo
I wasn't there, and that's not my question.

I live in a place where I know the people who live around me. I generally know the people visiting them. If I see someone wandering around their places that doesn't look like they belong, what are the options I have?

Do the options differ based on the color of their skin?

Why do you say Trayvon didn't belong? His father lived in that community and Trayvon was living with him. Do you think Zimmerman personally knew every person in the area? If not, what reason did he have for thinking that Trayvon was "suspicious" aside from race?

As for your options:
1) mind your own business.
2) no, that's it.

You don't get to say someone looks like he "doesn't belong". If they are doing something illegal, or something that looks like it might be illegal, you call the cops. If they just look like they don't "belong" you mind your own business.

Mr. Heffalump, am I correct to assume you are a foreigner who knows nothing at all about the Martin killing? In particular you seem ignorant of the fact that Zimmermann had called the police and the police instructed him that they were on the way and NOT to follow the suspect.

septimus 06-11-2019 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by septimus (Post 21369602)
I'm also curious whether Hurricane and his ilk would be capable of acknowledging this in their hearts. But I don't think their responses in the thread would answer this one way or the other. They might be happy a nigger was killed but pretend otherwise to keep up their "I am not a racist" charade. Or, they might understand that the manslaughter was a tragedy but fear that to admit it would undermine their case.....

I have exactly two Dopers set to Ignore and those two are exactly equal to the two Dopers named in thread title. :cool:

Did either of the two Dopers ever answer the question implied in my above post?

Snarky_Kong 06-11-2019 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmut Doork (Post 21692731)
yes, but the thread would be a better read if more people aimed for South Park instead of Brickleberry, Bill Hicks instead of Carlos Mencia:)

Saying that Shodan does NOT fuck goats - well, who can be sure? There are those rumors that nobody has been able to disprove - is exactly in the wheelhouse of South Park.

sps49sd 06-11-2019 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby (Post 21692178)
Perhaps you can summarize the evidence which say Iím wrong. Was Martin committing crimes against person or property while he was being pursued by an armed Zimmerman? If not I find it hard to excuse Zimmermanís conduct.

Havenít got into the case for some time. I watched Zimmermanís walkthrough of the crime scene at one point and from his perspective he had no legitimate reason to pursue Martin.

I don't think you'll be satisfied by anyone's summary. So please read the whole Wikipedia article. Or start at 'Background of the Shooting' and see where reading takes you.

Shodan 06-11-2019 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by septimus (Post 21692787)
I started reading the thread but was taken aback by the following, even before I got to the "bump."


Mr. Heffalump, am I correct to assume you are a foreigner who knows nothing at all about the Martin killing? In particular you seem ignorant of the fact that Zimmermann had called the police and the police instructed him that they were on the way and NOT to follow the suspect.

septimus, the traditional response to having a small penis is to buy a pistol or a large SUV, not just to increase your font size.

Regards,
Shodan

Czarcasm 06-11-2019 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21692994)
septimus, the traditional response to having a small penis is to buy a pistol or a large SUV, not just to increase your font size.

Regards,
Shodan

Your obsession with the size of penises other than your own is rather disturbing.

septimus 06-11-2019 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 21693062)
Your obsession with the size of penises other than your own is rather disturbing.

Thanks for quoting the penis-obsessor. It's good to confirm that my decision to ignore Shodildo-brain was a wise one.

Chronos 06-11-2019 05:32 PM

Yes, there's evidence that Martin punched Zimmerman. But there's no evidence that Martin acted aggressively towards Zimmerman. There's such a thing as self-defense, in every state except Florida.

Helmut Doork 06-11-2019 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronos (Post 21693111)
Yes, there's evidence that Martin punched Zimmerman. But there's no evidence that Martin acted aggressively towards Zimmerman. There's such a thing as self-defense, in every state except Florida.

There is forensic evidence he punched him, multiple times, and bashed his head on the street. I believe this meets the accepted definition of aggression, as no such wounds were found on Martin.

Helmut Doork 06-11-2019 05:38 PM

To not meet the definition of aggression, you would have to believe Zimmerman instigated the physical confrontation, yet got no punches in- possible, yes, probable no.

Czarcasm 06-11-2019 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmut Doork (Post 21693125)
To not meet the definition of aggression, you would have to believe Zimmerman instigated the physical confrontation, yet got no punches in- possible, yes, probable no.

So pointing a gun at someone doesn't qualify as instigation?

Helmut Doork 06-11-2019 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 21693132)
So pointing a gun at someone doesn't qualify as instigation?

My understanding from the reading the court transcript, years ago so I could be wrong, is that Zimmerman denied doing this and claimed he was attacked by Martin from behind. No witnesses to the attack to confirm or deny.

raventhief 06-11-2019 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmut Doork (Post 21692731)
yes, but the thread would be a better read if more people aimed for South Park instead of Brickleberry, Bill Hicks instead of Carlos Mencia:)

So calling him an Uncle Fucker would have been better? Sorry, denying that he is an uncle fucker.

Link NSFW, obviously.

bobot 06-11-2019 07:38 PM

HEY HEY!
Lest we forget that Shodan and Zimmerman aren't the only assholes being pitted here. I present, in the Oh Yeah He Said It With A Straight Face category this post by fucknutz:

Quote:

Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka (Post 21693088)
The "change to the Census" is merely to ask if people are citizens. His administration is not proposing that we "exclude non-citizens" from the census count or population totals.


Chisquirrel 06-11-2019 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmut Doork (Post 21693125)
To not meet the definition of aggression, you would have to believe Zimmerman instigated the physical confrontation, yet got no punches in- possible, yes, probable no.

Ah, so only Zimmerman gets to stand his ground. Not the kid being followed by a dude with a gun.

Kobal2 06-12-2019 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmut Doork (Post 21693142)
My understanding from the reading the court transcript, years ago so I could be wrong, is that Zimmerman denied doing this and claimed he was attacked by Martin from behind. No witnesses to the attack to confirm or deny.


Oh, well if the only survivor of the confrontation said so, that's gotta be hammered into lead as the fifth Gospel.

Shodan 06-12-2019 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 21693132)
So pointing a gun at someone doesn't qualify as instigation?

It would, so we would need to examine the evidence to see if Zimmerman instigated the incident by pointing a gun at Martin. There is no evidence that he did, and circumstantial evidence that he did not. Namely, that if Zimmerman had been pointing a gun at Martin, it is unlikely that Zimmerman would wait until Martin knocked him down, broke his nose, blackened his eyes, and sat on his chest pounding his head into the ground, to fire.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kobal2
Oh, well if the only survivor of the confrontation said so, that's gotta be hammered into lead as the fifth Gospel.

Only if it's backed up by evidence (see above), even apart from the presumption of innocence.

Regards,
Shodan

Helmut Doork 06-12-2019 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chisquirrel (Post 21693449)
Ah, so only Zimmerman gets to stand his ground. Not the kid being followed by a dude with a gun.

Stand your ground is invoked where a physical confrontation takes place. Zimmerman roaming the neighborhood looking for crime was stupid, racist, all that, but has zero to do with stand your ground laws.

Shodan 06-12-2019 10:18 AM

Plus, it is difficult to stand your ground when someone is sitting on your chest.

Regards,
Shodan

Helmut Doork 06-12-2019 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kobal2 (Post 21693773)
Oh, well if the only survivor of the confrontation said so, that's gotta be hammered into lead as the fifth Gospel.

How on Earth can you say Zimmerman for certain instigated the physical confrontation when there is zero physical evidence to back it up, and there are no witnesses? Just because he is a horrible human being does not mean he instigated the physical confrontation. Bad people can be the victims of crimes as well as good ones.

sps49sd 06-12-2019 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 21693132)
So pointing a gun at someone doesn't qualify as instigation?

From where do you even get the notion that this happened?

Superdude 06-12-2019 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 2136316)
- I must be a racist racist who is racist too.

I've been posting on this board since 2001, and this the first thing you've ever said that was actually correct.

Quote:

I get that.
Kudos, sir! Admitting there's a problem is the first step.

Shodan 06-12-2019 12:44 PM

When I click on the View Post link in your quote of me, I go to some thread about flea control. I assume this is not meant to be ironic.

Regards,
Shodan

Superdude 06-12-2019 12:58 PM

My apologies. I was posting from my phone, and must have transposed a number or two in the link. It was supposed to show your first post in this thread.

Try here.

asahi 06-12-2019 07:26 PM

George Zimmerman posts here? I didn't know the fucker could even read, but good to know. What's his user handle?

Superdude 06-13-2019 12:34 AM

Shodan

Kobal2 06-13-2019 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmut Doork (Post 21694081)
How on Earth can you say Zimmerman for certain instigated the physical confrontation when there is zero physical evidence to back it up, and there are no witnesses?


Have I said that ?

septimus 06-13-2019 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmut Doork (Post 21694073)
Stand your ground is invoked where a physical confrontation takes place. Zimmerman roaming the neighborhood looking for crime was stupid, racist, all that, but has zero to do with stand your ground laws.

By the time Zimmerman drew his gun and murdered Martin, he was probably acting within his legal rights.

He should have been charged with "depraved heart homicide" (or whatever the legal rendition of this charge is in Florida). Carrying a gun and stalking, with evil intention, an innocent man is ... inappropriate, whatever the lawyers may say.

WillFarnaby 06-13-2019 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21692465)
No, Martin wasn't committing any crimes while Zimmerman was pursuing him. That came later.
OK.
A summary of the evidence that Martin was committing aggression against Zimmerman would include that Martin punched Zimmerman in the face (evidence: marks on Martin's knuckles consistent with having punched someone, Zimmerman's facial injuries, lack of any damage to Martin apart from the single gunshot wound), Martin knocked Zimmerman down and sat on his chest bashing his head on the ground (evidence: lacerations to Zimmerman's head, grass stains and moisture on Zimmerman's back and Martin's knees, witness testimony stating that Martin was on top of Zimmerman),

That’s fine.


Quote:

and that Martin did so because Zimmerman asked him "what are you doing around here" (evidence: Dee Dee's testimony on what she heard Martin and Zimmerman say to each other).
You are assuming Martin attacked Zimmerman because of a question?

Isn’t in more likely Martin attacked him because Zimmerman had been stalking Martin for some time before the encounter? Why was Zimmerman pursuing him? To arrest him? At least it was to harm him in some way. Zimmerman could have asked the question from many yards away when he first saw him from his vehicle.

Compare what the two were doing before Martin beat him up. Martin was being pursued by someone with intent to harm him. Zimmerman was pursuing Martin with intent to harm him in some way.

Quote:

From Zimmerman's perspective, his reason to follow Martin was that there had been multiple break-ins in the neighborhood and at least one shooting, and Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch.
Unfortunately Zimmerman was wrong. He erred in his judgement of Martin. If Zimmerman has been pursuing someone who was committing break-ins, he would have been stalking him legitimately. He wasn’t stalking Martin legitimately.

The fact that humans can be wrong is why police are trained to not approach the situation the way Zimmerman did. Zimmerman must be held accountable for his error that resulted in Martin’s death.

Quote:

If by "legitimate" you mean "legal", it is legal to follow someone and to ask what they are doing.
It is both legal and legitimate to defend yourself from someone wishing to do you harm. This we can agree with. Zimmerman meant to either arrest or kill Martin when he pursued him. Therefore he had intent to harm Martin. Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman. If someone is stalking you with intent to harm you, when do you believe it is justified to defend yourself? When they pull out the gun?


Quote:

Trials are about what's legal. Thus following somebody is legal, attacking them and smashing their head into the ground is not.

Regards,
Shodan
Arresting someone is not legal. Zimmerman was intending to arrest Martin. Martin defended himself from unlawful arrest. A killing that occurs during the commission of a felony (unlawful arrest here) is a felony murder.

asahi 06-13-2019 08:20 AM

Who are you, and what you have you done to WillFarnaby?

Shodan 06-13-2019 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby (Post 21695746)
You are assuming Martin attacked Zimmerman because of a question?

Isnít in more likely Martin attacked him because Zimmerman had been stalking Martin for some time before the encounter?

I don't see what difference that makes. Zimmerman was following Martin, lost sight of him, Martin was right by his father's house, then Martin doubled back and confronted Zimmerman and attacked him when Zimmerman asked Martin what he was doing. (According to the evidence of where the fight took place, where Martin's father's house was, and Dee Dee's testimony of what Martin said.) The question was the triggering event, but it's really beside the point - it is illegal to attack someone on the street even if they were following you.
Quote:

Why was Zimmerman pursuing him? To arrest him? At least it was to harm him in some way.
There's no evidence of this, and some evidence that it is not the case. If Zimmerman wanted to harm Martin, why did Zimmerman not have his gun in his hand when he confronted Martin? If Zimmerman wanted to arrest Martin, why did he call the cops and arrange to meet with him? That's what was happening when Martin confronted and attacked Zimmerman - Zimmerman was looking for a house number or street sign to give his exact location to the police so they could meet up.
Quote:

Compare what the two were doing before Martin beat him up. Martin was being pursued by someone with intent to harm him. Zimmerman was pursuing Martin with intent to harm him in some way.
Again, there is no evidence of this. If Zimmerman wanted to harm Martin, why did Zimmerman immediately call the police?
Quote:

If Zimmerman has been pursuing someone who was committing break-ins, he would have been stalking him legitimately. He wasnít stalking Martin legitimately.
If by "stalking illegitimately" you mean that Zimmerman was doing something illegal, that is not correct.
Quote:

The fact that humans can be wrong is why police are trained to not approach the situation the way Zimmerman did.
Zimmerman isn't a police officer.

Zimmerman spotted what he thought was someone acting suspiciously. He then called the police, or more accurately, the police non-emergency number, and gave a description. The police NEN operator tells Zimmerman not to follow Martin. Zimmerman loses sight of Martin, then eventually gets out of his truck to look for a street name or house number, and then Martin confronts and attacks him on his way back to his truck.
Quote:

It is both legal and legitimate to defend yourself from someone wishing to do you harm. This we can agree with. Zimmerman meant to either arrest or kill Martin when he pursued him. Therefore he had intent to harm Martin.
Again, there is no evidence that this is so, and some evidence that it is not.
Quote:

Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman. If someone is stalking you with intent to harm you, when do you believe it is justified to defend yourself? When they pull out the gun?
You are justified in defending yourself when you are attacked. Zimmerman did not attack Martin, and there is no evidence that Zimmerman intended to attack Martin.

You are assuming facts not in evidence.

Regards,
Shodan

WillFarnaby 06-13-2019 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21695798)
I don't see what difference that makes. Zimmerman was following Martin, lost sight of him, Martin was right by his father's house, then Martin doubled back and confronted Zimmerman and attacked him when Zimmerman asked Martin what he was doing. (According to the evidence of where the fight took place, where Martin's father's house was, and Dee Dee's testimony of what Martin said.) The question was the triggering event, but it's really beside the point - it is illegal to attack someone on the street even if they were following you.

I agree it is illegal to attack someone for following you. It is not illegal to defend yourself from unlawful arrest. We agree it is illegal to protect yourself. It is relevant because you said Martin attacked Zimmerman because he was being questioned. If Martin attacked Zimmerman because he believed himself to be in danger (which he was because Zimmerman had the intent to unlawfully arrest him), his attack is justified. We know from Martinís phone call that he believed/knew Zimmerman was intending to harm him in some way.

If Martin did not believe Zimmerman was going to harm him and he attacked him for asking a question, that would be an assault by Martin. This is why I believe Martinís reason for attacking Zimmerman is relevant.

Quote:

There's no evidence of this, and some evidence that it is not the case. If Zimmerman wanted to harm Martin, why did Zimmerman not have his gun in his hand when he confronted Martin? If Zimmerman wanted to arrest Martin, why did he call the cops and arrange to meet with him?
Zimmerman had his gun and was pursuing who he thought was a burglar. He doesnít need to have it out to intend to harm Martin. If Zimmerman had his gun out, would you believe Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman?

In any case the harm we know Zimmerman intended was the arrest of Martin. We know this because if he simply was looking for an address to meet with police, he could have stayed at the mailboxes. His intent was not to meet with police, it was to apprehend Martin himself.

Quote:

That's what was happening when Martin confronted and attacked Zimmerman - Zimmerman was looking for a house number or street sign to give his exact location to the police so they could meet up.
Again, there is no evidence of this. If Zimmerman wanted to harm Martin, why did Zimmerman immediately call the police?
Zimmerman called the police so that they could arrest Martin. Once he had lost sight of Martin, he didnít think the police would be able to find him, so he set out to get Martin himself.

Quote:

If by "stalking illegitimately" you mean that Zimmerman was doing something illegal, that is not correct.
Is it illegal to unlawfully arrest someone? If it is, it is also illegal to stalk them with intent to arrest them. Itís illegal to shoot someone. It is also illegal to raise a loaded gun and aim it at someone. The illegal act doesnít begin with the pull of the trigger and anyone would be a fool to allow someone to get that far in the act before defending himself.

Quote:

Zimmerman isn't a police officer.
He isnít but he should be held to the same standard. We canít have vigilantes running around without consequences. We can have vigilantes running around with consequences.

[QUOTE•]Zimmerman spotted what he thought was someone acting suspiciously. He then called the police, or more accurately, the police non-emergency number, and gave a description. The police NEN operator tells Zimmerman not to follow Martin. Zimmerman loses sight of Martin, then eventually gets out of his truck to look for a street name or house number, and then Martin confronts and attacks him on his way back to his truck.[/QUOTE]

You donít get out of a truck to look for an address. You can see street names and numbers from a vehicle, they are designed for that purpose. He got out of the truck for another reason. If it wasnít to get an address and it wasnít to apprehend Martin, what was it?

Quote:

Again, there is no evidence that this is so, and some evidence that it is not.
You are justified in defending yourself when you are attacked. Zimmerman did not attack Martin, and there is no evidence that Zimmerman intended to attack Martin.
Are you justified in defending yourself from unlawful arrest? If so at what point in the following scenario are you justified in doing so?

1)A man gets out of his car.

2)He pursues you for 15 minutes straight.

3)He confronts you with a holstered weapon and questions you.

4)He unholsters the weapon.

5)He aims it at you and tells you to lie on the ground.



Please keep in mind that if you wait for number 4 to occur, thereís a good chance you die.

Shodan 06-13-2019 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby (Post 21695879)
I agree it is illegal to attack someone for following you.

I agree.
Quote:

It is not illegal to defend yourself from unlawful arrest.
I agree.
Quote:

We agree it is illegal to protect yourself.
I assume you meant "legal" rather than "illegal". If so, I agree.
Quote:

It is relevant because you said Martin attacked Zimmerman because he was being questioned.
That was the last thing that happened before Zimmerman attacked, if that is what you mean.
Quote:

If Martin attacked Zimmerman because he believed himself to be in danger (which he was because Zimmerman had the intent to unlawfully arrest him), his attack is justified.
We don't know that Zimmerman had that intent. And again, if Zimmerman's intention was to arrest, why did he call the police? Wouldn't that mean Zimmerman was taking the rather large risk that the police would show up and see him illegally arresting Martin?
Quote:

We know from Martinís phone call that he believed/knew Zimmerman was intending to harm him in some way.
No, we don't know that. There is nothing in Dee Dee's testimony that establishes this.

And, if Martin was afraid of Zimmerman, why would he double back, after he and Zimmerman lost sight of each other, and seek Zimmerman out to confront him?
Quote:

If Martin did not believe Zimmerman was going to harm him and he attacked him for asking a question, that would be an assault by Martin. This is why I believe Martinís reason for attacking Zimmerman is relevant.
I also agree with this.

Martin attacked Zimmerman - that is, he initiated violence - because Zimmerman had been following him, and also because Zimmerman asked him (according to Dee Dee) what he was doing. Following someone, and asking what they are doing, is neither harm nor the threat of harm. And to repeat, if Martin was afraid of Zimmerman harming him, why did he double back from his father's house and confront Zimmerman?
Quote:

If Zimmerman had his gun out, would you believe Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman?
Yes, it would be justified. It would be stupid, because punching people with guns in their hand is a bad idea, but legally it would be justified.

But the evidence indicates that Martin did not know that Zimmerman had a gun, because he doubled back and confronted and attacked him. Therefore, it is unlikely that Martin feared harm from Zimmerman, since he could have walked into his own living room. He didn't - he went back and sought Zimmerman out.
Quote:

In any case the harm we know Zimmerman intended was the arrest of Martin. We know this because if he simply was looking for an address to meet with police, he could have stayed at the mailboxes.
No, we don't know that, because there is no evidence that it is so, and some evidence that it isn't so.
Quote:

Zimmerman called the police so that they could arrest Martin. Once he had lost sight of Martin, he didnít think the police would be able to find him, so he set out to get Martin himself.
Again, there is no evidence that this is so.

Zimmerman spotted Martin acting (in his opinion) suspiciously. Zimmerman then calls the NEN operator and follows Martin. The NEN operator advises Zimmerman that they don't need him to follow Martin. Zimmerman and Martin lose sight of each other, Martin makes it back to his father's house, Zimmerman then tries to find a house number or street name to arrange an exact location to meet up with the police. (You can't see house numbers from the back, which is why Zimmerman went between the houses to look for them), and then was confronted and attacked by Martin when Zimmerman was coming back to where he arranged to meet the police. Martin comes back from his father's house, finds Zimmerman, they exchange words, and Martin attacks.
Quote:

Is it illegal to unlawfully arrest someone?
Yes, by definition whatever is unlawful is illegal.
Quote:

If it is, it is also illegal to stalk them with intent to arrest them.
As mentioned, there is no evidence of Zimmerman's intent to arrest Martin. That's something you are assuming, and there is evidence to suggest that the assumption is incorrect.
Quote:

You donít get out of a truck to look for an address. You can see street names and numbers from a vehicle, they are designed for that purpose. He got out of the truck for another reason. If it wasnít to get an address and it wasnít to apprehend Martin, what was it?
It was to get an address. You can't see the street names from the back. The back is where Martin confronted Zimmerman and attacked him.
Quote:

Are you justified in defending yourself from unlawful arrest? If so at what point in the following scenario are you justified in doing so?

1)A man gets out of his car.

2)He pursues you for 15 minutes straight.

3)He confronts you with a holstered weapon and questions you.

4)He unholsters the weapon.

5)He aims it at you and tells you to lie on the ground.

Please keep in mind that if you wait for number 4 to occur, thereís a good chance you die.
Somewhere between 3 and 4. But you have left out a couple of intervening steps, which are

2a) You are a few steps from a place of perfect safety

2b) You do not have any reason to believe he has a gun

And

3a) It is illegal to attack people for asking you questions whether you know they have a gun or not

3b) If, because he followed you and then asked you what you were doing, you knock him down, break his nose, blacken his eyes, and sit on his chest smashing his head against the ground, it is likely to lead eventually to step 4, and he is legally justified (all other things being equal) in doing so.

Regards,
Shodan

WillFarnaby 06-13-2019 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21696022)
And again, if Zimmerman's intention was to arrest, why did he call the police?

He called the police to come get Martin. Then he pursued Martin so he wouldn’t get away.


Quote:

Wouldn't that mean Zimmerman was taking the rather large risk that the police would show up and see him illegally arresting Martin?
For all I know Zimmerman thought he had found a burglar and he would be applauded for nabbing him.

Quote:

No, we don't know that. There is nothing in Dee Dee's testimony that establishes this.
Creepy-ass cracker?

Quote:

And, if Martin was afraid of Zimmerman, why would he double back, after he and Zimmerman lost sight of each other, and seek Zimmerman out to confront him?
There’s no evidence that Martin sought to confront and beat up Zimmerman. If his doubling back is evidence he was looking for Zimmerman, than why isn’t Zimmerman’s pursuit evidence he was looking to nab Martin?



Quote:

Martin attacked Zimmerman - that is, he initiated violence - because Zimmerman had been following him, and also because Zimmerman asked him (according to Dee Dee) what he was doing. Following someone, and asking what they are doing, is neither harm nor the threat of harm. And to repeat, if Martin was afraid of Zimmerman harming him, why did he double back from his father's house and confront Zimmerman?
I don’t know why he doubled back. He may have wished to carry on his conversation with Dee Dee in private instead of in the home.


Quote:

Yes, it would be justified. It would be stupid, because punching people with guns in their hand is a bad idea, but legally it would be justified.
If you are within arms reach of someone with a gun out, depending on the scene it may be more advisable to initiate a close confrontation than to run and be shot point blank in the back. But ok.

Quote:

But the evidence indicates that Martin did not know that Zimmerman had a gun, because he doubled back and confronted and attacked him. Therefore, it is unlikely that Martin feared harm from Zimmerman, since he could have walked into his own living room. He didn't - he went back and sought Zimmerman out.
He may have noticed the gun once confronted. There is no way to know what Martin knew immediately before the fight.

Quote:

Zimmerman spotted Martin acting (in his opinion) suspiciously. Zimmerman then calls the NEN operator and follows Martin. The NEN operator advises Zimmerman that they don't need him to follow Martin. Zimmerman and Martin lose sight of each other, Martin makes it back to his father's house, Zimmerman then tries to find a house number or street name to arrange an exact location to meet up with the police. (You can't see house numbers from the back, which is why Zimmerman went between the houses to look for them)
Quote:

It was to get an address. You can't see the street names from the back. The back is where Martin confronted Zimmerman and attacked him.
He wasn’t in the truck in the back. He was already out of the truck and in pursuit of Martin when he claimed he started to look for an address. By this point he had already left the spot he was to meet police and had walked around back. My question was why did he leave the vehicle. The answer can’t be that he got out to look for an address. The best place to look for an address is from a vehicle not by walking around back.

We know that Zimmerman was interested in law enforcement. He had probably daydreamed of catching a bad guy. This also helps us to know what Zimmerman May have been thinking when he got out and pursued Martin because his own reasoning makes no sense.


Quote:

Somewhere between 3 and 4. But you have left out a couple of intervening steps, which are

2a) You are a few steps from a place of perfect safety

2b) You do not have any reason to believe he has a gun

And

3a) It is illegal to attack people for asking you questions whether you know they have a gun or not

3b) If, because he followed you and then asked you what you were doing, you knock him down, break his nose, blacken his eyes, and sit on his chest smashing his head against the ground, it is likely to lead eventually to step 4, and he is legally justified (all other things being equal) in doing so.

Regards,
Shodan
Martin attacked Zimmerman between steps 3 and 4. Zimmerman escalated the situation to step 3 at minimum according to his own testimony. Martin may have escalated it to step 3b and 4. At the very least Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter because he behaved in such a reckless way as to endanger life. We can’t have people in society bumbling around escalating conflicts with loaded guns at the ready.

If people want to pursue bad guys, they should learn how to do it. Just like someone who wants to start parasailing. If some newbie kills someone while parasailing, they should be held responsible.

Shodan 06-13-2019 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby (Post 21696188)
He called the police to come get Martin. Then he pursued Martin so he wouldnít get away.

Zimmerman made no statement stating or implying that the police should arrest Martin. And, according to Zimmerman's and Dee Dee's testimony, Martin did get away. Then Zimmerman called the police to arrange a meeting in an exact location.
Quote:

For all I know Zimmerman thought he had found a burglar and he would be applauded for nabbing him.
"For all I know" is not evidence of Zimmerman's state of mind.
Quote:

Creepy-ass cracker?
Calling somebody a racial epithet is not evidence that you are afraid they are going to illegally arrest you.
Quote:

Thereís no evidence that Martin sought to confront and beat up Zimmerman. If his doubling back is evidence he was looking for Zimmerman, than why isnít Zimmermanís pursuit evidence he was looking to nab Martin?
Because there's no evidence of a desire on Zimmerman's part to "nab" anybody. The location of the fight and the house numbers is evidence that Zimmerman was looking for house numbers. The location of Martin's father's house, the location of the fight, and Dee Dee's testimony, are evidence that Martin was close to his father's house, and doubled back. The injuries to Zimmerman are evidence that Martin attacked him. The attack is the illegal part.
Quote:

I donít know why he doubled back. He may have wished to carry on his conversation with Dee Dee in private instead of in the home.
Then obviously Martin didn't feel threatened by Zimmerman. And, of course, "I don't know" is not evidence.
Quote:

He may have noticed the gun once confronted. There is no way to know what Martin knew immediately before the fight.
Sure there is. Martin doubled back and confronted and attacked Zimmerman. This is evidence that he did not know that Zimmerman had a gun, and also evidence that Martin was not feeling threatened by Zimmerman.
Quote:

He wasnít in the truck in the back. He was already out of the truck and in pursuit of Martin when he claimed he started to look for an address.
He was no longer in pursuit of Martin - he and Martin had lost sight of each other. He was looking for an address in order to give his exact location to the police.
Quote:

By this point he had already left the spot he was to meet police and had walked around back. My question was why did he leave the vehicle. The answer canít be that he got out to look for an address. The best place to look for an address is from a vehicle not by walking around back.
The house numbers are not visible from the back. That's why Zimmerman walked around to the front.
Quote:

Martin attacked Zimmerman between steps 3 and 4. Zimmerman escalated the situation to step 3 at minimum according to his own testimony. Martin may have escalated it to step 3b and 4. At the very least Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter because he behaved in such a reckless way as to endanger life. We canít have people in society bumbling around escalating conflicts with loaded guns at the ready.
Zimmerman did not endanger anyone's life before he was attacked by Martin. And he did not have a loaded gun at the ready - the fight lasted long enough to break Zimmerman's nose, blacken his eyes, and get his head smashed into the ground before Zimmerman fired.

Acting in self-defense is not manslaughter. Attacking someone because they ask you what you are doing in their neighborhood is assault and battery, and having your head smashed into the ground tends to put a reasonable person in fear of his life, or serious injury. Therefore, as far as the evidence can determine, Zimmerman acted in self-defense.

Regards,
Shodan

you with the face 06-13-2019 01:52 PM

WillFarnaby, there is no point in debating this with Shodan. I'm telling you this now. There is no defense for Zimmerman that doesn't necessitate being unfairly biased against the kid he killed. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby
Thereís no evidence that Martin sought to confront and beat up Zimmerman. If his doubling back is evidence he was looking for Zimmerman, than why isnít Zimmermanís pursuit evidence he was looking to nab Martin?

This is a question that anyone remotely familiar with this case should agree is a good one. If a big strange guy was chasing after a skinny teenaged girl, no one would be questioning her conduct. We'd all get that she was afraid, and thus, take it as a given that all of her actions should be judged through the lens of a panicked person.

But Martin is not afforded that consideration because it's treated as a given that he was the bad guy in this scenario. Not the big strange guy with the arrest record, whose main accomplishments in life include stalking and felony assault charges.

Shodan 06-13-2019 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by you with the face (Post 21696454)
WillFarnaby, there is no point in debating this with Shodan. I'm telling you this now.

You should listen to ywtf. She speaks from experience. Except what she found out is "there is no point in debating this unless you don't mind looking stupid". She doesn't; you might.
Quote:

There is no defense for Zimmerman that doesn't necessitate being unfairly biased against the kid he killed.
So the jury was unfairly biased against Martin?

Apparently you still don't mind.

Regards,
Shodan

GIGObuster 06-13-2019 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21696443)
Zimmerman did not endanger anyone's life before he was attacked by Martin.

:rolleyes:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.aff53d13d1c1
Quote:

In July 2005, he was arrested for ďresisting officer with violence.Ē The neighborhood watch volunteer who wanted to be a cop got into a scuffle with cops who were questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking. The charges were reduced and then waived after he entered an alcohol education program. Then in August 2005, Zimmermanís former fiance sought a restraining order against him because of domestic violence. Zimmerman sought a restraining order against her in return. Both were granted. Meanwhile, over the course of eight years, Zimmerman made at least 46 calls to the Sanford (Fla.) Police Department reporting suspicious activity involving black males.

Shodan 06-13-2019 03:05 PM

This is your definition of "life-threatening"? Do you think it is roughly equivalent to knocking someone down and smashing their head into the ground?

Regards,
Shodan

Helmut Doork 06-13-2019 03:17 PM

Zimmerman's actions pre-fight don't need to be defended. They were biased, racist, dumb, etc. etc, but completely within the law, unless disobeying a directive from a 911 operator is a crime.

Being an asshole isn't a crime. Following someone who you claim you think is committing crime isn't a crime. Jumping that person and beating them and bashing there head on the ground IS a crime. The only crime committed that day was by Martin, and sadly, his life was lost a result. The impetuousness of youth, if you will.

Surely you recently read about Apartment Alice or Condo Cathy who approached a black gentleman who lived in her building, demanding proof he belonged there? Surely he was upset at this, but instead of beating her, as a rational adult, he documented her behavior via camera phone. If she had had a holstered gun on her hip, it would be almost the exact same scenario. Yet surely all would agree if he had responded by bashing her head in the ground, he would be in the wrong, yes? And if she had then responded by shooting him, it would be justifiable?

iiandyiiii 06-13-2019 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmut Doork (Post 21696618)
The only crime committed that day was by Martin, and sadly, his life was lost a result.

We don't know this. Martin wasn't prosecuted and didn't have a chance to defend his conduct in court (or in any other fashion). We don't even know that Zimmerman didn't commit a crime -- just that the jury didn't find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sad to me that so many are so quick and willing to assert that a dead child is guilty of criminal behavior, when he's had no chance at all to defend himself.

Helmut Doork 06-13-2019 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21696625)
We don't know this. Martin wasn't prosecuted and didn't have a chance to defend his conduct in court (or in any other fashion). We don't even know that Zimmerman didn't commit a crime -- just that the jury didn't find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sad to me that so many are so quick and willing to assert that a dead child is guilty of criminal behavior, when he's had no chance at all to defend himself.

Gf of Martin claims on the phone he said 'get off get off', meaning Zimmerman on top of Martin, beating him, yet not a single mark on Martin to substantiate this. Gf claims after this, phone went dead while she thought a man was attacking Martin, but does not call police, "assumed he would be ok"?

Martin justifiably pissed, sizes up Zimmerman, thinks he can take him in a fight, doesn't know Zimmerman is armed, doesn't know Florida law, and sadly dies as a result.

If the KKK grand wizard is minding his own business, pumping gas, when someone recognizes him and assaults him for no other reason than who he is, that is a crime. You can be liberal and rational at the same time to get that.

Richard Parker 06-13-2019 03:35 PM

I'm always a little surprised by the true believers on both sides of this particular tragedy. Believing any particular version of how the fight went down means disbelieving some sworn testimony at the trial. Obviously, someone is lying or mistaken. But in those circumstances, a reasonable person reserves more than a smidgen of doubt and humility about which witnesses, exactly, testified correctly. Fundamentally, there just wasn't much reliable evidence about who started what or who was defending themselves. Everybody is forced to rely on bankshot theories based on who screamed what and what an average human would do in different situations.

So when I see people come in with metaphysical certainty about one version of the story or another, I just kinda shake my head. You can call yourself a neutral judge of the evidence, but when you display that level of certainty about inherently uncertain facts, that's a tell. It's a tell that your view of the facts is being determined by your views, and not the other way round.

iiandyiiii 06-13-2019 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmut Doork (Post 21696640)
Gf of Martin claims on the phone he said 'get off get off', meaning Zimmerman on top of Martin, beating him, yet not a single mark on Martin to substantiate this. Gf claims after this, phone went dead while she thought a man was attacking Martin, but does not call police, "assumed he would be ok"?

Martin justifiably pissed, sizes up Zimmerman, thinks he can take him in a fight, doesn't know Zimmerman is armed, doesn't know Florida law, and sadly dies as a result.

If the KKK grand wizard is minding his own business, pumping gas, when someone recognizes him and assaults him for no other reason than who he is, that is a crime. You can be liberal and rational at the same time to get that.

Maybe this is what happened, or maybe not. We just don't know. All we know with any certainty is that the jury didn't find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty.

Helmut Doork 06-13-2019 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 21696645)
Fundamentally, there just wasn't much reliable evidence about who started what or who was defending themselves. Everybody is forced to rely on bankshot theories based on who screamed what and what an average human would do in different situations.

In a case of he said she said with absolutely no other factors or evidence involved, this is correct.

Forget this case and think of this hypothetical- one person has black eyes, bashed back of head, and other obvious, real injuries. Nothing on hands or knuckles to indicate he has hit anyone. The other has no injuries of any sort- none, other than bruised knuckles. If your life was at stake, who would you guess initiated the confrontation?

Helmut Doork 06-13-2019 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21696660)
Maybe this is what happened, or maybe not. We just don't know. All we know with any certainty is that the jury didn't find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty.

Is it possible to punch someone multiple times yet have no marks of any kind on your hands or knuckles? Are we to think Zimmerman jumped Martin and proceeded to slap and tickle him?

Richard Parker 06-13-2019 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmut Doork (Post 21696673)
In a case of he said she said with absolutely no other factors or evidence involved, this is correct.

Forget this case and think of this hypothetical- one person has black eyes, bashed back of head, and other obvious, real injuries. Nothing on hands or knuckles to indicate he has hit anyone. The other has no injuries of any sort- none, other than bruised knuckles. If your life was at stake, who would you guess initiated the confrontation?

This is missing my point. "What would I guess" is very different from "what will I self-righteously declare must have happened." I mean, you think people never lose fights they start?

ETA: And if you're gonna post the question correctly, you might note that a bullet hole counts as an injury.

iiandyiiii 06-13-2019 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmut Doork (Post 21696678)
Is it possible to punch someone multiple times yet have no marks of any kind on your hands or knuckles? Are we to think Zimmerman jumped Martin and proceeded to slap and tickle him?

I don't know, and neither do you. Some things remain mysteries, and this is one of them.

It's also a mystery why so many are eager to (possibly) slander a dead child.

Sunny Daze 06-13-2019 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmut Doork (Post 21696673)
Forget this case and think of this hypothetical- one person has black eyes, bashed back of head, and other obvious, real injuries. Nothing on hands or knuckles to indicate he has hit anyone. The other has no injuries of any sort- none, other than bruised knuckles. If your life was at stake, who would you guess initiated the confrontation?

Based on this, how could I possibly know? The person would more injuries could absolutely have initiated the confrontation. People pick fights with the wrong people all the time. The injuries alone do not tell the story, because they cannot provide a timeline.

Helmut Doork 06-13-2019 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21696684)
I don't know, and neither do you. Some things remain mysteries, and this is one of them.

It's also a mystery why so many are eager to (possibly) slander a dead child.

Constantly referring to a near eighteen year old as a child, while legally correct, is prejudicial to the jury. If he were standing behind you at Wal-Mart, would you dare say to the cashier "I can't find my wallet, let this child go ahead of me?" No, so why here?

Helmut Doork 06-13-2019 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunny Daze (Post 21696697)
Based on this, how could I possibly know? The person would more injuries could absolutely have initiated the confrontation. People pick fights with the wrong people all the time. The injuries alone do not tell the story, because they cannot provide a timeline.

Agree, you cant know some things with 100% certainty. But reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence, all that, which is more likely? Not to mention that Zimmerman was a total pussy and Martin was enraged, and Martin clearly was the better fighter. I am a weenie as well, me attacking an enraged young man very angry with me and stronger than me is simply not going to happen.

And I am sure not going to engage him in hand to hand combat if I have a gun.

iiandyiiii 06-13-2019 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmut Doork (Post 21696699)
Constantly referring to a near eighteen year old as a child, while legally correct, is prejudicial to the jury. If he were standing behind you at Wal-Mart, would you dare say to the cashier "I can't find my wallet, let this child go ahead of me?" No, so why here?

I feel no need to participate in this change of subject.

If you want to continue to slander this dead kid who had no chance to explain and defend himself, feel free, but don't expect others to retain from criticizing you for it.

Helmut Doork 06-13-2019 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21696719)
I feel no need to participate in this change of subject.

If you want to continue to slander this dead kid who had no chance to explain and defend himself, feel free, but don't expect others to retain from criticizing you for it.

Also- you cannot slander the deceased, kid or adult.

chela 06-13-2019 04:26 PM

Exactly! I remember during the trial visiting a friend in FLa and I mentioned Trayvon and his right to defend himself. I was blindsided when my friends husband who up to that point was his typical quiet self turned on me and defended Zimmerman vehemently against the little potsmoking thug. Wo wo wo, I turned on him and said what would you have Trayvon do, what would you have any of us do, your wife or daughter if they were being followed and acosted by a stranger? I asked him what if the stranger had a gun? what would you do? I told him i would take my middled aged ass who harbors enough resentment and rage towards strange men who acost me in the dark and I would turn banshee and jump that motherfucker before he popped a bullet in my head. You might find me hammering zimmermans damn head against the pavement too. Lets ask Trayvon what happened, oh we can't because he's dead. Lets ask Georgie, can't ask him he didn't take the stand.

That shut my host down, and shut down the argument but i didn't change his mind.

Shodan 06-13-2019 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmut Doork (Post 21696678)
Is it possible to punch someone multiple times yet have no marks of any kind on your hands or knuckles? Are we to think Zimmerman jumped Martin and proceeded to slap and tickle him?

In theory, sure. My old sensei used to say "hard target, soft weapon; soft target, hard weapon". Noses are soft targets and fists are hard weapons. Unfortunately, temples and jaws are hard targets and tend to damage the fist. So in practice, the more you punch someone, the more marks on your knuckles.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunny Daze
Based on this, how could I possibly know? The person would more injuries could absolutely have initiated the confrontation. People pick fights with the wrong people all the time. The injuries alone do not tell the story, because they cannot provide a timeline.

Could have, sure. And therefore, in a court of law, the presumption of innocence means if you can't prove he was the initial attacker, the accused goes free.

Outside a court of law, you go by the best evidence available, which is that the person starting a fight usually suffers fewer injuries than the one being attacked - usually, not always - and that people are more likely to start fights if they think they can win them.

So there is non-definitive evidence that Martin was the first to use violence, and no evidence that Zimmerman was the first.

Add to that the other circumstances that are pretty definitely established - that Martin was definitely on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman was never on top of Martin (grass stains and moisture on Martin's knees, grass stains and moisture on Zimmerman's back, no grass stains or moisture on Martin's back or Zimmerman's knees, the witness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman bashing his head into the ground), that Martin did punch Zimmerman (Martin's knuckles, Zimmerman's nose), that Martin did bash Zimmerman's head into the ground (the gashes on the back of Zimmerman's head) - the balance of probability tends to shift.

Regards,
Shodan

Shodan 06-13-2019 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chela (Post 21696745)
Wo wo wo, I turned on him and said what would you have Trayvon do, what would you have any of us do, your wife or daughter if they were being followed and acosted by a stranger? I asked him what if the stranger had a gun? what would you do?

Which course of action would you recommend -
  1. Walk into your own living room and give your little brother his Skittles, or
  2. Turn around and go looking for the guy?
Because "what if the stranger had a gun?"

Regards,
Shodan

you with the face 06-13-2019 05:11 PM

If it was simply that folks like Shodan were agnostic about whether Zimmerman (and Martin) acted lawfully, that would be one thing. It’s that they feel the need to put the kid on trial and conclude he was worth executing in cold blood that has me convinced this case is a great litmus test for racial bias.

See post above mine. Allowances are made for Zimmerman to prowl all over the goddamn place in the dark, huffing and puffing after Martin like an armed mad man. But we’re not supposed to read malicious intent in that. Nay, we are urged to see it as his god given right to chase after whomever he wants, when he wants, and not even consider the fear this probably caused in the person he hunted.

But let Martin not rush home right away—perhaps so he could hide until Zimmerman gave up looking for him—and that alone is treated as evidence of his malicious intent. Martin isn’t given any allowance to do anything except flee, while Zimmerman is allowed to kill.

Only one person that night had a true claim to “Stand Your Ground” and it wasn’t Zimmerman.

chela 06-13-2019 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21696769)
Which course of action would you recommend -
  1. Walk into your own living room and give your little brother his Skittles, or
  2. Turn around and go looking for the guy?
Because "what if the stranger had a gun?"

Regards,
Shodan

Both? And tell brother to call cops, mom would hop in the car to give chase Dad would grab his bat and the both of us would take a walk around the neighborhood. Because thatís just what we did once many years ago when a fiend followed me home and tried to bust in my house.

Folacin 06-13-2019 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmut Doork (Post 21696725)
Also- you cannot slander the deceased, kid or adult.

You can't be sued for it, but you can certainly slander a deceased person.

Skywatcher 06-13-2019 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmut Doork (Post 21696725)
Also- you cannot slander the deceased, kid or adult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Folacin (Post 21696950)
You can't be sued for it, but you can certainly slander a deceased person.

That's not entirely accurate, either. Some jurisdictions allow the surviving relatives to sue.

septimus 06-14-2019 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Parker (Post 21696645)
... So when I see people come in with metaphysical certainty about one version of the story or another, I just kinda shake my head....

:confused: Which part of my version is uncertain?
(1) Zimmerman was a wannabe cop, self-appointed protector of the neighborhood. IIRC he'd applied to be police; police said "No thanks."
(2) Zimmerman called the cops on Martin, and was advised NOT to follow Martin. (That's "NOT" with an N.)
(3) Zimmerman followed Martin anyway, with a concealed handgun.
(4) Zimmerman's behavior alarmed or upset Martin, as Martin reported via telephone.
(5) When this super-star vigilante hero was confronted by his "suspect," he was unable to talk or fight his way out, and instead delivered a fatal gun shot.

Which one of these statements do you shake your head at, Richard?

I can't be bothered to study Florida Case Law to determine a precise definition of "murder." IIUC, there are "depraved heart" rulings to criminalize behavior like Zimmerturd's.

GIGObuster 06-14-2019 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shodan (Post 21696597)
This is your definition of "life-threatening"? Do you think it is roughly equivalent to knocking someone down and smashing their head into the ground?

Regards,
Shodan

Disregarded again because I never said that Trevor Martin was an angel. As accusations in domestic violence incidents against Zimmerman included a gun threat, you bet "life-threatening" is an appropriate thing to say. Also it is not a good idea for Zimmerman to use a confederate flag as an avatar on the internet, so one can say also that it is really dumb to defend a guy like that still.

And of course, having say that, it does not follow that one automatically believes that Martin did a sensible thing that night, it is more likely that this was a case where both people made mistakes, but one more than the other had the power to defuse the situation and instead forced the issue. You ever considered that there is the positivity that a stupid violent racist bastard induced a fight with a black guy that turned to be a reckless dumb hothead?

Chisquirrel 06-14-2019 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GIGObuster (Post 21697382)
Disregarded again because I never said that Trevor Martin was an angel. As accusations in domestic violence incidents against Zimmerman included a gun threat, you bet "life-threatening" is an appropriate thing to say. Also it is not a good idea for Zimmerman to use a confederate flag as an avatar on the internet, so one can say also that it is really dumb to defend a guy like that still.

And of course, having say that, it does not follow that one automatically believes that Martin did a sensible thing that night, it is more likely that this was a case where both people made mistakes, but one more than the other had the power to defuse the situation and instead forced the issue. You ever considered that there is the positivity that a stupid violent racist bastard induced a fight with a black guy that turned to be a reckless dumb hothead?

Please. Shodan would like to believe Zimmerman was the only one in danger. Not, you know, the kid being followed home in the dark by a guy with a gun. Again, black kids don't get to stand their ground.

Gyrate 06-14-2019 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chisquirrel (Post 21697421)
Please. Shodan would like to believe Zimmerman was the only one in danger. Not, you know, the kid being followed home in the dark by a guy with a gun. Again, black kids don't get to stand their ground.

Not surprising. I refer you to the last paragraph in post #61 of this thread.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.