Magiver, you can call me a racist all day long. Coming from you and the rest of these clowns here, I take it as a compliment and a gift to be cherished. Though, if you ask me, I think it’s unconscious projection on your part after contributing to hundreds of posts on the side of a narcissistic, gut-toting adult against an unarmed minor in inclement weather. While I’m sure it helps you sleep better at night, it should be said that if anyone is racist here, that hot potato has your name on it, bud.
As for not clicking the link, that’s your loss, although I can go ahead and tell you what would’ve occurred if you did: you would’ve taken the interviewee at her word and demanded evidence before you can make a decision of her guilt. You require evidence showing you point A to point B because you lack the mental faculties to figure out when you’re being deceived.
Similarly, you’re looking at the Zimmerman interview nodding in agreement to what he is saying, not realizing you lack the insight to figure out when someone is lying. You are naive to think an individual who has lied about fiscal contributions, been arrested before, documented to bully colleagues, beat up a woman, fought with a police officer, and gives interviews with an unemotional, flat affect is telling the truth. Have you send in your monthly donation to Zimmerman’s website?
Oh and he molested his cousin. Forgot about that one. What if Trayvon’s female cousin came forward with that information accusing him of molesting her? You would’ve taken it as proof of that he has a history of law-breaking behavior.
I don’t know, Magiver, why don’t you peer in your crystal ball and tell us how he would’ve reacted. Wait, wait, wait, let me guess: Trayvon lunged at Zimmerman with teeth bared and claws unfurled soon as Zimmerman opened his mouth.
You still don’t get that the defendant gets the benefit of the doubt, do you? That’s what this is about, regardless of your paranoid delusions of racism. Zimmerman is charged with a crime, Martin isn’t. So, he gets the benefit of the doubt, not Martin. This applies no matter the colour of one’s skin.
It also applies no matter how many times you call it bullshit.
So your argument is: “I have an ability that white people don’t. In order to determine the truth of my proposition, if you’re white, you will have to simply take my word.”
What if I were to produce a black person that disagreed with you?
I’ve provided a link to show - in real-time - that most white people cannot smell bullshit even when it’s right in front them, no one wanted to play along, so that’s that. Let me be clear and say that it’s 100% cultural, it’s fact that individuals who have suffered from adversity are better at reading facial expressions and cues (I’m begging you to ask for a Pubmed Cite). It’s my opinion, and I might be racist for saying it, that most white people do not suffer from adversity in the same way that minorities do. Therefore, they are likely to be more trusting and to give the benefit of the doubt, even when their diencephalon is screaming at them that something is amiss. How many minorities were ripped off from Bernie Maddoff or Herbalife? The percentage is likely less than their representation in society. It’s because minorities, on average, can smell bullshit a mile away.
Now, could you produce a minority who is naive and can’t smell bullshit. Absolutely. Tiger Woods, Herman Cain, Allen West, Alan Keyes, etc etc. I would include Justice Thomas on the list but I don’t think he’s naive, he’s just playing dumb. On the flip side, there are whites who get it, for example, this woman sharing the gospel here during TEDtalk. But their number is so far and in between that I see why the Nigerian scammers and related con-artists made a killing in the 90’s and early 00’s.
I understand in a court of law that everyone gets a benefit of the doubt. That doesn’t preclude me from point out bullshit when I smell it. This is a message board, a message board that reads “IN MY HUMBLE OPINION” so hey, I’m giving you my opinion. While we’re speaking about benefit of the doubt, I’m glad that prior history doesn’t matter, because we all know that whites were screaming about OJ’s prior police record (he also beat his wife/girlfriend like Zimmerman) as an indicator of his guilt.
Also, I have to add, while this may “whoosh” 95% of you: Zimmerman has requested the lawsuit between the family and the HMA to be unsealed. He’s more concerned in diminishing the legitimacy of the victim (martin, and by extension, his parents) than he is in uplifting his own defense and proving that he acted lawfully that night. Tear down your opponent and stand on their figurative corpses, and claim victory. It’s a beautiful and elegant piece of narcissism.
You mean like how blacks are more prone to sexual aggression, identity politics and general violence? Hmm is that cultural AND genetic?
Que pictures of grandstanding Trayvon and expulsion records
You foiled your own arguement by inaverdantly making the point that white people are no less naive - rather they are simply nicer. And conversely, minorities are no more wise, they may simply be meaner. Whether that’s a result of facing ‘adversity,’ is an argument for a separate thread.
Ah but don’t you know? Tiger walks with a mean limp when he’s not on the course, and he rolls hard like a real nukka in his Escalade pimpin dem bitches when the wifey aint around.
Come on now, Tiger’s legit.
And Alan Key must really be black, not like Obama black but like off the hizzay black, because he hates homosexuals.
You’re getting as bad as betenoire39. Either make a point that’s relevant to the case discussion, or start a new thread.
I don’t see your distinction - wouldn’t it assist in Zimmerman’s defense to show that Martin was a scumbag (if that comes out of the HMA lawsuit).
For the umpteenth time, and since we are talking about a trial -
Zimmerman. Does. Not. Have. To. Prove. He. Acted. Lawfully.
That’s not narcissism, it’s the law.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
That’s only true if you assume the two independent time sources are identical or within a few seconds of each other.
[/QUOTE]
That doesn’t strike me as a very far-out assumption.
It depends on what you mean by “utterly unprovoked”. Martin punched Zimmerman in the face because Zimmerman was following him, and asked him what he was doing in the neighborhood, IMO. I would call that a disproportionate and unjustified attack, rather than an utterly unprovoked one.
Which may be why I assign much less moral guilt to Zimmerman than I think you do. It is not reasonable to expect that someone will attack and try to kill you because you ask him what his business is in your neighborhood. I think it is clear that Zimmerman did not expect that response, else he would have drawn his gun, or at least had his hand on it, when he approached Martin or Martin approached him. And the fact that Zimmerman did not have his weapon handy is another indication, albeit a weaker one, that Zimmerman did not say anything particularly insulting to Martin, beyond “what are you doing around here”. Because there are insulting things that can be said to which one would expect a violent response, and therefore one might want to have the gun ready in case the insultee reacts badly.
IOW, “what are you doing around here” = not the kind of thing to trigger the need to shoot someone.
“What the hell are you doing in my neighborhood, you fucking nigger” = that kind of thing. IYSWIM.
Either that or given Florida’s Stand Your Ground law and the presumption of innocence, there shouldn’t have been enough evidence to bring Zimmerman to trial in the first place (the prosecutor didn’t even try to present the case to a grand jury). So since the trial is hinging on suspicion and judgments of character, that can of worms has already been opened. If the settlement includes language that neither side is claiming or admitting guilt, then the Martins evidently decided they wanted gold more than justice, which sort of tarnishes their public expositions of grief and anger.
Last week I tested this proposition between my office network time (which syncs to an NTP server) and my cell carrier’s time. There was a 52 second difference; a call initiated at 1:00:00 by my office network time was on my cell phone bill as 1:00:52.
On the contrary, it’s a key part of our jurisprudence – not requiring an accused person at a criminal trial to prove he acted legally. Rather, the state must prove he acted ILLEGALLY.
Zimmerman is presumed to have acted lawfully. What part of that do you have trouble comprehending?
I know this isn’t a court of law here, but if you’re going to accuse someone of murder, you should probably have some evidence, otherwise you’re no better than a lynch mob.
Wait, even *accusing *someone of murder is equivalent to lynching them? Wow, a prosecutors’ job is more difficult than I’d realized.
Question: if I only suspect that someone may be guilty, but don’t accuse them, is that equivalent to masturbating on them and then setting them on fire?