George Zimmerman found Not Guilty.

[kwhilborn]

@ Captain Kremmen,

My memory must be failing me.
What else did I say?

Unsure what you mean.?.?.?.?
http://www.sciforums.com/search.php?searchid=544800

You've said lots. Many posts on that link are goofy pictures, but it covers what you've said here.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

That link leads nowhere.

 

[GeoffP]

Are you saying that Zimmerman had knowledge of Trayvon's so called history?

I think what he means is that Martin wasn't squeaky-clean; the unsubmitted stuff kwilborn has been bringing up suggest some inclination to violence and so forth. On basis of the complete range of information available, it seems that both individuals sought a confrontation.

 

[birch]

what is it people aren't getting? what the heck are these excuses such as he may not have been taking the direct route home, that wasn't his real neighborhood, he was in the rain at night, he was in a hoody (in the rain), he was looking around, he wasn't squeaky-clean' etc? why are these used as some type of veiled excuse that his killing was justified? they both sought a confrontation? that's disingenuous. zimmerman followed him with no valid reason, and carrying a weapon he should not per his role and unidentified, it is clear who was the instigator of the entire sequence of events. he was to report and go on about his business period and he still did not even have anything valid to report in the first place. zimmerman was carrying a gun. hello? he was carrying a gun that he used in an altercation that he was seeking. hello? zimmerman was the armed. hello? zimmerman was the adult? hello? zimmerman defied orders and common sense probably because he was packing and sure of himself. hello?

on the basis of the complete information available, it doesn't matter if martin had confronted zimmerman later. the bottomline is that man zimmerman killed someone for an altercation against an unarmed and if that is considered just and okay protocol for behavior, then those who believe that or do not see a problem with it, are deranged or deluded in reasoning.

there is also a strange belief among many (usually conservatives) that there was not enough 'evidence' to convict zimmerman of anything, just as the amazingly nincompoop jury did, when the preponderance of the evidence shows negligence, poor judgement and abuse of authority/position. zimmerman deserved manslaughter at least, that is just going by his account of events and the evidence there was, that's excusing and assuming that he may not be actually guilty of murder. this is why the verdict surprised so many and then the 'facts' became evident with the exposure of the painful incompetence of some jurors, jury selection, prosecution/defense and especially the exposure of this brazenly irresponsible law that was either not thought out as to the consequences or how it could be exploited for murder.

 

[GeoffP]

what is it people aren't getting?

Some people are unconvinced of the selected elements of your view. That's life. You also make false connections between some of my points and other elements, which suggests that you're already strongly decided on this case.

on the basis of the complete information available, it doesn't matter if martin had confronted zimmerman later.

Well, actually it does. Without confrontation, Zimmerman probably would never have drawn his gun. Unfortunately, the details of that confrontation aren't known. Again, in that second paragraph, you make leaps of emotion that don't suit this subject. So the question really is: why? What is it you aren't getting about this? I have a suspicion, of course.

As for the last paragraph, instead of taking up a rhetorical line, how about line-by-line citation and evaluation? Zimmerman may well have deserved a manslaughter charge - now why wasn't that line pursued? Let me know how you do.

 

[iceaura]

On basis of the complete range of information available, it seems that both individuals sought a confrontation.

So both individuals went out of their way to follow each other, called the police on each other, harassed and stalked each other in the middle of the night in the rain, got out of their vehicles carrying firearms to attempt tracking and accosting each other, etc? Please.

We have no information in any range that indicates Martin sought a confrontation with Zimmerman. Even at the wildest reading of the information we have, a possibility that Martin hid and ambushed Zimmerman, it was still Zimmerman doing the stalking and harassment and seeking of confrontation. By any possible interpretation of the information Martin reacted as anyone might have - quite likely as I would have - to being stalked and harassed in the middle of the night by a persistent creepy guy in a pickup. The whole incident was Zimmerman's baby - his doing, his initiative, his responsibility. When he got out of that truck carrying a firearm he became responsible for anyone who got shot, including himself by Martin's gun had Martin been similarly armed.

So the question really is: why? What is it you aren't getting about this?

I think what you aren't getting about this is the fact that Zimmerman getting out of his truck was starting a fight, or "initiating a confrontation" if you prefer. That I put down to your inexperience with the culture of crackers and their pickups and their proclivities for harassing people from them.

(That jury was very well selected by the defense.)

 

[birch]

Some people are unconvinced of the selected elements of your view. That's life. You also make false connections between some of my points and other elements, which suggests that you're already strongly decided on this case.



Well, actually it does. Without confrontation, Zimmerman probably would never have drawn his gun. Unfortunately, the details of that confrontation aren't known. Again, in that second paragraph, you make leaps of emotion that don't suit this subject. So the question really is: why? What is it you aren't getting about this? I have a suspicion, of course.

As for the last paragraph, instead of taking up a rhetorical line, how about line-by-line citation and evaluation? Zimmerman may well have deserved a manslaughter charge - now why wasn't that line pursued? Let me know how you do.

Really? I'm strongly decided on this case? How about the evidence strongly suggests the reasons for my 'verdict' on this case? Have you read what you post and you are sure you're not deluded? "without confrontation, zimmerman probably would never have drawn his gun." so that is it cut and dry, stand your ground. confrontation alone justifies drawing a weapon and killing is what you are implying. there were no 'leaps of emotion' in the post, that's your disingenuous interpretation you are famous for on this forum, as you are used to doing when you like to pretend you don't understand skirting everything and anything when it suits your right-wing views.

If you cared to understand, you would have understood the many 'line-by-line citation and evaluation' already posted on this thread. read it. and while you are at that, you can read up on why the 'line' wasn't pursued as well as why zimmerman wasn't arrested. it's that 'law' that's been discussed on this thread, if you cared to consider it but it's obvious you don't. after all, confrontation ending in killing is evidently good enough for you and just because it was a 'confrontation'. let me know how you do.

 

[Tiassa]

This and That

Maybe he was moonwalking in peoples driveways, or walking in circles. Maybe Trayvons Cellphone allowed him to talk hands free and he just looked insane talking to himself.

You know, the funny thing is, for all the descriptions I've heard over the last year and a half of Martin's "suspicious" behavior, it's become apparent that there is something more than anything he was doing that made George Zimmerman suspicious.

Just sort of standing there?

Looking around aimlessly?

Had his hand near his pants?

And what is with that last one? Any black guy with his hand at his waist is reaching for a gun? I never understood that.

There is nothing in the 911 call that describes Trayvon Martin as dangerous. Indeed, from the beginning of the call until the Dispatcher says, "Just let me know if he does anything, ok?" nothing about it suggests any danger other than what Zimmerman is manufacturing in his mind.

"This guy looks like he's on drugs or something"? That's what they used to say about men with long hair: Saw a person today with long hair and a great big bushy beard. Couldn't tell if it was a man or a woman. Looked like he was on drugs, or something.

No really: "This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something." Say that in your best Grandpa Simpson voice.

But this also points to another issue; it may well be that the trouble you're having comprehending this situation is cultural. I mean, normally, when someone says Canada, I think of BC, and when I'm up there, I just don't run into people whose comprehension of their southern neighbor is so apparently confused. No, really, the angry old codger routine you're putting on combined with the apparent ignorance about how things are in American society is very telling. It would seem that you really don't understand what's going on, or what you're actually doing in this thread.

That 911 call tells us more about George Zimmerman's state of mind than anything Trayvon Martin was or wasn't doing.

Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy .... This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about .... Yeah. A dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie, and either jeans or sweatpants and white tennis shoes. He's here now, he was just staring ... looking at all the houses .... Now he's just staring at me .... Yeah, now he's coming towards me .... He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male .... He's got button on his shirt, late teens .... Something's wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out, he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is.​

Because it sounds like a guy talking on his mobile phone. Of course, Trayvon Martin is black, so a black guy talking on his mobile phone is automatically suspicious. Now, maybe that ain't how y'all do it in Toronto, but in this case we're talking about Florida.

And now there's all this about a hand-free? You mean the guy who has been reciting all the convict-Trayvon propaganda doesn't know the answer to this detail? Did none of the GZ sites you've been relying on couldn't figure that out? Of course, they apparently couldn't figure out what a black male on a phone looks like.

There was no hands free. Add to the list that Zimmerman doesn't know what a mobile phone looks like.

He's coming to check me out. He's got something in his hands. I don't know what his deal is.

This is what we in the States call bullshit. That is to say, if the subject you're following and surveilling makes you, comes back to get a look at the person tailing him, you do not get to say, "I don't know what his deal is."

Indeed, I doubt it's a conscious setup on Zimmerman's part, but you can tell from the outset he's itching for a confrontation. He's got his lunchbox, and he's armed real well.

• • •​

But I'm sure people like you will find some kind of flaw with "those" people. Next you will be saying not turning music down is criminal enough to warrant shot on sight!

It's all buried in an earlier sideshow, but so far, these are the points to watch:

Michael Dunn? One would presume he will be acquitted, except the bit about calling for pizza instead of informing police, and the lack of concern shown by his fiancee, who was present at the time, might hurt him when it comes to trial. Then again, he doesn't need to be in actual danger, he couldn't have known he actually killed anyone, as the car was speeding away as he shot it up, and nobody can prove that the dead black teenager didn't have a shotgun. It should be added, that last doesn't actually matter. Under SYG, all Dunn has to say is that he thought he saw a shotgun. Sure, he's apparently under mortal threat long enough to get into his car, open the glove box, remove the weapon, unholster it, chamber a round ("quicker than a flash", our would-be hero boasts), and start shooting. He admits he doesn't know what he heard (i.e., threats that frightened him), but insists he saw a shotgun. I don't know whether he's playing for the dumb Negro bit suggesting someone could be stupid enough to threaten him with a shotgun and then sit there while he retrieves his handgun from the car and starts shooting, or if we're supposed to believe that Dunn was dealing with Cleveland Brown, Jr. To the other, a grand jury has indicted Dunn on First Degree Murder charges, and while this might sound like a good thing, the prosecuter has pursued, and the grand jury endorsed, a charge that will be exceptionally difficult to prove. Dunn has a pretty good chance of skating.​

Meanwhile, Michael Dunn's trial has been pushed back until February. Apparently the defense is going to try to overwhelm the jury; Cory Strolla explained at the recent readiness hearing that scores of witnesses remain to be deposed. No, really, scores.

And it may actually work because Strolla is defending against Angela Corey.

 

[kwhilborn]

@ Tiassa,

The only reason people have been "Guessing" at suspicious behavior is because GZ lawyer banned him from discussing it. The only thing people can do is guess at what could be deemed suspicious. A black teen in a hoodie would likely be a common sight in this 20% black and 30% Hispanic neighborhood.

Zimmerman said Trayvon circled his Truck (see wikipedia) and GZ had to roll up his window to avoid a confrontation. This would not be the actions of someone afraid of being followed.

GZ had described some of the suspicious behaviour as wandering between the houses, "cutting between the houses". We also know he described TM as standing on the lawn of a neighbors at one point.

The call to police was after he deemed TM suspicious or there would be no call. Nobody knows what he saw. You can fantasize all you like, but nobody knows.

Any person wandering around on peoples lawns and cutting in-between homes (stated by GZ), who is confrontational enough to circle GZ truck at close range (stated by GZ), might be considered a threat just based on this. Without even considering race.

If a 6'2" white guy circled my car with an attitude that made me want to roll up my window, I would be uncomfortable.

We really do not know what "on drugs" looks like in this case, but this was a black/mixed race community as much as it was white.

Let me alter your quote below to make it factual,

You know, the funny thing is, for all the [MADE UP] descriptions I've heard over the last year and a half of Martin's "suspicious" behavior, it's become apparent that there is something more than anything he was doing that [WE BLINDLY GUESS AT THAT ] made George Zimmerman suspicious.

IF I HAD TO GUESS AT WHAT TRANSPIRED (LIKE YOU ALL SEEM TO LOVE DOING), I WOULD GUESS THAT GZ STOPPED AND QUESTIONED TM LIKE A WANNABE COP. I WOULD GUESS TM WAS LIKE "F. U." TO HIM AND THIS LED TO THE POLICE CALL.

THAT STORY MAKES SENSE AND SHOWS WHY TM KNEW GZ WAS WATCHING HIM. IF GZ WAS JUST WATCHING THEN TM WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE WISER AS IT WAS ALL DONE FROM HIS PARKED TRUCK UNTIL AFTER HE LOST TRAYVON FROM SIGHT.

I COULD SEE A WANNABE COP DOING SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT IT IS POSSIBLY ALL IN MY HEAD RIGHT, JUST LIKE EVERYTHING YOU GUYS MAKE UP.

 

[GeoffP]

So both individuals went out of their way to follow each other, called the police on each other, harassed and stalked each other in the middle of the night in the rain, got out of their vehicles carrying firearms to attempt tracking and accosting each other, etc? Please.

Good colouring phrases. Who accosted who? Unknown. What does the rain have to do with it? Why does calling the police matter? Is that an act of violence now, too? Is neighbourhood watchery 'harassment'? If so, do I have a criminal case from when it happened to me? Come on. Where the firearm enters into it is also unknown, except in the final outcome.

We have no information in any range that indicates Martin sought a confrontation with Zimmerman.

We have no information in any range as to who threw the first punch. We have no information as to why a NW guy following what he calls a suspicious individual means that the person being followed then gets to employ SYG as you suggest, or why anyone does. Did Martin employ SYG in this manner? Did Zimmerman? No one knows.

Even at the wildest reading of the information we have, a possibility that Martin hid and ambushed Zimmerman, it was still Zimmerman doing the stalking and harassment and seeking of confrontation.

Verbal confrontation necessarily escalates into physical?

I think what you aren't getting about this is the fact that Zimmerman getting out of his truck was starting a fight, or "initiating a confrontation" if you prefer. That I put down to your inexperience with the culture of crackers and their pickups and their proclivities for harassing people from them.

(That jury was very well selected by the defense.)

I think you can stop right there. The assertion that I don't 'get' the situation is patently false. Getting out of a truck is not starting a fight, unless you are considerably more paranoid than even Zimmerman is purported to be. You're just presenting an alternative set of assertions.

Next, Zimmerman was hardly a 'cracker', and nice racial slur BTW. Can you demonstrate this 'pickup culture' (as a rural person myself, I'm keenly interested) in south Florida? If not, then who is the paranoid here? This also is a wild assertion of Martin's stance WRT the fight - I suspect that they were both looking for a fight based on their respective histories, but you know what was on Martin's mind? I think the two sides here should stop presenting wild claims about intention as fact.

Really? I'm strongly decided on this case? How about the evidence strongly suggests the reasons for my 'verdict' on this case?

Yet, unfortunately, it does not.

Have you read what you post and you are sure you're not deluded? "without confrontation, zimmerman probably would never have drawn his gun." so that is it cut and dry, stand your ground.

You misunderstand - there was a physical fight prior to the gunshot. This much is almost certain: Zimmerman had a broken nose and bruising. If the gun was drawn at the outset, why was it not immediately used? Would he permit himself to be struck? Unlikely. It's far more reasonable that the gun was produced during the fight and fired. If instead, as you seem to be intimating, Zimmerman produced the gun, this would mean that he was jumped for it. Possible, but it's unlikely that he would be physically injured and have his head rapped off the ground and only then fire. And so without confrontation - you'll note that I didn't say whose fault that was - Zimmerman probably wouldn't have drawn the gun. Still, that's an unknown - what I meant to say was that he didn't draw until the confrontation had started, and that seems very likely.

confrontation alone justifies drawing a weapon and killing is what you are implying.

Actually, no.

there were no 'leaps of emotion' in the post, that's your disingenuous interpretation you are famous for on this forum, as you are used to doing when you like to pretend you don't understand skirting everything and anything when it suits your right-wing views.

I'm a communist, and it is not a right-wing view to generate an outcome at odds with your hopes. I had no idea you were such a fan, however. Maybe you could isolate some other such 'famously Geoff' pretension to ignorance? One of our 'neighbours' likes to pretend about this sometimes; maybe he has some suggestions.

If you cared to understand, you would have understood the many 'line-by-line citation and evaluation' already posted on this thread. read it.

I did. Did you have a specific question? I get that - like some of our 'neighbours' - you're very, very angry about this case. That's understood. Unfortunately, my assessment will continue to concern the facts of the case as known, and not your suppositions. Sorry.

Edit: adding to this, the fallacy of the 'black male reaching for something' is taken as written, and should be. But now there's some kind of 'white pickup culture' that must have accounted for a great many deaths, and which is also taken as written. So to counterbalance the assertion that Martin did start the fight, or was behaving suspiciously, you have created a new set of assertions. Are you reading the stuff that you write? Is there a point at which you ask yourselves 'am I really answering the question, or making more paranoia for whatever reason?' If not, now is the time. Or do you instead perceive this as a social war, in which any prevarication is acceptable, so long as it backs the narrative you choose?

Double edit: An even better idea. Here's a thinkums none of them States-peoples has so far had the better sense to suggest: how about you state what you think Zimmerman is guilty of, and then discuss from there? You know, like a real shiny legal case might do. Crazy, I know.

Triple axel edit: In my haste of the pursuit of justice, I accidentally mistyped the moniker of a famous and important poster, recognizable in spirit if not in content, in a reply, above. There are not the words to express or convey the depth of my emotion when I was duly informed of this egregious error by the unspeakable Powers That Be. No apology, however sincere, can ever approach the necessary gravity of contrition; it is only my hope that changing one letter back will be signal enough of my grief, and inevitable reformation. Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?

 

[birch]

That 911 call tells us more about George Zimmerman's state of mind than anything Trayvon Martin was or wasn't doing.

Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy .... This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about .... Yeah. A dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie, and either jeans or sweatpants and white tennis shoes. He's here now, he was just staring ... looking at all the houses .... Now he's just staring at me .... Yeah, now he's coming towards me .... He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male .... He's got button on his shirt, late teens .... Something's wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out, he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is.

heh. zimmerman at the bond hearing 'apologized' to martin's family under oath stating that he thought martin was just a few years younger than zimmerman, implying he was not aware he was a teen. he also said he didn't know if he was armed or not. do you think? that being said, even if he was an adult, it still doesn't necessarily justify the actions he took anyways.

That's understood. Unfortunately, my assessment will continue to concern the facts of the case as known, and not your suppositions. Sorry.

Incorrect, it's your cognitive dissonance of evidence and your disingenuous stance that somehow the events, evidence and altercation is equal and valid for both parties when it clearly is not. lmao

Double edit: An even better idea. Here's a thinkums none of them States-peoples has so far had the better sense to suggest: how about you state what you think Zimmerman is guilty of, and then discuss from there? You know, like a real shiny legal case might do. Crazy, I know.

haha. like i said, a wild goose chase you do again and again, round and round. why don't you read what zimmerman is guilty of that's been posted again and again for you to read and try to comprehend it. it's crazy, i know, to you.

 

[GeoffP]

A Fairy Tale for All Ages. Tee hee!

Incorrect, it's your cognitive dissonance of evidence and your disingenuous stance that somehow the events, evidence and altercation is equal and valid for both parties when it clearly is not. lmao

And that, children, is why birch ran away from the rest of Geoff's post.

And anyway they all lived happily ever after except for those that didn't fit the social narrative as decided by an anonymous psychological marginal on the intertubes.

The End.

 

[GeoffP]

haha. like i said, a wild goose chase you do again and again, round and round. why don't you read what zimmerman is guilty of that's been posted again and again for you to read and try to comprehend it. it's crazy, i know, to you.

Zimmerman was found not guilty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

It's crazy you don't know that.

 

[birch]

Zimmerman was found not guilty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

It's crazy you don't know that.

oh geoffpy, are you being crazy, again? we already know what the verdict was, we are disputing the legitimacy of it. that's what this whole thread has been about at the crux. it's crazy you don't know that. lmao

do you realize that i am actually glad of this verdict and not because i think it was just? let me explain why; nothing could bring back martin before the trial or whatever the verdict but it if there was even a manslaughter conviction, this botched case such as the fact zimmerman wasn't arrested or investigated until later, the idiocy and unbalanced jury selection, the revealing of the bias and stupidity of some jurors/juries and the heinous SYG law and it's open to exploitation wouldn't have got the amount of publicity that it had which it needed to expose it.

 

[Trippy]

There are several points you're missing in all of this...

Direct would be following the sidewalk and keeping right past the clubhouse.

Do you keep walking in a straight line when you're being followed by some creepy dude in a car on a phone?

Turning left and going behind all the houses was a detour.

Or, it was an attempt to get away from the creepy dude following him in a car. For all Martin new Zimmerman was after some tight young boy flesh.

Also GZ (only witness) makes it sound like the route was not direct in nature. Perhaps he was pacing back and forth and backtracking as he cut between homes.

And being followed by a creepy dude in a car.

Your "FACTS" are only what you fantasize happened, as only GZ knows for sure.

As are yours.

Really?

This was a neighborhood of townhouses. It was 20% black so one in five people walking home from the store would likely be black. The neighborhood was also 30% Hispanic so half the people walking home from the store would be black, mixed black or of another (non white race).

And the majority are still white.

A black person walking home would be a very, very, common sight here. This is relevant because the media has painted a picture of a black person seeming out of place in a white neighborhood when this is simply not true.

This is patently untrue. The only way this is true is if the blacks are evenly distributed through the neighbourhood, which is generally unlikely. I presume the clubhouse is a golf clubhouse or a tennis club house. I wonder how many blacks could afford to live near it (yes, I know that statement amounts to institutional racism, but it's a reflection of my understanding of American poverty statistics).

So your claim

This would be a common sight in a neighborhood where half the people are not White. I would suggest the term suspicious might be like the word implies.

Only if you apply the term neighbourhood to the whole gated community.

He could have been walking up to houses and peering in the windows for all we know.

Speculation.

I do not think simply walking home would be deemed suspicious. He was first noticed on the lawn of a neighbor, not walking, and not on the road or sidewalk.

Was he? I've walked across many neighbours lawns, never been shot for it.

Before GZ even left his truck. (from wikipedia link above)

And how long had Zimmerman been following him at this point?

He rolled up his windows to avoid a confrontation. It does not sound like walking straight home to me. If any man circled my vehicle (Black or White) while looking confrontational I might think they are not walking directly home.

After having been followed by a creepy dude in a truck.

Just Staring at him. That' sounds like he was just standing there. It sounds like he starts walking when he says "Now he's coming towards me".

After having been followed by a creepy dude in a trucl. Last time I looked, standing there and looking at a house was not inantely suspicous in and of itself.

So according to GZ Trayvon was going in between houses and wandering around acting drugged up and confrontational in the rain. If someone came up to my car and circled it I would certainly add a few levels of craziness to their composure.

After having been followed by a creepy dude in a truck who seemed very interested in what he was doing. He may even have noticed that Zimmerman was on the phone and (rightly) assumed he was calling the police. A reflection of nothing more than experiences with instituttional racism.

Note: It is also possible that Trayvon was just walking straight home and GZ made up all of the above (nobody knows). A black person walking in this neighborhood was a very common sight though. I do not think GZ would phone 911 if the kid was simply walking home though. Opinions obviously vary.

Only if we assume that blacks were distirbuted evenly through the neighbourhood.

 

[birch]

And that, children, is why birch ran away from the rest of Geoff's post.

And anyway they all lived happily ever after except for those that didn't fit the social narrative as decided by an anonymous psychological marginal on the intertubes.

The End.

why don't you do your own homework? you can start by what's already been posted for you ad nauseum, which you ignore on purpose. keep playing your game and making this case as shallow as paper, that's what the jury did. isn't it easy to justify a verdict when you do that? martin punched zimmerman, therefore zimmerman is innocent. martin was in fear for his life, therefore it justifies his extreme force blah blah. so lazy and so easy to not have to think beyond the most simple. if i'm the 'marginal', i'm glad of it.

 

[GeoffP]

oh geoffpy, are you being crazy, again? we already know what the verdict was, we are disputing the legitimacy of it.

Gee, no kidding! What would be best, though, to wean you off weasel language and discontinuity, would be for you write what actually is. Stop a second and think about this: writing down things as they actually are. Crazy, huh? Let alone assertion and dissonance, but just to actually write factually.

do you realize that i am actually glad of this verdict and not because i think it was just?

Well, you actually raise some important social points here. It is entirely possible that SYG is completely unbalanced and needs to go. However, painting this specific case in the contrasts you're trying to use may not be supported by the facts. I have little doubt - or actually, no doubt whatsoever - that there are other cases that do demonstrate the argument for social inequity that you're making. It is not clear that the Martin case is one of those. I think it does illustrate that the jury selection process is sadly out of whack. That generates predisposition, but I'm not convinced that predisposition is overriding in this case.

Now, can you take away from this the subtle epiphany that not all those who disagree with you are employed by Fox?

 

[GeoffP]

why don't you do your own homework? you can start by what's already

Keep crying and asserting. Maybe your mom will care.

martin punched zimmerman, therefore zimmerman is innocent.

I reiterate: of what?

martin was in fear for his life

I think you mean Zimmerman, if you're criticizing their narrative. Or maybe you've flipped camps. My concern is lacking.

, therefore it justifies his extreme force blah blah. so lazy and so easy to not have to think beyond the most simple. if i'm the 'marginal', i'm glad of it.

Well sure, why not? Only society loses. No biggie.

 

[Tiassa]

Getting Made

If a 6'2" white guy circled my car with an attitude that made me want to roll up my window, I would be uncomfortable.

I think if I was made while surveilling an individual, and that individual decided to come toward me, yeah, I would probably be a little uncomfortable. I mean, shit, there's nothing more embarrassing than being made.

Meanwhile, the fact is that a black male talking on a mobile phone made George Zimmerman suspicious. Would a white guy doing the same have the same effect? Perhaps. But our eagle-eyed wannabe watchman couldn't even figure out what a person talking on a phone looks like; even more, he couldn't tell what a phone looks like, even though he was holding one next to his own face in the moment.

 

[birch]

I think if I was made while surveilling an individual, and that individual decided to come toward me, yeah, I would probably be a little uncomfortable. I mean, shit, there's nothing more embarrassing than being made.

Meanwhile, the fact is that a black male talking on a mobile phone made George Zimmerman suspicious. Would a white guy doing the same have the same effect? Perhaps. But our eagle-eyed wannabe watchman couldn't even figure out what a person talking on a phone looks like; even more, he couldn't tell what a phone looks like, even though he was holding one next to his own face in the moment.

did he punch him when he got out of the truck? no. if he was uncomfortable with him circling his car, as he claims, then why did he continue to follow him almost to his home, defying that he was told not to? that is an aggressive mode and trayvon had every right to feel threatened himself.