Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Blaze)   NBC enhances Zimmerman 911 call: "Coons". CNN enhances Zimmerman 911 call: "Cold". Tune in for the next installment of pre-race war Florida   (theblaze.com) divider line 971
    More: Misc, CNN, race war, Life Is..., court of public opinion, cold  
•       •       •

11562 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Apr 2012 at 1:53 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



971 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-05 11:23:51 PM  

Silly Jesus: We don't just put people on trial because a mob of people think that it's appropriate. There are standards for bringing charges against someone, and like it or not, those standards were determined to have not been met in this case.

You are arguing for mob justice where if enough people scream loud enough and long enough the DA should call that probably cause and bring someone to trial. It doesn't work that way and I hope that it never does.


A 17 year old who was doing nothing wrong was killed and his admitted killer's story doesn't make sense.

You're saying that putting a man on trial in such a case is "mob justice"? There is something seriously wrong with you.
 
2012-04-05 11:24:44 PM  

heinrich66: People getting too pissed at corporate masters?

RACE WAR


+1
 
2012-04-05 11:28:11 PM  

Callous: Scerpes: Callous: You still don't understand that whole "innocent until proven guilty" part do you? Also, no defendant is required to testify, so he doesn't have to explain shiat. He doesn't even have to say a single word to any investigator.

I agree with you in principal, but it's different with a self defense claim. His version is the single best evidence he has, because there's not a lot to contradict it.

No it's not different, the 5th Amendment still applies.


I'm not arguing that they can force him to testify. I'm saying that if he doesn't articulate his self defense claim, he's sunk. It's a practical argument not a legal argument. There's plenty of evidence against Zimmerman if he doesn't make his self defense case. He's going to have to testify that Martin attacked him, because there's no one else that can do it.
 
2012-04-05 11:31:18 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Silly Jesus: AdmirableSnackbar: Scerpes: You're entitled to your opinion, but you're wrong on this one. He didn't have to suffer life threatening injuries. He merely had to be afraid that he would suffer "great bodily harm." If Martin bounced his head off the concrete sidewalk once, and Zimmerman feared he was going to do it again, its going to be a justified shooting. There's evidence that occurred. There's not much to overcome it.

Based on what I saw on the police station video I don't believe that Martin bounced Zimmerman's head off the sidewalk. Also, Zimmerman had to have a reasonable fear - not any fear - of great bodily harm. He also had to exhaust all other methods of escape. As I said earlier, Zimmerman did not appear to have been in anything close to a fight for his life. There's some evidence that Martin was at one point on top of Zimmerman, but I haven't seen one piece of evidence other than Zimmerman's account that Martin bashed his head into the sidewalk. It certainly wasn't enough to cause anything more than a minor injury, how could a minor scratch cause Zimmerman to fear for his life?

My point is that to believe as you do, you must take Zimmerman's story 100% at face value, even the parts that just don't make any sense. We already know he's lied about certain parts of his story so you have to ignore the fact that he's not telling the whole truth. You also have to ignore what Martin's girlfriend said she heard on the phone - which counters what Zimmerman said happened. There's a lot that you have to ignore in order to think that Zimmerman likely had reasonable fear for his life and had exhausted all methods of escape.

Broken nose (on video), gash in back of head (on video). That kinda limits means of escape and escalates fear of great bodily harm or death.

I see neither of those on the video. It's pretty farking clear that he doesn't have a gash on his head or else - as the EMT said upthread - he would have a bandage on it to prevent infec ...


www.maggiesnotebook.com

cdn1.alexanderhiggins.com


Can't find the broken nose picture right now, I'm sure you've seen it though.

Ever had your head pounded into something hard? It doesn't tickle and you can quickly feel as though you are going to pass out, thus leaving your life in the hands of your attacker.
 
2012-04-05 11:31:56 PM  

Scerpes: Callous: Scerpes: Callous: You still don't understand that whole "innocent until proven guilty" part do you? Also, no defendant is required to testify, so he doesn't have to explain shiat. He doesn't even have to say a single word to any investigator.

I agree with you in principal, but it's different with a self defense claim. His version is the single best evidence he has, because there's not a lot to contradict it.

No it's not different, the 5th Amendment still applies.

I'm not arguing that they can force him to testify. I'm saying that if he doesn't articulate his self defense claim, he's sunk. It's a practical argument not a legal argument. There's plenty of evidence against Zimmerman if he doesn't make his self defense case. He's going to have to testify that Martin attacked him, because there's no one else that can do it.


I don't know, from what I'm being told, even asking Zimmerman to back up his claim is "mob justice."

That said, it will be interesting to see what details we don't have when (not if) this goes to trial.
 
2012-04-05 11:34:06 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Mike Chewbacca: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: kingoomieiii: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Zimmermang

Is this a racist play on his name, or do you really not know how it's spelled?

I've been lobbying for us to call him "Zimmermang" because Zimmerman is a really white name, but he looks like some kinda Spanish.

That's the most retarded thing I've ever read. At least go with "Zimmermano" or "Zimmerhombre" or something that sounds at least a little bit Hispanic. There is no "-ang" suffix in the Spanish language.

"Wassup mang, whatchu doing?" Do you not have any Mexican immigrant friends?

I'm from San Diego. I learned to swear in Spanish before I learned to swear in English. There is no "ng" sound in Spanish. Seriously, I have one Mexican friend who still says "sing-ging" and "ring-ging" because he just can't not pronounce that second g. He's been living in the US for nearly 40 years; he moved here when he was 6.


Chingada........there certainly is a "ng" sound in Spanish.
 
2012-04-05 11:34:32 PM  
came here for the tits and ass, left disapointed...
 
2012-04-05 11:34:55 PM  

Silly Jesus: Can't find the broken nose picture right now, I'm sure you've seen it though.

Ever had your head pounded into something hard? It doesn't tickle and you can quickly feel as though you are going to pass out, thus leaving your life in the hands of your attacker.


Actually, I haven't. And considering that those marks disappear based on the angle of Zimmerman's head I believe that those are just shadows and reflections of light off of folds on a bald guy's head. Plus the fact that there are no bandages when any medic worth half a shiat would have put them on his head if they were cuts instead of reflections on stills.
 
2012-04-05 11:37:41 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Silly Jesus: How was he acting inappropriately and how was his mindset not rational?

He had no business stalking Martin, and his statements to the 911 dispatch pretty much prove that he was irrational. He saw someone he didn't recognize and said that he was intoxicated and committing the crime of walking on the sidewalk, just looking at houses. Basically, Zimmerman completely overreacted to the situation. That's pretty irrational to me, and his chasing after Martin was completely inappropriate.


It is completely rational to me. He's living in a neighborhood where there has been recent crime by people matching the general description of Martin. It's at night and raining and this guy is out walking around alone. While none of this is illegal or wrong to do, it certainly would be suspicious to a reasonable person given all of the circumstances and the history of crime at the complex.

Whether you like the fact that he walked down a public sidewalk after Martin or not, it's not anything approaching criminal. Hell, people do this all the time with suspicious people. I've done it myself in my neighborhood. I'd hardly call it stalking.

He followed Martin in an attempt to keep him in sight because during past instances the police have not gotten there in time to find the person. To me it is completely rational to try to keep him in view so that the police can locate him.

You are either an incredibly naive person or have never lived in an area with any crime, or both, but this is not abnormal behavior for someone who has been the victim of burglaries or thefts. You are judging the actions before the shooting in light of the shooting itself. You are reasoning that since the shooting was a bad thing that everything that led up to it must have been as well.

I don't remember him chasing Martin...? I just remember him losing sight of him and heading back toward his vehicle...
 
2012-04-05 11:39:35 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar:

A 17 year old who was doing nothing wrong was killed and his admitted killer's story doesn't make sense.


He wasn't doing anything wrong except being offended that someone would follow him, then beating the follower.
 
2012-04-05 11:40:17 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: I'm not arguing that they can force him to testify. I'm saying that if he doesn't articulate his self defense claim, he's sunk. It's a practical argument not a legal argument. There's plenty of evidence against Zimmerman if he doesn't make his self defense case. He's going to have to testify that Martin attacked him, because there's no one else that can do it.

I don't know, from what I'm being told, even asking Zimmerman to back up his claim is "mob justice."

That said, it will be interesting to see what details we don't have when (not if) this goes to trial.


It's not going to trial - not unless investigators have something huge they've been holding back. Even if if Correy does decide to go forward with a prosecution, the judge will have no choice but to issue the writ of prohibition. The standard a judge must consider is a preponderance of the evidence. It is a simple weighing of the evidence. Is there more that points to self defense or more that does not? On balance, there is far more evidence that he acted in self defense than that he did not. I know you disagree, but there's no way that a judge can look at a shooter who has had his head bounced off the concrete even once - regardless of the injury suffered, and not find that he had a reasonable fear of great bodily harm. It would be a huge miscarriage of justice.

I'm not saying that there aren't questions suspicions about Zimmerman's conduct, but the evidence so far supports his claim - that's why he hasn't been arrested, not because police whitewashed it.
 
2012-04-05 11:41:52 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Silly Jesus: Can't find the broken nose picture right now, I'm sure you've seen it though.

Ever had your head pounded into something hard? It doesn't tickle and you can quickly feel as though you are going to pass out, thus leaving your life in the hands of your attacker.

Actually, I haven't. And considering that those marks disappear based on the angle of Zimmerman's head I believe that those are just shadows and reflections of light off of folds on a bald guy's head. Plus the fact that there are no bandages when any medic worth half a shiat would have put them on his head if they were cuts instead of reflections on stills.


You're intentionally ignoring evidence that doesn't doesn't support your conclusion. You're flat out wrong.
 
2012-04-05 11:42:21 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Silly Jesus: We don't just put people on trial because a mob of people think that it's appropriate. There are standards for bringing charges against someone, and like it or not, those standards were determined to have not been met in this case.

You are arguing for mob justice where if enough people scream loud enough and long enough the DA should call that probably cause and bring someone to trial. It doesn't work that way and I hope that it never does.

A 17 year old who was doing nothing wrong was killed and his admitted killer's story doesn't make sense.

You're saying that putting a man on trial in such a case is "mob justice"? There is something seriously wrong with you.


YOU say he was doing nothing wrong. Witness(es) and a person who was actually part of the incident say otherwise.

The police/DA need to establish Probable Cause in order to bring charges. That is a legal standard that requires certain criteria to be met. Your strong feelings on the matter have no sway on that, so yes, if the mob is intending to change the legal decision through their protests and marches, then I think that it very much fits the definition of mob justice. There is clearly something very wrong with you which is not allowing you to comprehend a very basic tenet of law that is long established and time tested. If there is no probable cause then there is no arrest and no trial. You and Al and the terrorist Black Panthers moaning about it won't, and shouldn't, change that.
 
2012-04-05 11:43:38 PM  

mc6809e: He wasn't doing anything wrong except being offended that someone would follow him, then beating the follower.


If Martin perceived a threat from Zimmerman, would he not be entitled to "stand his ground"?
 
2012-04-05 11:44:51 PM  

kosumi: mc6809e: He wasn't doing anything wrong except being offended that someone would follow him, then beating the follower.

If Martin perceived a threat from Zimmerman, would he not be entitled to "stand his ground"?


He would have to perceive that he was in reasonable fear of great bodily harm. Short of seeing the gun, it's hard to justify him striking first.
 
2012-04-05 11:47:55 PM  

Silly Jesus: It is completely rational to me. He's living in a neighborhood where there has been recent crime by people matching the general description of Martin. It's at night and raining and this guy is out walking around alone. While none of this is illegal or wrong to do, it certainly would be suspicious to a reasonable person given all of the circumstances and the history of crime at the complex.

Whether you like the fact that he walked down a public sidewalk after Martin or not, it's not anything approaching criminal. Hell, people do this all the time with suspicious people. I've done it myself in my neighborhood. I'd hardly call it stalking.


It was barely night, just after 7 pm - so dusk-ish. It's not as if this happened in the dead of night, or at a time when kids should not be out walking around their neighborhood. If seeing a kid walking down the sidewalk is enough to get you to call the authorities then yes, you're not a rational person.

And if you have done this yourself - followed someone walking down the street minding their own business - that's not a fact I would broadcast publicly. It makes you look like a paranoid busybody. No wonder you take Zimmerman 100% at his word without thinking critically about his story.
 
2012-04-05 11:49:55 PM  

Scerpes: You're intentionally ignoring evidence that doesn't doesn't support your conclusion. You're flat out wrong.


I wouldn't put too much weight into all this "zoom and enhance" forensic voodoo, especially when the police photographs of any visible injuries should be sitting on the prosecutor's desk as we speak. Might as well wait and see.

PS that goes for that audio voiceprint story too.
 
2012-04-05 11:50:29 PM  

Scerpes: AdmirableSnackbar: Silly Jesus: Can't find the broken nose picture right now, I'm sure you've seen it though.

Ever had your head pounded into something hard? It doesn't tickle and you can quickly feel as though you are going to pass out, thus leaving your life in the hands of your attacker.

Actually, I haven't. And considering that those marks disappear based on the angle of Zimmerman's head I believe that those are just shadows and reflections of light off of folds on a bald guy's head. Plus the fact that there are no bandages when any medic worth half a shiat would have put them on his head if they were cuts instead of reflections on stills.

You're intentionally ignoring evidence that doesn't doesn't support your conclusion. You're flat out wrong.


No I'm not. I'm saying that the evidence we have does not support Zimmerman's claim and that the stills provided do not tell the whole story. But again I'm thinking critically about the matter instead of taking Zimmerman's word as gospel.
 
2012-04-05 11:51:56 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Callous: You still don't understand that whole "innocent until proven guilty" part do you?

Hmm, I'm pretty sure the only person who doesn't understand "innocent until proven guilty" is George Zimmerman.


So there should never be an arrest before a conviction at trial?
 
2012-04-05 11:52:52 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Scerpes: Callous: Scerpes: Callous: You still don't understand that whole "innocent until proven guilty" part do you? Also, no defendant is required to testify, so he doesn't have to explain shiat. He doesn't even have to say a single word to any investigator.

I agree with you in principal, but it's different with a self defense claim. His version is the single best evidence he has, because there's not a lot to contradict it.

No it's not different, the 5th Amendment still applies.

I'm not arguing that they can force him to testify. I'm saying that if he doesn't articulate his self defense claim, he's sunk. It's a practical argument not a legal argument. There's plenty of evidence against Zimmerman if he doesn't make his self defense case. He's going to have to testify that Martin attacked him, because there's no one else that can do it.

I don't know, from what I'm being told, even asking Zimmerman to back up his claim is "mob justice."

That said, it will be interesting to see what details we don't have when (not if) this goes to trial.


You can ask him, but he has no obligation to answer or explain anything to anyone.

And he doesn't have to testify that Martin attacked him. The prosecutor has to prove he attacked Martin. So far, other than Zimmerman's account, we have no evidence indicating who attacked who first. We have an eye witness that saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, but he didn't see who started it. Zimmerman may very well have and Martin turned the tables on him before the witness saw anything.

If no evidence is found to indicate that Zimmerman started it I expect there will be no trial.
 
2012-04-05 11:53:27 PM  

s2s2s2: Mike Chewbacca: Callous: You still don't understand that whole "innocent until proven guilty" part do you?

Hmm, I'm pretty sure the only person who doesn't understand "innocent until proven guilty" is George Zimmerman.

So there should never be an arrest before a conviction at trial?


Beats accosting and then killing someone because you think they might do something wrong.
 
2012-04-05 11:55:12 PM  

Callous: You can ask him, but he has no obligation to answer or explain anything to anyone.

And he doesn't have to testify that Martin attacked him. The prosecutor has to prove he attacked Martin. So far, other than Zimmerman's account, we have no evidence indicating who attacked who first. We have an eye witness that saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, but he didn't see who started it. Zimmerman may very well have and Martin turned the tables on him before the witness saw anything.

If no evidence is found to indicate that Zimmerman started it I expect there will be no trial.


Martin's girlfriend's statement - and I assume she will testify in court what she heard on the phone - is evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin.

But that's easy to forget if you don't want to see any evidence against Zimmerman.
 
2012-04-05 11:55:48 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Scerpes: AdmirableSnackbar: Silly Jesus: Can't find the broken nose picture right now, I'm sure you've seen it though.

Ever had your head pounded into something hard? It doesn't tickle and you can quickly feel as though you are going to pass out, thus leaving your life in the hands of your attacker.

Actually, I haven't. And considering that those marks disappear based on the angle of Zimmerman's head I believe that those are just shadows and reflections of light off of folds on a bald guy's head. Plus the fact that there are no bandages when any medic worth half a shiat would have put them on his head if they were cuts instead of reflections on stills.

You're intentionally ignoring evidence that doesn't doesn't support your conclusion. You're flat out wrong.

No I'm not. I'm saying that the evidence we have does not support Zimmerman's claim and that the stills provided do not tell the whole story. But again I'm thinking critically about the matter instead of taking Zimmerman's word as gospel.


It absolutely supports his claim. Injury to the back of his head is consistent with having his head slammed against the concrete. Officers noted he was bleeding from the back of the head. One of the witnesses after the shooting noted that he appeared confused. All of that is consistent with his story, and with a reasonable fear of great bodily injury. Nothing has contradicted that part of his story. All you've got is some suspicion. That's not enough.
 
2012-04-05 11:56:49 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Callous: You can ask him, but he has no obligation to answer or explain anything to anyone.

And he doesn't have to testify that Martin attacked him. The prosecutor has to prove he attacked Martin. So far, other than Zimmerman's account, we have no evidence indicating who attacked who first. We have an eye witness that saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, but he didn't see who started it. Zimmerman may very well have and Martin turned the tables on him before the witness saw anything.

If no evidence is found to indicate that Zimmerman started it I expect there will be no trial.

Martin's girlfriend's statement - and I assume she will testify in court what she heard on the phone - is evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin.

But that's easy to forget if you don't want to see any evidence against Zimmerman.


It absolutely is not evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin. She heard a scuffle. She has no idea who attacked who. In fact, she heard Martin call out to Zimmerman first.
 
2012-04-05 11:58:14 PM  

Scerpes: Short of seeing the gun, it's hard to justify him striking first.


No it's not. It's easy to imagine how Martin would have perceived a threat that entitled him to fight back under this stupid ass law. Zimmerman might have done something as simple as put his hand behind his back. He might have said "I have a gun, get on the ground", or "I'm placing you under citizen's arrest." Zimmerman might have approached him in a threatening way. The 911 tape and the girlfriend both back up the idea Martin was running away from Zimmerman, so just the fact Zimmerman seemed to be following him is enough to feel threatened. It's foolish to believe Zimmerman's self-serving account that Martin just snapped for no reason.

And of course it's possible he saw the gun!
 
2012-04-06 12:01:10 AM  
The lawyer is a dumbass for claiming he said "punks."

"Cold" would have been a much better defense.

Also, sorry morons who hear the word "punks" in this.. I have never heard any person with any accent whatsoever pronounce the word "punks" with the same oo sound that is found in the word "coons." Or "Spoons." Or "Monsoons."

farking monsoons.
 
2012-04-06 12:03:41 AM  

Scerpes: It absolutely supports his claim. Injury to the back of his head is consistent with having his head slammed against the concrete.


That is unknown. We don't know the extent of the injury.

Officers noted he was bleeding from the back of the head.

The bleeding was insufficient to get on his clothes or require infection-preventing bandages or, worse, stitches. Your head is extremely easy to cut - moreso for people with buzz cuts because they don't have hair to soften the blow - so having cuts on his head is nowhere near proof that his head was slammed against concrete. In fact, I'd say the lack of severity of his injuries makes his story of having his head slammed into the concrete less than believable.

One of the witnesses after the shooting noted that he appeared confused. All of that is consistent with his story, and with a reasonable fear of great bodily injury. Nothing has contradicted that part of his story. All you've got is some suspicion. That's not enough.

Dude, he just shot someone to death. He's likely in shock so being confused at that point is not surprising at all.

The irony here is that all Zimmerman had was suspicion, too. But Martin will never get to tell his side of the story. So the state must be Martin's voice in the matter otherwise there is no justice in this case. Suspicion isn't enough to convict Zimmerman, but suspicion plus evidence is certainly enough to bring him to trial.

Again, all I'm saying is that Zimmerman should stand trial for his actions. Why is that so bad?
 
2012-04-06 12:04:55 AM  

Callous: The prosecutor has to prove he attacked Martin


Um, what? This would be a murder trial. He's accused of murdering someone. The police found him at the scene, with the weapon. Witnesses saw him moments after the shooting standing over the body. He admitted doing it. The burden of proof is on him to explain his actions.
 
2012-04-06 12:07:00 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: s2s2s2: Mike Chewbacca: Callous: You still don't understand that whole "innocent until proven guilty" part do you?

Hmm, I'm pretty sure the only person who doesn't understand "innocent until proven guilty" is George Zimmerman.

So there should never be an arrest before a conviction at trial?

Beats accosting and then killing someone because you think they might do something wrong.


Leave stuff out, add stuff in, get the conviction!
 
2012-04-06 12:08:04 AM  

Phinn: Mavent: Now tell me, genius: what would have happened if Zimmerman would have simply minded his own goddamn business, like the 911 operator told him too?

Show us the rule that says that people are required to do what 911 operators tell them to do.


It doesn't have to be "the rule".
It doesn't have to be a "requirement".
It doesn't have to be a "law".
What it is is common f*cking sense.

This was not a situation where "you're not the boss of me" was a logical train of thought.
Whenever guns and the possibility of death are involved, listening to AND THINKING ABOUT what others tell you, even if not in any rule book, can be a good thing.

Zimmerman was pigheaded asshole Batman cop wanna be, just like most of the people who repeat his really stupid statement in these threads. Does what someone suggests to you need to be a rule or a law or an edict or a regulation for you to think, "hmm... maybe I should hold off and think about this for a moment!"? Even though what the operator said was a strongly worded suggestion, it was a suggestion he should have followed, and probably would have followed if he hadn't been such an ego-driven asshole.
 
2012-04-06 12:08:32 AM  

kosumi: Callous: The prosecutor has to prove he attacked Martin

Um, what? This would be a murder trial. He's accused of murdering someone. The police found him at the scene, with the weapon. Witnesses saw him moments after the shooting standing over the body. He admitted doing it. The burden of proof is on him to explain his actions.


Another one with no concept of innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the prosecution in so much as they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense.
 
2012-04-06 12:09:05 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Silly Jesus: It is completely rational to me. He's living in a neighborhood where there has been recent crime by people matching the general description of Martin. It's at night and raining and this guy is out walking around alone. While none of this is illegal or wrong to do, it certainly would be suspicious to a reasonable person given all of the circumstances and the history of crime at the complex.

Whether you like the fact that he walked down a public sidewalk after Martin or not, it's not anything approaching criminal. Hell, people do this all the time with suspicious people. I've done it myself in my neighborhood. I'd hardly call it stalking.

It was barely night, just after 7 pm - so dusk-ish. It's not as if this happened in the dead of night, or at a time when kids should not be out walking around their neighborhood. If seeing a kid walking down the sidewalk is enough to get you to call the authorities then yes, you're not a rational person.

And if you have done this yourself - followed someone walking down the street minding their own business - that's not a fact I would broadcast publicly. It makes you look like a paranoid busybody. No wonder you take Zimmerman 100% at his word without thinking critically about his story.


CSB

I am quite the paranoid busybody, indeed. My neighbors house was burglarized 3 times over the course of 6 months. After the second burglary she installed a video system and we were able to get a general description of the suspects. Be warned, this description and the video were very racist...it was three black males in their early teens.

Fast forward 2 months. I'm getting home late from work, around dusk, and I see (warning, I saw something racist) 2 black males walking down the street extremely slowly in front of my neighbors house. As I pulled into my driveway they sped up to a normal pace and continued on down the street. It was a very hot night, and they were wearing black jeans and black long sleeve shirts, so on top of everything else my curiosity was peaked. I'm a racist, ya know. Anyway, I decided to go back out and just out of curiosity take the sidewalk around the block in the other direction. Whadya know, when I came across these two fine fellas again they were in my neighbors yard halfway between the sidewalk and her back door. I said something along the lines of "hey farkers" and they ran off. The police couldn't locate them in the neighborhood afterwards either. They were probably just wanting to use the back door to sell girl scout cookies though and I'm an insane and irrational racist. Oh well.

You see, rational human beings take in data from their surroundings and process it in a way that can lead them to a conclusion. Sometimes it's just instinct. You would see two teens walking incredibly slowly in front of a house that has been burglarized and wearing completely inappropriate clothing for the weather and think to yourself, smugly, "ah, those nice young boys are out for a quiet stroll, they must be cold natured and have gotten chilly" whereas someone who has lived in an area where crime is a reality and not a novelty might read a little bit more into such a thing.

My instincts were correct in this instance, but they could have been wrong. I could have walked around the block and never seen them again. No harm, no foul. But to think that taking in relevant information and formulating an opinion based upon it is completely irrational is beyond the pale.
 
2012-04-06 12:09:27 AM  

Scerpes: It absolutely is not evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin. She heard a scuffle. She has no idea who attacked who. In fact, she heard Martin call out to Zimmerman first.


She said that she heard a man say "what are you doing here?" followed by Martin asking "why are you following me?" followed by a scuffle. Zimmerman did not identify himself as any kind of authority after stalking Zimmerman (according to what Martin said to the girl, he had no idea why the man was chasing him).

Had Zimmerman identified himself as a neighborhood watch instead of taking an accusatory tone then the situation might have settled down fairly quickly. Instead, because of the way Zimmerman approached Martin after chasing him, it escalated.
 
2012-04-06 12:13:35 AM  

Silly Jesus: I am quite the paranoid busybody, indeed. My neighbors house was burglarized 3 times over the course of 6 months. After the second burglary she installed a video system and we were able to get a general description of the suspects. Be warned, this description and the video were very racist...it was three black males in their early teens


And can you see the major differences between your situation and Zimmerman's (aside from the obvious part where nobody died)? I know you have at least a little trouble thinking critically, but I believe in you and think you can spot at least a few.
 
2012-04-06 12:19:37 AM  
Zimmerman was a pigheaded asshole Batman cop wanna be, just like most of the people who repeat this really stupid statement in these threads.

/FTFM
//damn fingers
 
2012-04-06 12:19:49 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Scerpes: It absolutely is not evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin. She heard a scuffle. She has no idea who attacked who. In fact, she heard Martin call out to Zimmerman first.

She said that she heard a man say "what are you doing here?" followed by Martin asking "why are you following me?" followed by a scuffle. Zimmerman did not identify himself as any kind of authority after stalking Zimmerman (according to what Martin said to the girl, he had no idea why the man was chasing him).

Had Zimmerman identified himself as a neighborhood watch instead of taking an accusatory tone then the situation might have settled down fairly quickly. Instead, because of the way Zimmerman approached Martin after chasing him, it escalated.


Asking a question isn't a crime, not identifying yourself isn't a crime. We still don't know who attacked who first.

It was cold, it was raining, both were likely agitated. Either one could have lost their cool and started a physical confrontation.
 
2012-04-06 12:20:11 AM  

Mike Chewbacca:
Precisely. As the legal adult and gun carrier, he's the responsible party. Imagine the uproar if Trayvon had wrestled the gun away from Zimmerman and it was Zimmerman who was dead. Would Trayvon be in jail right now facing murder charges? He sure as hell wouldn't be held up like a hero the way Zimmerman is by some people in this very thread.


Literally no one in this thread is "holding Zimmerman up as a hero". Questioning the mob frenzy built up by one sided reporting does not mean somebody thinks Zimmerman is a model citizen, just that they realize that the family of Martin is presenting very biased stuff and the news channels are eating it up. Zimmerman might very well have committed murder. He also might have committed manslaughter. He also might have acted in self defense. We don't know and as self righteous as you apparently feel right now, neither do you.
 
2012-04-06 12:20:36 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Scerpes: It absolutely is not evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin. She heard a scuffle. She has no idea who attacked who. In fact, she heard Martin call out to Zimmerman first.

She said that she heard a man say "what are you doing here?" followed by Martin asking "why are you following me?" followed by a scuffle. Zimmerman did not identify himself as any kind of authority after stalking Zimmerman (according to what Martin said to the girl, he had no idea why the man was chasing him).

Had Zimmerman identified himself as a neighborhood watch instead of taking an accusatory tone then the situation might have settled down fairly quickly. Instead, because of the way Zimmerman approached Martin after chasing him, it escalated.


You have that backwards. She states that Trayvon asked his question first, then George, then pushing. She then says Trayvon's headset comes off after the second push. That could very well be TM pushing, then getting pushed.
 
2012-04-06 12:21:52 AM  

rewind2846: Zimmerman was a pigheaded asshole Batman cop wanna be, just like most of the people who repeat this really stupid statement in these threads.

/FTFM
//damn fingers


Don't sweat it, no one is paying any attention to you anyway.
 
2012-04-06 12:24:28 AM  

Callous: rewind2846: Zimmerman was a pigheaded asshole Batman cop wanna be, just like most of the people who repeat this really stupid statement in these threads.

/FTFM
//damn fingers

Don't sweat it, no one is paying any attention to you anyway.


I am, rewind. Silly Jesus is the one I'm not paying attention to.
 
2012-04-06 12:26:47 AM  

Thoguh: Literally no one in this thread is "holding Zimmerman up as a hero"


Have you SEEN some of the shiat that 9beers has said? He's probably already picked out the medal he's going to send.
 
2012-04-06 12:30:43 AM  

Callous: The burden of proof is on the prosecution in so much as they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense.


If Zimmerman refuses to explain anything to anyone, as you say he's entitled, he's going to jail for murder due to the irrefutable evidence that he killed Martin. It's as simple as that.

/hmm last post got dropped...
 
2012-04-06 12:31:57 AM  
I wonder what this thread would look like if a black guy chased down a white guy and then the black guy shot and killed the unarmed white guy in self defense.
 
2012-04-06 12:34:41 AM  

kosumi: Callous: The burden of proof is on the prosecution in so much as they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense.

If Zimmerman refuses to explain anything to anyone, as you say he's entitled, he's going to jail for murder due to the irrefutable evidence that he killed Martin. It's as simple as that.

/hmm last post got dropped...


Yeah, that is pretty damn simple.....
 
2012-04-06 12:38:52 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Silly Jesus: I am quite the paranoid busybody, indeed. My neighbors house was burglarized 3 times over the course of 6 months. After the second burglary she installed a video system and we were able to get a general description of the suspects. Be warned, this description and the video were very racist...it was three black males in their early teens

And can you see the major differences between your situation and Zimmerman's (aside from the obvious part where nobody died)? I know you have at least a little trouble thinking critically, but I believe in you and think you can spot at least a few.


Both in a neighborhood with a history of crime.
Both in a neighborhood where this history of crime is linked to young black males.
Both follow young black males based upon history of crime in area and other circumstances, including weather and dress.

Yes, they are completely different.
The only difference is when I said "hey farkers", my guys ran off. In Zimmermans case his interaction ended in a fight. My instance could have just as easily gone down that path.

The part where you called me paranoid and irrational ended when I found the guys in my neighbors back yard. You said I was a psycho for merely following them. What gives?
 
2012-04-06 12:39:07 AM  

kosumi: Callous: The burden of proof is on the prosecution in so much as they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense.

If Zimmerman refuses to explain anything to anyone, as you say he's entitled, he's going to jail for murder due to the irrefutable evidence that he killed Martin. It's as simple as that.

/hmm last post got dropped...


Not if they can't prove it wasn't self defense.
 
2012-04-06 12:40:08 AM  

kosumi: Have you SEEN some of the shiat that 9beers has said? He's probably already picked out the medal he's going to send.


LOL you're so easy.
 
2012-04-06 12:41:53 AM  

Farking Canuck: I wonder what this thread would look like if a black guy chased down a white guy and then the black guy shot and killed the unarmed white guy in self defense.


0/10
 
2012-04-06 12:53:48 AM  

9beers: the limited amount of evidence that has been made public indicates that Zimmerman was acting in self defense.


chasing down an unarmed child and shooting them in cold blood is self defense?


i guess so if the child is black.
 
2012-04-06 12:54:47 AM  

EighthundredmillionthFarker: Well, Zimmermang's lawyer said the word was officially "punks," (new window) which means only one thing: he actually said coons.

Lawyers. They lie.


Maybe it was "coontz".

/we'll never know for sure
 
Displayed 50 of 971 comments

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report