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 Daily Show)   Jon Oliver of The Daily Show lays Zimmerman blame at the feet of a) a poor job by the prosecution b) the incompetent jury c) everyone's favorite Fark tag   (thedailyshow.com) divider line 211
    More: Florida, John Oliver, George Zimmerman, Mark O'Mara, day schools  
•       •       •

3925 clicks; posted to Video » on 16 Jul 2013 at 12:36 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-16 02:46:26 PM  

itsdan: Cops don't wait until they've been attacked to pull their gun in dangerous situations.


They are also trained, and legally allowed to do that.  Oh, and required to actually go into these situations.  Zimmerman just wanted to be a superhero.
 
2013-07-16 02:47:04 PM  

Shadowknight: Wise_Guy: Here's a site that has a map of the complex and where things took place:  http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/04/07/the-logistics-of-tray v o n-martin-and-george-zimmermans-encounter/

Maybe this will help.

Ah, this is making sense now.


Attack the source when you don't have anything else.

If you find fault at what they're saying, debate it.  Otherwise I'll assume you have nothing.
 
2013-07-16 02:47:12 PM  
And Oliver was doing so well until yesterday. Pity.
 
2013-07-16 02:47:42 PM  

Wise_Guy: Shadowknight: I am not saying that he deserved to get his ass beat, legally.  Morally, yes.  He deserved to get his ass beat for being a racist dick.  But legally, no. But come on, he followed the kid, harassed him, and when the kid finally let his emotions get away from him, he pulled a gun (the source of his confidence going into this, I'm sure) and killed a kid.

He didn't "let his emotions get away from him." He attacked him.  It's not like her verbally confronted him or asked him what he was doing.  He attacked him because he was a thug and thought he could beat Zimmerman's ass and there was nothing Zimmerman could do about it. Guess what-- he was wrong.  He made a huge error in judgement and it cost him his life.


According to the one survivor of the incident.

According to the one survivor of the incident.

This *entire* case is based on what the guy, *with the gun*, *who lived to tell the tale*, says.

He has no motivation to lie? He certainly doesn't have to worry about conflicting stories, now does he?

Worked out well for him.

\I personally enjoy the statement I heard earlier this week about Zimmerman
\\"Zimmerman will know what it's like to be Black for the rest of his life - people watching him carefully, avoiding him in public, strangers that are hostile to him. Good."
\\\angry_cat.jpg
 
2013-07-16 02:48:57 PM  

BEER_ME_in_CT: I saw the burns and they are NASTY. Thats besides the point.

When I buy coffee, I ASSUME ITS HOT and I am careful not to spill it. If I  spill it, Its MY FAULT. McDonalds didnt hold her down and spill the coffee on her THAT is why its a frivolous suit. I want that coffee boiling when its put in the cup, I dont want it cooling off halfway to work.

This set a dangerous precedent in this country and corporations and otherwise innocent people are paying the price of frivolous lawsuits like this one EVERY DAY.


No it's not, there are guidelines about how hot these beverages can be. McDonald's ignored those. That's a serious injury. When you spill coffee, you get a scald, a 1st degree burn, MAYBE a blister or two, which is second degree. You don't get third degree burns, and you shouldn't. They knew this was unsafe, and continued to do it. It's when a company knowingly continues with unsafe procedures that I have an issue. Sorry, you're barking up the wrong tree on this one.
 
2013-07-16 02:49:37 PM  

Wise_Guy: If you find fault at what they're saying, debate it.  Otherwise I'll assume you have nothing.


When the source is known to be a racist and outright untruthful one, yes.  I also don't trust The Onion to be factual, but at least they are entertaining.
 
2013-07-16 02:51:03 PM  
Ok, I need to get back to work,

Can I get my troll rating early so that I don't get to miss my score?

Thanks

\P.S Liebeck took place in California in a stopped car in a parking lot.
\\Is getting tired of Zimmerman threads
\\\This made it bearable for me
 
2013-07-16 02:52:03 PM  

Shadowknight: Wise_Guy: If you find fault at what they're saying, debate it.  Otherwise I'll assume you have nothing.

When the source is known to be a racist and outright untruthful one, yes.  I also don't trust The Onion to be factual, but at least they are entertaining.


So you have nothing.  Got it.
 
2013-07-16 02:52:47 PM  

Mikey1969: BEER_ME_in_CT: I saw the burns and they are NASTY. Thats besides the point.

When I buy coffee, I ASSUME ITS HOT and I am careful not to spill it. If I  spill it, Its MY FAULT. McDonalds didnt hold her down and spill the coffee on her THAT is why its a frivolous suit. I want that coffee boiling when its put in the cup, I dont want it cooling off halfway to work.

This set a dangerous precedent in this country and corporations and otherwise innocent people are paying the price of frivolous lawsuits like this one EVERY DAY.

No it's not, there are guidelines about how hot these beverages can be. McDonald's ignored those. That's a serious injury. When you spill coffee, you get a scald, a 1st degree burn, MAYBE a blister or two, which is second degree. You don't get third degree burns, and you shouldn't. They knew this was unsafe, and continued to do it. It's when a company knowingly continues with unsafe procedures that I have an issue. Sorry, you're barking up the wrong tree on this one.


CUPHOLDER, biatch!

\should have been the 2 words from the judge, right before he banged the gavel and said "case dismissed"
\\no restaurant is responsible for whatever stupid shyt you do with their products once they hand them to you
 
2013-07-16 02:54:28 PM  

Tellingthem: Elegy: Bonus fun fact: the prosecutor responsible for prosecuting Marissa Alexander was Angela Corey, the same champion of racial injustice that was the head of the prosecution team on the Zimmerman case.
Also note that Ronald Thompson got a 20 year sentence for firing warning shots. He was also prosecuted by Angela Corey. And he is a white army veteran. So yes even white people get convicted of crimes and sentenced to mandatory minimums in flordia. And there are others serving 20 years under that law...

Link

Orville Lee Wollard, a former auxiliary police force member, shot a bullet into the wall to scare away his daughter's abusive boyfriend. Prosecutors offered him probation. But he wanted to be exonerated at trial. Now he's serving 20 years.

Erik Weyant, 22, fired shots in the air to disperse a group of drunk men who accosted him in a parking lot outside a bar and blocked his car. No one was hurt. But he's in for 20 years.


fine.

but how, then, can you actually kill someone and it's okay?
 
2013-07-16 02:54:33 PM  

Wise_Guy: Shadowknight: I am not saying that he deserved to get his ass beat, legally.  Morally, yes.  He deserved to get his ass beat for being a racist dick.  But legally, no. But come on, he followed the kid, harassed him, and when the kid finally let his emotions get away from him, he pulled a gun (the source of his confidence going into this, I'm sure) and killed a kid.

He didn't "let his emotions get away from him." He attacked him.  It's not like her verbally confronted him or asked him what he was doing.   He attacked him because he was a thug and thought he could beat Zimmerman's ass and there was nothing Zimmerman could do about it. Guess what-- he was wrong.  He made a huge error in judgement and it cost him his life.


Is this one of those "facts" in the "evidence" that everyone is so excited to tell me about to explain this verdict?
 
2013-07-16 02:55:21 PM  

Mr. Titanium: You are arguing that everything is proper because they followed Florida law;  however, the gist of this thread is that many folks think Florida law is a bunch of crap causing inconsistent and improper punishments.


Please cite which particular laws you feel are unjust and crazy in Florida.

The self-defense statute that Zimmerman was acquitted on? Yeah, the majority (if not all) of the states in the nation have pretty much the exact same statute on the books: if you feel like you are under threat of immanent bodily harm or death, you are allowed to shoot your attacker. Zimmerman wasn't acquitted by some crazy statute unique to Florida. He was acquitted on simple self-defense, by the same laws that virtually every other state has, the same way that Roderick Scott, a black man, was judged not guilty for killing an unarmed 17 year old white teen in self-defense in New York.

Please tell me what you would change about the self defense statutes.

The statute that makes it a felony to negligently discharge a firearm without an obvious target? Yup, most, if not all, of the states in the nation also have the exact same law on the books. Would you really want to make this less than a felony? There is a story in the queue that will shortly go green about a patient in a hospital being hit by a stray round. You can ask Marquel Peters or Aaliyah Boyer how dangers stray rounds are. Oh wait, you can't. They're dead.

So would you change this law, or is it a good thing it is a felony to recklessly discharge a firearm.

The 10-20-Life mandatory sentencing laws? I agree, let's get rid of them. That is what judges are for, and part of what we pay them for: their knowledge and discretion in matching a sentence to a crime. I think mandatory sentencing laws are pointless and do nothing but harm when people who are otherwise not a risk are sentenced to barbarically long punishments.

The point here is that Florida isn't crazy house that people seem to think it is. If anything, people misunderstand Florida's draconian mandatory sentencing, which is the real problem in the state and I would personally love to see overturned.

So please, tell me - what laws in the two cases cited - Marissa Alexander and George Zimmerman - need to change besides the mandatory sentencing laws. I am all ears.

How would you make Florida a better place?
 
2013-07-16 02:58:24 PM  

Shadowknight: Elegy: en't you yourself judging someone based on the color of his skin and not on his provable character and past actions?

He was racist that night, I'd wager.  If I was walking though that neighborhood with a hoodie, I doubt I'd have been suspected of anything.


I see. Because you feel it in your heart he was a racist, then he must have been a racist that night, despite all of the evidence we have as to his character and his past.

We can discard all of that evidence, because you feel deep inside that Zimmerman must have been a racist.

There's a word for that.

It's "stupid."
 
2013-07-16 03:00:19 PM  

Loki009: Mr. Titanium: You are arguing that everything is proper because they followed Florida law;  however, the gist of this thread is that many folks think Florida law is a bunch of crap causing inconsistent and improper punishments.

Exactly. What I have been trying to prove! Thank you for agreeing with me!


See this post.

I would seriously like to know which of the above three statutes I listed you would change.
 
2013-07-16 03:01:50 PM  

CheapEngineer: Mikey1969: BEER_ME_in_CT: I saw the burns and they are NASTY. Thats besides the point.

When I buy coffee, I ASSUME ITS HOT and I am careful not to spill it. If I  spill it, Its MY FAULT. McDonalds didnt hold her down and spill the coffee on her THAT is why its a frivolous suit. I want that coffee boiling when its put in the cup, I dont want it cooling off halfway to work.

This set a dangerous precedent in this country and corporations and otherwise innocent people are paying the price of frivolous lawsuits like this one EVERY DAY.

No it's not, there are guidelines about how hot these beverages can be. McDonald's ignored those. That's a serious injury. When you spill coffee, you get a scald, a 1st degree burn, MAYBE a blister or two, which is second degree. You don't get third degree burns, and you shouldn't. They knew this was unsafe, and continued to do it. It's when a company knowingly continues with unsafe procedures that I have an issue. Sorry, you're barking up the wrong tree on this one.

CUPHOLDER, biatch!

\should have been the 2 words from the judge, right before he banged the gavel and said "case dismissed"
\\no restaurant is responsible for whatever stupid shyt you do with their products once they hand them to you


If I hand a loaded gun to someone,and it has a flimsy trigger, that could go off after any minor bump in the road, I shouldn't be held responsible when it does go off and hurts someone?
 
2013-07-16 03:02:44 PM  

Tommy Moo: You cannot convict a man of murder under the circumstances that took place that night.


Under some interpretations of the current Florida laws.

In many of the sane states in the US, he would be convicted of murder, which is why people in those states find this outcome so baffling.
 
2013-07-16 03:04:54 PM  

Mikey1969: Loki009: ALSO FROM THE WIKIPEDIA THREAD ABC News called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits"

Yeah, since ABC said it, it must be true.

It's the media that spread all of the misonformation about the case int he FIRST place. You think it was bluebirds whispering in people's ears?


Dude he's trolling you and you're biting on everything he puts out there. He's not even that good, go play outside or something.
 
2013-07-16 03:06:03 PM  

Elegy: Loki009: Mr. Titanium: You are arguing that everything is proper because they followed Florida law;  however, the gist of this thread is that many folks think Florida law is a bunch of crap causing inconsistent and improper punishments.

Exactly. What I have been trying to prove! Thank you for agreeing with me!

See this post.

I would seriously like to know which of the above three statutes I listed you would change.


I would say either the one where the elderly are able to drive, or make one where you have to use the cars cup holders while driving.

\Liebeck was the passenger
\\The car was stopped
\\\The car had no cup holders
 
2013-07-16 03:08:50 PM  

Elegy: Loki009: Mr. Titanium: You are arguing that everything is proper because they followed Florida law;  however, the gist of this thread is that many folks think Florida law is a bunch of crap causing inconsistent and improper punishments.

Exactly. What I have been trying to prove! Thank you for agreeing with me!

See this post.

I would seriously like to know which of the above three statutes I listed you would change.


Not sure why you are trying so hard. These people are the exact same as the wacko right wingers who think every muslim is a terrorist, they're just on the other side of the fence. They get this idea, or "feeling", usually based on little or no evidence, and refuse to accept reality. Zimmerman did not break any laws, and to even say he was "morally wrong" is false, the way I see it. Zimmerman didn't force Martin to turn around, confront him, and punch him in the face.
 
2013-07-16 03:10:54 PM  

HairBolus: Tommy Moo: You cannot convict a man of murder under the circumstances that took place that night.

Under some interpretations of the current Florida laws.

In many of the sane states in the US, he would be convicted of murder, which is why people in those states find this outcome so baffling.


No, based on only the facts presented at trial he would have been found not guilty of murder in just about every state. But let's not let little things like "facts" and "evidence" alter our opinions.
 
2013-07-16 03:11:06 PM  

HairBolus: Tommy Moo: You cannot convict a man of murder under the circumstances that took place that night.

Under some interpretations of the current Florida laws.

In many of the sane states in the US, he would be convicted of murder, which is why people in those states find this outcome so baffling.


Explain.
Roderick Scott, a 40-something year old black man, killed an unarmed white teen by shooting him

Scott saw the kids messing with his car, grabbed his gun, and went outside to confront them.

The kid charged Scott, but never touched him. Let me say that again - the 17 year old teen never even touched Scott.

Bonus difficulty: Scott was acquitted in New York, which presumably is the model for sane gun laws in your mind.

Explain, please.
 
2013-07-16 03:15:28 PM  

Mattyb710: Elegy: Loki009: Mr. Titanium: You are arguing that everything is proper because they followed Florida law;  however, the gist of this thread is that many folks think Florida law is a bunch of crap causing inconsistent and improper punishments.

Exactly. What I have been trying to prove! Thank you for agreeing with me!

See this post.

I would seriously like to know which of the above three statutes I listed you would change.

Not sure why you are trying so hard. These people are the exact same as the wacko right wingers who think every muslim is a terrorist, they're just on the other side of the fence. They get this idea, or "feeling", usually based on little or no evidence, and refuse to accept reality. Zimmerman did not break any laws, and to even say he was "morally wrong" is false, the way I see it. Zimmerman didn't force Martin to turn around, confront him, and punch him in the face.


I know. It's all based on "muh feels that guns are bad" and not logic, but I enjoy trying.

I swear that half of America wants to turn us into the UK, where its your duty to curl up into a ball and take it when someone violently attacks you.
 
2013-07-16 03:27:28 PM  

Wise_Guy: So you have nothing.  Got it.


I've found debating fiction to be little more than mental masturbation.  It's all subjective.   Facts are not.  You, by any objective measure, are not dealing in facts.
 
2013-07-16 03:40:27 PM  

Lsherm: Shadowknight: He covers about everything that I felt about this case and that forsaken State.  Everything I've seen just drives me crazy.  Apparently, in Florida you're allowed to shoot anyone if you feel scared of.  And as a guy that wears a hoodie approximately half the year, apparently I would be a very scary person if it wasn't for my alabaster skin armor.

The Onion got it right.

Just because Zimmerman was morally responsible for Martin's death doesn't mean he broke the law.  That's what people are having a hard time getting their heads around.


The sad part is that SCOTUS just made it harder to change the law.
 
2013-07-16 03:48:43 PM  
This has been an interesting thread, at least, insofar as one gets to watchSK ignore the honest, obvious answers to his questions and implications, and continue on with what he believed before, thoughts unchanged.
 
2013-07-16 03:52:03 PM  
Yeah, the Daily Show was a little bandwagonny on this one.  I bet they don't even own up to it in a later episode.
 
2013-07-16 03:53:16 PM  
Geez, a thug jumps a guy who is walking behind him and the guy defends himself in the struggle and shoots the thug.

Self defense. End of story. Proven in court.

Anyone who disagrees is just a racist. Quit crying.

Nothing to do with Florida or the jury, which got it right.  You could have that trial anywhere else and it would have the same outcome unless you packed the jury with racists.

Liberals just throwing a temper tantrum like the children they are when they don't get their way.
 
2013-07-16 03:58:05 PM  

MilesTeg: Geez, a thug jumps a guy who is walking behind him and the guy defends himself in the struggle and shoots the thug.

Self defense. End of story. Proven in court.

Anyone who disagrees is just a racist. Quit crying.

Nothing to do with Florida or the jury, which got it right.  You could have that trial anywhere else and it would have the same outcome unless you packed the jury with racists.

Liberals just throwing a temper tantrum like the children they are when they don't get their way.


Another informed espouser of facts enters the fray.  With all the facts in evidence for this case you have to stretch pretty far to come off as racist when defending GZ's actions.  Bravo for pulling it off so effortlessly.
 
2013-07-16 04:03:45 PM  
As long as we're being outraged over racially motivated violence, why isn't this getting more attention?

http://westside.fox19.com/news/news/153671-north-college-hill-boredo m- beating-victim-dies
 
2013-07-16 04:06:29 PM  

Elegy: Shadowknight: He deserved to get his ass beat for being a racist dick.

This is what pisses me off most about the Zimmerman case. Please provide supporting evidence that Zimmerman was racist.

Was it that time when he took a black girl to his high school prom? Was it the two black children he tutored in his own home?

Or was it that time Zimmerman publicly accused the Sanford PD of covering up the beating of Sherman Ware, a black homeless man, by a white police officer? Or perhaps it was all that time he spent mailing out pamphlets and canvassing black churches in his one man campaign to bring Ware's assailant to justice all on his own time and with his own money?

Or perhaps it was the extensive FBI investigation interviewing 35 of Zimmerman's acquaintances and coworkers, you know, the one that failed to turn up even a single person that had ever heard Zimmerman utter anything racist statement?

The slavering hordes clamoring for "justice" because Zimmerman was a racist really piss me off. Isn't the standard for judging someone a racist supposed to be looking at their character and actions?

Why then, do you assume that Zimmerman was a racist? Just because Martin is dead, and Zimmerman's skin tone is lighter than Martin's dark skin, doesn't make him a racist.

Aren't you yourself judging someone based on the color of his skin and not on his provable character and past actions?

Tell me, please, how calling Zimmerman a racist without knowing a single thing about his character is not a racist judgement in and of itself.


Let me ask you.. Is it possible for a person who is not racist, perform a racist act?

Here's what I think - I don't think Zim is necessarily racist, but he did profile Martin.  I think he saw a young, black man and he thought "this guy is up to no good" and based on his race.

I think if Martin were asian or white, Zimmerman would not have had the same reaction.
 
2013-07-16 04:22:13 PM  

AeAe: Here's what I think - I don't think Zim is necessarily racist, but he did profile Martin.  I think he saw a young, black man and he thought "this guy is up to no good" and based on his race.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this instigated by people in the neighborhood being victimized by young black men who were up to no good? Maybe if people were having trouble with asian or white kids, and this kid were asian or white, his reaction may have been similar.
 
2013-07-16 04:26:33 PM  

Shadowknight: If he had just done what he was supposed to do, call the police and go home, none of this would have happened.

 Unproductive. "If 1 hadn't occurred, 2 wouldn't have occurred" doesn't blame 1 for 2, it's just stating the events in order.
 
2013-07-16 04:28:09 PM  

Crewmannumber6: AeAe: Here's what I think - I don't think Zim is necessarily racist, but he did profile Martin.  I think he saw a young, black man and he thought "this guy is up to no good" and based on his race.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this instigated by people in the neighborhood being victimized by young black men who were up to no good? Maybe if people were having trouble with asian or white kids, and this kid were asian or white, his reaction may have been similar.


That may be, but did Zimmerman come to some conclusion based on Martin's race?  And if he did, is that not a racist act?  He assumed Martin was up to no good because he was a young black male.
 
2013-07-16 04:31:38 PM  

AeAe: Here's what I think - I don't think Zim is necessarily racist, but he did profile Martin. I think he saw a young, black man and he thought "this guy is up to no good" and based on his race.



People have an unfortunate habit of using "racist" when what they actually mean is "prejudiced" or "bigoted".
There is no evidence to support that Zimmerman was racist or bigoted. He was clearly prejudiced by Martin's appearance, however.
 
2013-07-16 04:33:47 PM  

AeAe: That may be, but did Zimmerman come to some conclusion based on Martin's race? And if he did, is that not a racist act? He assumed Martin was up to no good because he was a young black male.


The police felt that based on Zimmerman's description of the person and their behavior that it was worth sending police officers to investigate.
 
2013-07-16 04:34:03 PM  

AeAe: Elegy: Shadowknight: He deserved to get his ass beat for being a racist dick.

This is what pisses me off most about the Zimmerman case. Please provide supporting evidence that Zimmerman was racist.

Was it that time when he took a black girl to his high school prom? Was it the two black children he tutored in his own home?

Or was it that time Zimmerman publicly accused the Sanford PD of covering up the beating of Sherman Ware, a black homeless man, by a white police officer? Or perhaps it was all that time he spent mailing out pamphlets and canvassing black churches in his one man campaign to bring Ware's assailant to justice all on his own time and with his own money?

Or perhaps it was the extensive FBI investigation interviewing 35 of Zimmerman's acquaintances and coworkers, you know, the one that failed to turn up even a single person that had ever heard Zimmerman utter anything racist statement?

The slavering hordes clamoring for "justice" because Zimmerman was a racist really piss me off. Isn't the standard for judging someone a racist supposed to be looking at their character and actions?

Why then, do you assume that Zimmerman was a racist? Just because Martin is dead, and Zimmerman's skin tone is lighter than Martin's dark skin, doesn't make him a racist.

Aren't you yourself judging someone based on the color of his skin and not on his provable character and past actions?

Tell me, please, how calling Zimmerman a racist without knowing a single thing about his character is not a racist judgement in and of itself.

Let me ask you.. Is it possible for a person who is not racist, perform a racist act?

Here's what I think - I don't think Zim is necessarily racist, but he did profile Martin.  I think he saw a young, black man and he thought "this guy is up to no good" and based on his race.

I think if Martin were asian or white, Zimmerman would not have had the same reaction.


Or maybe he would have had the same reaction, regardless of Martin's skin color. Maybe he saw a shady dude, walking around in dark clothing at night, with a hoody covering his face in shadows.
And judging by the facts and Zimmerman's personal history my theory is actually much more likely than yours. But please, keep trying to tie that "racist" label on Zimmerman to make yourself feel better about blaming him for everything that happened.
 
2013-07-16 04:35:36 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: AeAe: Here's what I think - I don't think Zim is necessarily racist, but he did profile Martin. I think he saw a young, black man and he thought "this guy is up to no good" and based on his race.


People have an unfortunate habit of using "racist" when what they actually mean is "prejudiced" or "bigoted".
There is no evidence to support that Zimmerman was racist or bigoted. He was clearly prejudiced by Martin's appearance, however.


Fair point.  I stand corrected.
 
2013-07-16 04:38:00 PM  

Mattyb710: Or maybe he would have had the same reaction, regardless of Martin's skin color. Maybe he saw a shady dude, walking around in dark clothing at night, with a hoody covering his face in shadows.
And judging by the facts and Zimmerman's personal history my theory is actually much more likely than yours. But please, keep trying to tie that "racist" label on Zimmerman to make yourself feel better about blaming him for everything that happened.


That's a mis-characterization on my part. As with my previous response, maybe "prejudiced" or "biased" would be a better term.

But my point stands.
 
2013-07-16 04:43:22 PM  

AeAe: And if he did, is that not a racist act?


No. Its prejudiced, not racist.

--Racist: Ethnic group X is better than ethnic group Y.
--Prejudiced: Someone is a member of ethnic/social group X, and therefore possesses trait Z which is common to members of ethnic/social group Z.
--Bigoted: I hate ethnic group X.

It is possible to be prejudiced against your own ethnic/social group, and prejudice is not always a negative (though usually is to justify bigotry when used against those that are different). Saying "All Frenchmen are good in bed" is probably not going to be viewed in a negative light by the French, while claiming they all smell will. Both are forms of prejudice.
 
2013-07-16 04:44:01 PM  

AeAe: Mattyb710: Or maybe he would have had the same reaction, regardless of Martin's skin color. Maybe he saw a shady dude, walking around in dark clothing at night, with a hoody covering his face in shadows.
And judging by the facts and Zimmerman's personal history my theory is actually much more likely than yours. But please, keep trying to tie that "racist" label on Zimmerman to make yourself feel better about blaming him for everything that happened.

That's a mis-characterization on my part. As with my previous response, maybe "prejudiced" or "biased" would be a better term.

But my point stands.


If it was a white guy, or asian guy it is far more likely than not that Zimmerman would have behaved the same way. Please tell me which part of your point still stands?
 
2013-07-16 04:44:08 PM  
Bah, should have refreshed.
 
2013-07-16 04:57:32 PM  

Mattyb710: AeAe: Mattyb710: Or maybe he would have had the same reaction, regardless of Martin's skin color. Maybe he saw a shady dude, walking around in dark clothing at night, with a hoody covering his face in shadows.
And judging by the facts and Zimmerman's personal history my theory is actually much more likely than yours. But please, keep trying to tie that "racist" label on Zimmerman to make yourself feel better about blaming him for everything that happened.

That's a mis-characterization on my part. As with my previous response, maybe "prejudiced" or "biased" would be a better term.

But my point stands.

If it was a white guy, or asian guy it is far more likely than not that Zimmerman would have behaved the same way. Please tell me which part of your point still stands?


I'm speculating as you are.  My point is that I believeZimmerman assumed that Martin was up to no good because he was a young black man and there have been recent break ins.
 
2013-07-16 04:58:14 PM  

AeAe: Elegy: Shadowknight: He deserved to get his ass beat for being a racist dick.

This is what pisses me off most about the Zimmerman case. Please provide supporting evidence that Zimmerman was racist.

Was it that time when he took a black girl to his high school prom? Was it the two black children he tutored in his own home?

Or was it that time Zimmerman publicly accused the Sanford PD of covering up the beating of Sherman Ware, a black homeless man, by a white police officer? Or perhaps it was all that time he spent mailing out pamphlets and canvassing black churches in his one man campaign to bring Ware's assailant to justice all on his own time and with his own money?

Or perhaps it was the extensive FBI investigation interviewing 35 of Zimmerman's acquaintances and coworkers, you know, the one that failed to turn up even a single person that had ever heard Zimmerman utter anything racist statement?

The slavering hordes clamoring for "justice" because Zimmerman was a racist really piss me off. Isn't the standard for judging someone a racist supposed to be looking at their character and actions?

Why then, do you assume that Zimmerman was a racist? Just because Martin is dead, and Zimmerman's skin tone is lighter than Martin's dark skin, doesn't make him a racist.

Aren't you yourself judging someone based on the color of his skin and not on his provable character and past actions?

Tell me, please, how calling Zimmerman a racist without knowing a single thing about his character is not a racist judgement in and of itself.

Let me ask you.. Is it possible for a person who is not racist, perform a racist act?

Here's what I think - I don't think Zim is necessarily racist, but he did profile Martin.  I think he saw a young, black man and he thought "this guy is up to no good" and based on his race.

I think if Martin were asian or white, Zimmerman would not have had the same reaction.


Two things point to the fact that Zimmerman wasn't racially profiling Martin that night. First: during the non-emergency call with Noffke (the dispatcher), Noffke asks Zimmerman what race Martin was. Zimmerman didn't volunteer the information. Zimmerman says in response "he looks black." It's not until almost a minute later when Martin walks closer to Zimmerman - you know because Zimmerman says "he's walking towards me, he's got his hand in his waistband" - that Zimmerman confirms "he's a black male." Check the transcript - Zimmerman wasn't sure of Martin's race until AFTER he called 911. Because, you know, dark, raining, hoodie.

The second thing is this: Zimmerman's community had undergone a rash of burglaries and one home invasion, all of them committed by young black males. One of the teenagers that committed the home invasion was still at large at the time of Martin's shooting. Is it racist, or racially profiling, to suspect that a black teenager wandering around in the rain looking at houses might just possibly be connected to the black teenagers that had been robbing his neighborhood? Is it now racist to report to the authorities that there is a suspicious person wandering around your neighborhood just because he's black?

But look, I get it, I really do. People think Zimmerman was a racist that killed an innocent black baby, and they refused to be swayed by any amount of evidence. You could see a picture of him weeping on Martin Luther King's grave and you would still think Zimmerman is still a racist.

All because Zimmerman had lighter skin that Martin. Because of the color of his skin, no amount of evidence to the contrary is sufficient to prove that Zimmerman isn't a racist. We all know people with light skin are always racist towards those with darker skin, and that's just the way the world works, and you have a hard time trying to prove a negative.

That's why everyone calls Zimmerman a racist despite zero evidence that he was in fact a racist, but they turn cartwheels to excuse Martin for calling Zimmerman a racial slur from the get go. "Oh that's ok," they say, "it was just Martin's culture to call white people crackers, but that Zimmerman, he was a racist that racially profiled an innocent black child."

Quite frankly, that attitude disgusts me, and I find it utterly repugnant. So congratulations on that, I suppose.
 
2013-07-16 04:58:27 PM  

Loki009: So over half a million dollars for using 8pt font rather than 10pt font telling you that driving down main street with pot holes and speed bumps with a hot coffee between your legs is a better idea?


McDonalds served the coffee at 190 degrees, which was shown in court to be literally impossible to drink.  They were warned over and over again that they were serving their coffee too hot, but they continued to do it anyway.  McDonalds was wrong to do what they did, and the lawsuit was valid and the jury's decision was correct.

You need to pick a better example if you want to convince anyone of anything.
 
2013-07-16 05:29:33 PM  

Mattyb710: CheapEngineer: Mikey1969: BEER_ME_in_CT: I saw the burns and they are NASTY. Thats besides the point.

When I buy coffee, I ASSUME ITS HOT and I am careful not to spill it. If I  spill it, Its MY FAULT. McDonalds didnt hold her down and spill the coffee on her THAT is why its a frivolous suit. I want that coffee boiling when its put in the cup, I dont want it cooling off halfway to work.

This set a dangerous precedent in this country and corporations and otherwise innocent people are paying the price of frivolous lawsuits like this one EVERY DAY.

No it's not, there are guidelines about how hot these beverages can be. McDonald's ignored those. That's a serious injury. When you spill coffee, you get a scald, a 1st degree burn, MAYBE a blister or two, which is second degree. You don't get third degree burns, and you shouldn't. They knew this was unsafe, and continued to do it. It's when a company knowingly continues with unsafe procedures that I have an issue. Sorry, you're barking up the wrong tree on this one.

CUPHOLDER, biatch!

\should have been the 2 words from the judge, right before he banged the gavel and said "case dismissed"
\\no restaurant is responsible for whatever stupid shyt you do with their products once they hand them to you

If I hand a loaded gun to someone,and it has a flimsy trigger, that could go off after any minor bump in the road, I shouldn't be held responsible when it does go off and hurts someone?


When McDonalds starts selling guns, we can talk. Otherwise, stick with the subject at hand.

\yea, sure - make it a f*ing gun thread
 
2013-07-16 05:37:13 PM  

CheapEngineer: Mattyb710: CheapEngineer: Mikey1969: BEER_ME_in_CT: I saw the burns and they are NASTY. Thats besides the point.

When I buy coffee, I ASSUME ITS HOT and I am careful not to spill it. If I  spill it, Its MY FAULT. McDonalds didnt hold her down and spill the coffee on her THAT is why its a frivolous suit. I want that coffee boiling when its put in the cup, I dont want it cooling off halfway to work.

This set a dangerous precedent in this country and corporations and otherwise innocent people are paying the price of frivolous lawsuits like this one EVERY DAY.

No it's not, there are guidelines about how hot these beverages can be. McDonald's ignored those. That's a serious injury. When you spill coffee, you get a scald, a 1st degree burn, MAYBE a blister or two, which is second degree. You don't get third degree burns, and you shouldn't. They knew this was unsafe, and continued to do it. It's when a company knowingly continues with unsafe procedures that I have an issue. Sorry, you're barking up the wrong tree on this one.

CUPHOLDER, biatch!

\should have been the 2 words from the judge, right before he banged the gavel and said "case dismissed"
\\no restaurant is responsible for whatever stupid shyt you do with their products once they hand them to you

If I hand a loaded gun to someone,and it has a flimsy trigger, that could go off after any minor bump in the road, I shouldn't be held responsible when it does go off and hurts someone?

When McDonalds starts selling guns, we can talk. Otherwise, stick with the subject at hand.

\yea, sure - make it a f*ing gun thread


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole
 
2013-07-16 05:49:13 PM  
The kiddo got what he deserved...
Blah, blah, blah everything else.
He had Zimmerman in full mount...wailing away and slamming his head into the concrete.
REGARDLESS of how the incident ended up there...
Once it was there, once the kid was on his way to killing him...or at least, farking him up very badly...
I say shoot the farker.
He did.
And was found innocent.
That's about that.
I understand the kid's family is upset...but hey, no one told him to attack the guy...mouth him, flip him off, run away...
But full mount and beat the guy bloody?
I just don't feel sorry for the kiddo.
 
2013-07-16 05:54:11 PM  
By the same Laws if Martin had a [legal] gun and killed Zimmerman he also should have been found not guilty. Do you think that would have happened?
 
2013-07-16 05:59:54 PM  

Rawhead Rex: The kiddo got what he deserved...
Blah, blah, blah everything else.
He had Zimmerman in full mount...wailing away and slamming his head into the concrete.
REGARDLESS of how the incident ended up there...
Once it was there, once the kid was on his way to killing him...or at least, farking him up very badly...
I say shoot the farker.
He did.
And was found innocent.
That's about that.
I understand the kid's family is upset...but hey, no one told him to attack the guy...mouth him, flip him off, run away...
But full mount and beat the guy bloody?
I just don't feel sorry for the kiddo.


Karma says you'll get what YOU deserve.
 
2013-07-16 06:02:33 PM  

Mcavity: By the same Laws if Martin had a [legal] gun and killed Zimmerman he also should have been found not guilty. Do you think that would have happened?


Well that's not really how that whole thing works, but whatever you say.
 
Displayed 50 of 211 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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