Conquer Club

Phatscotty wrote:After all this time and all the evidence?

Not to mention, you seem to state as a fact impossible that Trayvon ambushed Zimmerman. A resident chasing a stranger out of a crime ridden neighborhood is not escalation...it's common sense.

There is no excuse for continuing to push the lies of the media...

"All the evidence?" Martin is walking home from a convenience store
and did not commit any crime observed by Zimmerman. Who knows the
truth of what happens next? The police who arrive on the scene after the
shooting accept Zimmerman's story of self defense and release him.

Had Martin survived the shooting I would have considered jailing both
of these idiots until their stories could be sorted out. It is likely with
the known circumstances that I'd have considered charging Zimmerman
with assault with a deadly weapon and Martin with assault as well.

Zimmerman is a neighborhood watch volunteer carrying a gun. If he'd
been an actual police officer --with the authority to use deadly force--
the case would have been investigated as thoroughly or more than it
was initially here, before dismissing it as a justifiable homicide.

Neighborhood Watch groups are typically "the eyes & ears of the Police"
and observers of activities in their communities, not enforcers. They
have no authority to rough up or chase away people who pass through
their community.

notyou2 wrote:

comic boy wrote:

Jdsizzleslice wrote:Let the riots begin. I hope everyone here realizes that this had NOTHING to do with white people. Someone from a Hispanic descent was defending himself against a Black kid roaming the streets.

I think what you meant to say was ;
' A hispanic coward stalked a black kid for no other reason than the colour of his skin , he then got his arse kicked so murdered the innocent teenager in order to escape. '

That seems to be a fair and accurate statement of the facts. Pity the kid died.

Oh wait, neither of you live in the United States anyways...

oVo wrote:

night strike wrote:there has never been any real evidence saying race was involved

Zimmerman "profiled" him as suspicious and IDed Martin to the police dispatcher as black. So race was involved. IF Zimmerman had "stopped following him" as you say, there would have been no confrontation/showdown OR any reason for this situation to escalate into a shooting death.

The neighborhood had many breakins over the preceding months, so a person who didn't live in the neighborhood walking next to the houses on a rainy night looks suspicious. That would be the case anywhere in the country.

Zimmerman told the dispatcher that the person appeared to be black because the dispatcher asked for a description!!! Was Zimmerman supposed to just lie or say nothing since "black" automatically indicates racism?

How do you know that Zimmerman's following led to the confrontation? He said on the 911 call that he lost track of the suspicious person. Couldn't that person have come back and actually confronted Zimmerman? Or is that just impossible?

oVo wrote:The precedent for Florida now: (1) Follow suspicious characters,
(2) confront & provoke a fight, then (3) shoot them dead. It will
become "The Zimmerman Defense" and possibly kick "The South"
back into the dark ages where Christian morality was ignored
when bigots got bored.

There is no evidence that Zimmerman actually confronted Martin, muchless provoked the fight. If that could have been proven at the trial, then Zimmerman would have been guilty. As such, your "precedent" is inherently flawed and therefore not applicable to anything.

Phatscotty wrote:

oVo wrote:

phatscotty wrote:: I was surprised to learn that the only one who used a racial slur turned out to be Trayvon Martin himself, in how he described Zimmerman to his girlfriend in a text.

You don't know --with any certainty-- what words were exchanged between Zimmerman and Martin.

Yes there is certainty. Trayvon called Zimmerman the C word, and it's in a text message Trayvon sent to his girlfriend, and it is confirmed by the testimony of Trayvon's girlfriend.

Nobody said anything about conversation between Trayvon and Zimmerman.

And by not referring to the conversation between Trayvon and Zimmerman, your statement that Martin "was the only one who used a racial slur" becomes evident as the lie that it is. Stop lying, Phatscotty.

Phatscotty wrote:Not to mention, you seem to state as a fact impossible that Trayvon ambushed Zimmerman. A resident chasing a stranger out of a crime ridden neighborhood is not escalation...it's common sense.

Actually, it is BY DEFINITION "escalation". Seriously...do you English at all, Phatscotty?

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

notyou2 wrote:

comic boy wrote:

Jdsizzleslice wrote:Let the riots begin. I hope everyone here realizes that this had NOTHING to do with white people. Someone from a Hispanic descent was defending himself against a Black kid roaming the streets.

I think what you meant to say was ;
' A hispanic coward stalked a black kid for no other reason than the colour of his skin , he then got his arse kicked so murdered the innocent teenager in order to escape. '

That seems to be a fair and accurate statement of the facts. Pity the kid died.

Oh wait, neither of you live in the United States anyways...

Praise the Lawd.

A man was assaulted, his head slammed into the concrete. He drew a gun and killed his attacker.

Why are so many people upset?

The reaction to Martin's death both before and after the verdict is a sad indication of how ill informed the public is, and a tragic demonstration showing that media in the United States has simply quit attempting to fulfill the duties which are its responsibility in a democratic society.

It's actually quite frightening, that the public can be so damned ignorant while American major media fabricates and edits so as to fan the flames of outrage they themselves have created.

Group of black youths assault a Hispanic man on the street, yelling, "This is for Martin!"

An obvious hate crime - quick, somebody call the President and Mr. Sharpton! .... oops, wrong agenda.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla ... 5359.story

Woodruff wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:I could be wrong as I haven't read all the fine details on either case but from my understanding there are two differences, Zimmerman's case was based on self-defense, Alexander's case was based on stand your ground. While these two have similar situations, the trials/cases are different. The real main difference is zimmerman was already carrying a gun when he was attacked whereas Alexander was confronted, then left the building to go to her garage, get a weapon, then fire a shot. Her life was not in immediate danger since she had access away from the proposed risk (evident by going outside to her car). Had Alexander had a weapon already on her when confronted, it may have resulted in a different conclusion for her case.

I do recognize the different aspect to it, and I don't disagree with what you said there.
And yet..."found not guilty" and "twenty fucking years" is pretty huge disparity for two reasonably similar situations. And EVEN ASIDE from the Zimmerman case and ignoring it completely...twenty years for firing a warning shot at a man with a history of spousal abuse? Justice?

See, the REAL problem here as I see it is that it would have been to her ADVANTAGE to have killed her ex-husband. That way, as with Zimmerman, there would have been only one side to the story. Unfortunately for her, she took the high road.

I agree that is a huge disparity in the situations, though I wouldn't say they are super similar. Had Zimmerman went back to his house to get his gun then went and shot Trayvon, then he would have definitely been guilty of 2nd degree.

You're right in that they're not super similar...Zimmerman killed someone and this black woman didn't. Yet if I didn't know any better, I would be almost forced to assume that the 20-year verdict went against Zimmerman rather than someone who intentionally didn't kill anyone.

patrickaa317 wrote:Though you do have a point where it would have been better off to have killed her ex-husband, maybe future people in her situation will learn from her mistake. I'm mostly joking about that but I don't have much time for dickhead people who beat their spouses or children.

I'm actually not joking about that. It's clear to me that if I have an intruder in my home, I will have to kill them, simply out of self-defense. And that makes me sick.

Zimmerman was being pummeled, already had a weapon on him and used it to defend himself. Alexander was confronted, had a moment to escape, retrieved a weapon, returned to the scene and fired the weapon. That is the key difference that you seem to refuse to recognize. Had zimmerman left the scene, returned, then shot Trayvon and if Alexander had a weapon on herself and was being pummeled when warning shot was fired; the rulings would have been reversed.

I still agree that Alexander's 20 years is ridiculous but recognize these two cases are apples and oranges; or red apples and green apples at the very least.

Zimmerman brought on his situation JUST AS MUCH as Alexander did. Zimmerman absolutely could have avoided the confrontation, so I'm going to have to disagree with you.

Zimmerman could have not followed Martin, you are correct, however he did not anticipate Martin hiding in the bushes waiting to surprise him and start pummeling him. I would guarantee Zimmerman did not want to be in an altercation, let alone a situation where he had to use a last resort of self protection of a firearm.

Alexander's situation, the firearm was retrieved after the altercation. I'm still of the opinion Alexander was put away for far too long for what she did but you continue to only try to find similarities in the case, putting your blinders on to ignore all of the differences. The differences are what end up equating to different end results.

Nobunaga wrote:A man was assaulted, his head slammed into the concrete. He drew a gun and killed his attacker.
Why are so many people upset?

I'm not upset by the judgement. Not at all, actually...I think it was probably the right one.

I AM frankly upset that the situation occurred at all, on several levels. I DO consider Zimmerman to be primarily responsible that this particular situation occurred, as well. I don't think that's unreasonable at all.

Nobunaga wrote:Group of black youths assault a Hispanic man on the street, yelling, "This is for Martin!"

Yeah, that kind of stuff really pisses me off, because it's foisting the situation onto an innocent person. Sickening, really.

I suspect that it's usually done by individuals who would just like an excuse to do it anyway.

Woodruff wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:A man was assaulted, his head slammed into the concrete. He drew a gun and killed his attacker.
Why are so many people upset?

I'm not upset by the judgement. Not at all, actually...I think it was probably the right one.

I AM frankly upset that the situation occurred at all, on several levels. I DO consider Zimmerman to be primarily responsible that this particular situation occurred, as well. I don't think that's unreasonable at all.

Why do you consider Zimmerman to be primarily responsible? To be fair, I haven't read much about the situation, but it appears that a neighborhood watch individual saw a suspicious looking person walking around the neighborhood, approached that person, was attacked, and shot him. The only way I would consider Zimmerman primarily responsible was if he was not supposed to have a gun.

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:A man was assaulted, his head slammed into the concrete. He drew a gun and killed his attacker.
Why are so many people upset?

I'm not upset by the judgement. Not at all, actually...I think it was probably the right one.

I AM frankly upset that the situation occurred at all, on several levels. I DO consider Zimmerman to be primarily responsible that this particular situation occurred, as well. I don't think that's unreasonable at all.

Why do you consider Zimmerman to be primarily responsible? To be fair, I haven't read much about the situation, but it appears that a neighborhood watch individual saw a suspicious looking person walking around the neighborhood, approached that person, was attacked, and shot him. The only way I would consider Zimmerman primarily responsible was if he was not supposed to have a gun.

If I remember right, Zimmerman had called the police, told them that there was a kid on the sidewalk, police told him to wait in the car until the actual cops showed up, Zimmerman gets out of car (ignores cops), approaches said teen with a gun, and then this mess happens.

If I'm Martin and see a guy coming at me with a gun and no badge, my flight or fight instinct would probably kick in too.

That said, I see both sides, and all I can really call it is a huge mess that should never had escalated that far.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:A man was assaulted, his head slammed into the concrete. He drew a gun and killed his attacker.
Why are so many people upset?

I'm not upset by the judgement. Not at all, actually...I think it was probably the right one.

I AM frankly upset that the situation occurred at all, on several levels. I DO consider Zimmerman to be primarily responsible that this particular situation occurred, as well. I don't think that's unreasonable at all.

Why do you consider Zimmerman to be primarily responsible? To be fair, I haven't read much about the situation, but it appears that a neighborhood watch individual saw a suspicious looking person walking around the neighborhood, approached that person, was attacked, and shot him. The only way I would consider Zimmerman primarily responsible was if he was not supposed to have a gun.

If I remember right, Zimmerman had called the police, told them that there was a kid on the sidewalk, police told him to wait in the car until the actual cops showed up, Zimmerman gets out of car (ignores cops), approaches said teen with a gun, and then this mess happens.

If I'm Martin and see a guy coming at me with a gun and no badge, my flight or fight instinct would probably kick in too.

That said, I see both sides, and all I can really call it is a huge mess that should never had escalated that far.

Dispatcher told him he 'didn't need to follow'; not 'don't follow'. Gun was concealed, Martin had no idea he had it when he started pummeling him.

Agree with the mess part that shouldn't have escalated though.

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:A man was assaulted, his head slammed into the concrete. He drew a gun and killed his attacker.
Why are so many people upset?

I'm not upset by the judgement. Not at all, actually...I think it was probably the right one.

I AM frankly upset that the situation occurred at all, on several levels. I DO consider Zimmerman to be primarily responsible that this particular situation occurred, as well. I don't think that's unreasonable at all.

Why do you consider Zimmerman to be primarily responsible?

If he had simply done as the police dispatcher asked him to do, there would almost certainly have not been a "situation".

thegreekdog wrote:To be fair, I haven't read much about the situation, but it appears that a neighborhood watch individual saw a suspicious looking person walking around the neighborhood, approached that person, was attacked, and shot him. The only way I would consider Zimmerman primarily responsible was if he was not supposed to have a gun.

Let me express again that I do not consider Zimmerman to be guilty of murder or manslaughter, and I think the verdict was right. But he literally created the situation himself.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:A man was assaulted, his head slammed into the concrete. He drew a gun and killed his attacker.
Why are so many people upset?

I'm not upset by the judgement. Not at all, actually...I think it was probably the right one.

I AM frankly upset that the situation occurred at all, on several levels. I DO consider Zimmerman to be primarily responsible that this particular situation occurred, as well. I don't think that's unreasonable at all.

Why do you consider Zimmerman to be primarily responsible? To be fair, I haven't read much about the situation, but it appears that a neighborhood watch individual saw a suspicious looking person walking around the neighborhood, approached that person, was attacked, and shot him. The only way I would consider Zimmerman primarily responsible was if he was not supposed to have a gun.

If I remember right, Zimmerman had called the police, told them that there was a kid on the sidewalk, police told him to wait in the car until the actual cops showed up, Zimmerman gets out of car (ignores cops), approaches said teen with a gun, and then this mess happens.

If I'm Martin and see a guy coming at me with a gun and no badge, my flight or fight instinct would probably kick in too.

That said, I see both sides, and all I can really call it is a huge mess that should never had escalated that far.

I don't think Martin knew that Zimmerman had a gun, to be honest. I suspect that Zimmerman approached him about being in the area, and Martin didn't like that. And of course we'll never know who the initial aggressor was.

Nobunaga wrote:A man was assaulted, his head slammed into the concrete. He drew a gun and killed his attacker.

Why are so many people upset?

The reaction to Martin's death both before and after the verdict is a sad indication of how ill informed the public is, and a tragic demonstration showing that media in the United States has simply quit attempting to fulfill the duties which are its responsibility in a democratic society.

It's actually quite frightening, that the public can be so damned ignorant while American major media fabricates and edits so as to fan the flames of outrage they themselves have created.

No I agree. Public Radio and Fox News is about as close to the truth as it gets.

lokisgal wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6OuP-wiiQg

I'm glad you posted this because I LAUGHED! MSNBC is a complete joke. JOKE. Chris Matthews is even STILL employed at MSNBC. I can't take MSNBC seriously. I will answer those 3 questions.

1. Zimmerman was part of a Neighborhood watch team. He had every right to speak to Martin because he was walking in his neighborhood and was dressed similar to the people who had robbed and stolen from the same neighborhood.

2. 911 told him to stay in his car. I know that he got out. It would have not prevented the situation though.

3. The man with the gun acted in self defense. He was being pummeled. So if someone is beating you up... You're just going to let them beat you up? That's what rioters are suggesting.

So answer this question. WHY would Zimmerman decide to shoot him... Zimmerman is of Hispanic decent, and Martin is of African American decent. So that throws the race card out of the question. Zimmerman was doing his duty to his neighborhood. WATCHING out for them.

We will not know Martin's intentions. But why would Martin decide to beat upon Zimmerman?

This all leads back to common sense. Think people. A Hispanic man just decides to shoot a black kid who was just minding his own business? Please, don't humor me. MSNBC already did that.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:A man was assaulted, his head slammed into the concrete. He drew a gun and killed his attacker.
Why are so many people upset?

I'm not upset by the judgement. Not at all, actually...I think it was probably the right one.

I AM frankly upset that the situation occurred at all, on several levels. I DO consider Zimmerman to be primarily responsible that this particular situation occurred, as well. I don't think that's unreasonable at all.

Why do you consider Zimmerman to be primarily responsible? To be fair, I haven't read much about the situation, but it appears that a neighborhood watch individual saw a suspicious looking person walking around the neighborhood, approached that person, was attacked, and shot him. The only way I would consider Zimmerman primarily responsible was if he was not supposed to have a gun.

If I remember right, Zimmerman had called the police, told them that there was a kid on the sidewalk, police told him to wait in the car until the actual cops showed up, Zimmerman gets out of car (ignores cops), approaches said teen with a gun, and then this mess happens.

If I'm Martin and see a guy coming at me with a gun and no badge, my flight or fight instinct would probably kick in too.

That said, I see both sides, and all I can really call it is a huge mess that should never had escalated that far.

COULD YOU POST FACTS IF YOU'RE GOING TO DISCUSS THIS CASE?!?!?!

911 dispatchers are NOT cops and their instructions are not law. Their instructions are recommendations, but no person is legally responsible to follow them. Police officers cannot give orders if they are not on the scene of a situation, even to their own subordinates, so even that wouldn't be a factor.

There's no indication that Zimmerman approached Martin. In fact, he stopped following Martin when the dispatcher asked and he had lost him from sight at one point anyway. There has never been any evidence presented that Zimmerman was walking around trying to stalk someone with his gun drawn like a police officer would be when getting into position around a house.

STOP SPECULATING AND DISCUSS FACTS. It's this type of stupid drivel that's causing all the idiotic comments in the media and the uninformed rioters.

Night Strike wrote:
COULD YOU POST FACTS IF YOU'RE GOING TO DISCUSS THIS CASE?!?!?!

STOP SPECULATING AND DISCUSS FACTS. .

For some reason, when I saw the above parts of your post, my mind immediately jumped to Domo.




--Andy

Night Strike wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:A man was assaulted, his head slammed into the concrete. He drew a gun and killed his attacker.
Why are so many people upset?

I'm not upset by the judgement. Not at all, actually...I think it was probably the right one.

I AM frankly upset that the situation occurred at all, on several levels. I DO consider Zimmerman to be primarily responsible that this particular situation occurred, as well. I don't think that's unreasonable at all.

Why do you consider Zimmerman to be primarily responsible? To be fair, I haven't read much about the situation, but it appears that a neighborhood watch individual saw a suspicious looking person walking around the neighborhood, approached that person, was attacked, and shot him. The only way I would consider Zimmerman primarily responsible was if he was not supposed to have a gun.

If I remember right, Zimmerman had called the police, told them that there was a kid on the sidewalk, police told him to wait in the car until the actual cops showed up, Zimmerman gets out of car (ignores cops), approaches said teen with a gun, and then this mess happens.

If I'm Martin and see a guy coming at me with a gun and no badge, my flight or fight instinct would probably kick in too.

That said, I see both sides, and all I can really call it is a huge mess that should never had escalated that far.

COULD YOU POST FACTS IF YOU'RE GOING TO DISCUSS THIS CASE?!?!?!

911 dispatchers are NOT cops and their instructions are not law. Their instructions are recommendations, but no person is legally responsible to follow them. Police officers cannot give orders if they are not on the scene of a situation, even to their own subordinates, so even that wouldn't be a factor.

There's no indication that Zimmerman approached Martin. In fact, he stopped following Martin when the dispatcher asked and he had lost him from sight at one point anyway. There has never been any evidence presented that Zimmerman was walking around trying to stalk someone with his gun drawn like a police officer would be when getting into position around a house.

STOP SPECULATING AND DISCUSS FACTS. It's this type of stupid drivel that's causing all the idiotic comments in the media and the uninformed rioters.

Except for the testimony of the young woman Martin was talking to. But yes, except for witnesses, there aren't any witnesses to what happened.

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

lokisgal wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6OuP-wiiQg

I'm glad you posted this because I LAUGHED! MSNBC is a complete joke. JOKE. Chris Matthews is even STILL employed at MSNBC. I can't take MSNBC seriously. I will answer those 3 questions.

1. Zimmerman was part of a Neighborhood watch team. He had every right to speak to Martin because he was walking in his neighborhood and was dressed similar to the people who had robbed and stolen from the same neighborhood.

2. 911 told him to stay in his car. I know that he got out. It would have not prevented the situation though.

3. The man with the gun acted in self defense. He was being pummeled. So if someone is beating you up... You're just going to let them beat you up? That's what rioters are suggesting.

So answer this question. WHY would Zimmerman decide to shoot him... Zimmerman is of Hispanic decent, and Martin is of African American decent. So that throws the race card out of the question. Zimmerman was doing his duty to his neighborhood. WATCHING out for them.

We will not know Martin's intentions. But why would Martin decide to beat upon Zimmerman?

This all leads back to common sense. Think people. A Hispanic man just decides to shoot a black kid who was just minding his own business? Please, don't humor me. MSNBC already did that.

So you were there right? And you live in Florida? So you know first hand about race relations between African Americans and Hispanics correct? And because they both have some minority blood in them it makes the issue of race a non issue?
You clearly know nothing about race power or class and let me guess - youre white and dont ever have to worry about any of this...
Have you forgotten why that boy was in the neighborhood? Have you forgotten the photos of Zimmerman released right after he was arrested? Have you forgotten the boy was found face down hands under his body?
The U.S is clearly 2 different countries and you and I don't live in the same one.

so here for your jollies you can read this - Im sure you will dismiss it as well because well thats what people who never have to worry about being affected by things like this do

http://thepoliticalfreakshow.us/post/54 ... io-of-what

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:A man was assaulted, his head slammed into the concrete. He drew a gun and killed his attacker.

Why are so many people upset?

The reaction to Martin's death both before and after the verdict is a sad indication of how ill informed the public is, and a tragic demonstration showing that media in the United States has simply quit attempting to fulfill the duties which are its responsibility in a democratic society.

It's actually quite frightening, that the public can be so damned ignorant while American major media fabricates and edits so as to fan the flames of outrage they themselves have created.

No I agree. Public Radio and Fox News is about as close to the truth as it gets.

Oh good LORD, I can't believe you just said that crap.

Jdsizzleslice wrote:2. 911 told him to stay in his car. I know that he got out. It would have not prevented the situation though.

Please explain how if Zimmerman had remained in his car as the police dispatcher asked him to, that it would not have prevented the situation? Because unless you're suggesting that Zimmerman would then have followed Martin IN HIS VEHICLE, he wouldn't have been approaching Martin to create the situation at all.

Jdsizzleslice wrote:So answer this question. WHY would Zimmerman decide to shoot him... Zimmerman is of Hispanic decent, and Martin is of African American decent. So that throws the race card out of the question.

Uh...what the hell? That's just a thoroughly ignorant statement.

Now, I DON'T think race was particularly a motivator for Zimmerman. But to suggest that race wouldn't be an issue between a black person and a hispanic person is ignorant in the extreme.