Most teenagers are going to tell someone to go leave if they are questioned by some neighborhood watchman. That is the reality, Zimmerman being older should have more maturity and shown a cooler head. Zimmerman can do nothing and I mean nothing to TM or anyone, what valuable info was he going to get. Why did he get out of the car? Slovak why is the dead kid who did nothing wrong on trial in this thread?
0
Most teenagers are going to tell someone to go leave if they are questioned by some neighborhood watchman. That is the reality, Zimmerman being older should have more maturity and shown a cooler head. Zimmerman can do nothing and I mean nothing to TM or anyone, what valuable info was he going to get. Why did he get out of the car? Slovak why is the dead kid who did nothing wrong on trial in this thread?
I called the cops last year on two white 10 or 11 year old kids that were throwing rocks at cars, so what the fukk is your point?
Zimmerman pursued Martin because he lost sight of him and wanted to see where he was going(not against the law by the way) and he was sick of the criminals in that neighborhood getting away. Now granted, Martin wasn't causing trouble, but Zimmerman didn't know this, because he didn;t recognize him and knew he wasn't from that community. It's not Zimmerman's fault that blacks had been causing problems in that area which led to Martin being profiled. Maybe Martin should have explained his situation rather than resorting to violence.
I'll tell you what my point is Slovak.
Do some research and find out before you open your trap.
He called the cops on a 9 year old black boy because the boy was suspicious, not because he was throwing rocks or vandalizing anything.
On April 22, 2011, Zimmerman called to report a black male about “7-9” years old, four feet tall, with a “skinny build” and short black hair. There is no indication in the police report of the reason for Zimmerman’s suspicion of the boy.
The reason that is relevant is that it lends itself to a larger portrait Zimmerman thinking ALL BLACKS are by definition suspicious which is what the family has claimed and what people like me have claimed from day one and what Z has demonstrated through past word and action.
That is significant because he saw trayvon as a 'threat' and suddenly adjusting your pants is 'reaching into your waistband' possibly for a weapon heightening his hysteria about the kid to pursue him.
And now the kid is dead.
So what was that about my 'fukkin point' again?
0
Quote Originally Posted by Slovak:
I called the cops last year on two white 10 or 11 year old kids that were throwing rocks at cars, so what the fukk is your point?
Zimmerman pursued Martin because he lost sight of him and wanted to see where he was going(not against the law by the way) and he was sick of the criminals in that neighborhood getting away. Now granted, Martin wasn't causing trouble, but Zimmerman didn't know this, because he didn;t recognize him and knew he wasn't from that community. It's not Zimmerman's fault that blacks had been causing problems in that area which led to Martin being profiled. Maybe Martin should have explained his situation rather than resorting to violence.
I'll tell you what my point is Slovak.
Do some research and find out before you open your trap.
He called the cops on a 9 year old black boy because the boy was suspicious, not because he was throwing rocks or vandalizing anything.
On April 22, 2011, Zimmerman called to report a black male about “7-9” years old, four feet tall, with a “skinny build” and short black hair. There is no indication in the police report of the reason for Zimmerman’s suspicion of the boy.
The reason that is relevant is that it lends itself to a larger portrait Zimmerman thinking ALL BLACKS are by definition suspicious which is what the family has claimed and what people like me have claimed from day one and what Z has demonstrated through past word and action.
That is significant because he saw trayvon as a 'threat' and suddenly adjusting your pants is 'reaching into your waistband' possibly for a weapon heightening his hysteria about the kid to pursue him.
Actually both parties involved are kind of on trial here.
If the kid didn't do anything wrong, he would still be alive. I am not sure why you and scalabrine feel that acting violently towards someone and causing bodily harm is ok.
By your comments, you feel that Zimmerman was obligated to catch a beating on by Trayvon Martin just because he got out of his vehicle. This makes no sense.
It's stunning isn't it.
You're right 165, this is a scary country....very scary...
And I say that in all seriousness with the mindset of people like Slovak who like Fox News, go out of his way to justify this death on so many levels...
I feel for his family and worse, a mindset he will most certainly pass on to his children...
0
Quote Originally Posted by Slovak:
Actually both parties involved are kind of on trial here.
If the kid didn't do anything wrong, he would still be alive. I am not sure why you and scalabrine feel that acting violently towards someone and causing bodily harm is ok.
By your comments, you feel that Zimmerman was obligated to catch a beating on by Trayvon Martin just because he got out of his vehicle. This makes no sense.
It's stunning isn't it.
You're right 165, this is a scary country....very scary...
And I say that in all seriousness with the mindset of people like Slovak who like Fox News, go out of his way to justify this death on so many levels...
I feel for his family and worse, a mindset he will most certainly pass on to his children...
So then Martin had a death sentence that night no matter what path that he chose? Is this what you are saying?
Please explain to me why is ok to attack someone? Or let rephrase that for you since a black individual was involved and in your mind they have different rights, Why is it ok for a black male to attack someone?
What IF Zimmerman was unarmed and got beat by Martin and then Martin ran from him and the police caught him later that night, or the next day? Should Martin have been charged with assault?
Seriously, this is a good question since you and 165yds think Martin is completely innocent. Take away the fact that Zimmerman had a gun. IF Martins beats down Zimmerman, who is the head of the neighborhood watch and leaves the scene, should he have been charged with assault ?
You are an awful debater.
Stop with your idiotic hypotheticals.
We know that if Zimmerman didn't profile this black kid in a hoodie that night NOTHING HAPPENS. We also know a great deal about Z's mindset given the recorded 911 call.
We've all come to agree on that.
You, as stated in post #498, gave Z a license to profile young black males and say THEY are suspect.
By definition any young black male could be suspect and the stalked by this lunatic because of the actions of a segment of young black males that doesn't make up even .0000001% of the national population of black males.
AND THAT is the problem and where we will always disagree.
You think that mindset is completely legitimate (even though it is against the law for a cop to act on such suspicions of race, yes I know he is not a cop but the law is there for a reason and is ignored by Z and the cops as well) to protect property AND THAT was the impetus for this entire debacle and death.
AND THAT Is why this country is scary because of people like you and Z legitimizing that mindset. You are profiling MILLIONS who have no chance to escape it because of your mindset.
Any black person would call you a bigot of the highest order for that.
Slovak you are a bigot. There is no escaping it. It all came straight from the horse's mouth...
0
Quote Originally Posted by Slovak:
What an idiot you are.
So then Martin had a death sentence that night no matter what path that he chose? Is this what you are saying?
Please explain to me why is ok to attack someone? Or let rephrase that for you since a black individual was involved and in your mind they have different rights, Why is it ok for a black male to attack someone?
What IF Zimmerman was unarmed and got beat by Martin and then Martin ran from him and the police caught him later that night, or the next day? Should Martin have been charged with assault?
Seriously, this is a good question since you and 165yds think Martin is completely innocent. Take away the fact that Zimmerman had a gun. IF Martins beats down Zimmerman, who is the head of the neighborhood watch and leaves the scene, should he have been charged with assault ?
You are an awful debater.
Stop with your idiotic hypotheticals.
We know that if Zimmerman didn't profile this black kid in a hoodie that night NOTHING HAPPENS. We also know a great deal about Z's mindset given the recorded 911 call.
We've all come to agree on that.
You, as stated in post #498, gave Z a license to profile young black males and say THEY are suspect.
By definition any young black male could be suspect and the stalked by this lunatic because of the actions of a segment of young black males that doesn't make up even .0000001% of the national population of black males.
AND THAT is the problem and where we will always disagree.
You think that mindset is completely legitimate (even though it is against the law for a cop to act on such suspicions of race, yes I know he is not a cop but the law is there for a reason and is ignored by Z and the cops as well) to protect property AND THAT was the impetus for this entire debacle and death.
AND THAT Is why this country is scary because of people like you and Z legitimizing that mindset. You are profiling MILLIONS who have no chance to escape it because of your mindset.
Any black person would call you a bigot of the highest order for that.
Slovak you are a bigot. There is no escaping it. It all came straight from the horse's mouth...
At least my kids won't make excuses for things that happen in life that they don't agree with. My kids also have common sense and can put a simple puzzle together.
It's more sad your kids live with a father that justifies a murderer and initial profiling of a dead black teen because of his skin color.
Any kid would find that disgraceful if they understood it, and more likely daughters who have a much greater sense of empathy than your bigoted wannabe hardass.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Slovak:
At least my kids won't make excuses for things that happen in life that they don't agree with. My kids also have common sense and can put a simple puzzle together.
It's more sad your kids live with a father that justifies a murderer and initial profiling of a dead black teen because of his skin color.
Any kid would find that disgraceful if they understood it, and more likely daughters who have a much greater sense of empathy than your bigoted wannabe hardass.
Making assumptions yet again with no proof Slovak. How do you know Zimmerman didn't touch Martin first? You don't. You are blindly taking the word of the survivor and he would seem to be the real shady character if history shows us anything. Can we stick to the facts instead of using if this or if that because we could do that forever and serves no purpose.
0
Making assumptions yet again with no proof Slovak. How do you know Zimmerman didn't touch Martin first? You don't. You are blindly taking the word of the survivor and he would seem to be the real shady character if history shows us anything. Can we stick to the facts instead of using if this or if that because we could do that forever and serves no purpose.
Actually I have based my "Assumptions" off of the actual evidence that has been given to the public so far. Mainly the pictures of the physical damage to Mr. Zimmerman and the witness's story all of which suggests that he was the victim.
All you guys have to go by is the fact that Zimmemran got out of his car after a 911 operator told him that he didn't need to. And of course scalabrine talking about something that Zimmerman had done in the past which was calling the cops on a 9 year old. Which if you are going to bring up things from the past, what about Martin being caught in school a few months earlier with women's jewelry and a screwdriver? And had no real answer as to why he had them. Perhaps this past event gives some validity to Zimmerman's account that the Martin was looking suspicious. Perhaps he was up to no good and not innocently walking down the street minding his own business as everyone is assuming.
Jesus Christ.
We are formulating a stance, constructing and argument.
Are you seriously going to compare a grown man calling NINE ONE ONE on a BLACK NINE YEAR OLD because it was 'suspicious', adding to his serial tendencies of calling 911 mostly on blacks, lending itself to a larger pattern of discrimination against blacks which lead to his profiling of Martin and the deadly confrontation to...what exactly??
Possession of women's jewelry (of which again, no criminal charges of any kind were filed) or possession of a screwdriver which MUST be used for criminal activity even though no chargers were ever filed on that account and no evidence was ever found or any criminal mischief with it...lends itself to what??? And since Z had no foreknowledge of such possession how the hell does that lend itself to his profiling of TM, leaving only one thing: a black boy in a hooded sweatshirt...that is a race and dress that he finds 'suspicious'. This is the essence of bigotry Slovak and you support this mindset!!
Or is it that he is a 'thug gangbanger' and prone to violent tendencies that he MUST have jumped Z? Please make that argument because that is a centuries old one I will rip limb from limb...
0
Quote Originally Posted by Slovak:
Actually I have based my "Assumptions" off of the actual evidence that has been given to the public so far. Mainly the pictures of the physical damage to Mr. Zimmerman and the witness's story all of which suggests that he was the victim.
All you guys have to go by is the fact that Zimmemran got out of his car after a 911 operator told him that he didn't need to. And of course scalabrine talking about something that Zimmerman had done in the past which was calling the cops on a 9 year old. Which if you are going to bring up things from the past, what about Martin being caught in school a few months earlier with women's jewelry and a screwdriver? And had no real answer as to why he had them. Perhaps this past event gives some validity to Zimmerman's account that the Martin was looking suspicious. Perhaps he was up to no good and not innocently walking down the street minding his own business as everyone is assuming.
Jesus Christ.
We are formulating a stance, constructing and argument.
Are you seriously going to compare a grown man calling NINE ONE ONE on a BLACK NINE YEAR OLD because it was 'suspicious', adding to his serial tendencies of calling 911 mostly on blacks, lending itself to a larger pattern of discrimination against blacks which lead to his profiling of Martin and the deadly confrontation to...what exactly??
Possession of women's jewelry (of which again, no criminal charges of any kind were filed) or possession of a screwdriver which MUST be used for criminal activity even though no chargers were ever filed on that account and no evidence was ever found or any criminal mischief with it...lends itself to what??? And since Z had no foreknowledge of such possession how the hell does that lend itself to his profiling of TM, leaving only one thing: a black boy in a hooded sweatshirt...that is a race and dress that he finds 'suspicious'. This is the essence of bigotry Slovak and you support this mindset!!
Or is it that he is a 'thug gangbanger' and prone to violent tendencies that he MUST have jumped Z? Please make that argument because that is a centuries old one I will rip limb from limb...
First of all, whatever trouble a nine year old is causing doesn't require law enforcement. Even if a nine year old was wildly weilding a knife in front of me, I'd subdue him myself because he is NINE.
And your last sentence justifies bigoted behavior because it makes EVERY black male suspect. If you believe that is justified, then your support of broad racial profiling makes you a bigot.
It means that evey black male baby born today and hereafter must suffer a life of being suspect of crime, because again, a minuscule percentage were actually guilty of crime in that area. And this is white privilege because even though, in absolute terms, whites commit much more crime, not a single one born today will be suspect because of his race. Not ONE.
Yet here in this very thread it is done...to reasonably justify the black kid's corpse lying face down on the ground....interesting no?
0
First of all, whatever trouble a nine year old is causing doesn't require law enforcement. Even if a nine year old was wildly weilding a knife in front of me, I'd subdue him myself because he is NINE.
And your last sentence justifies bigoted behavior because it makes EVERY black male suspect. If you believe that is justified, then your support of broad racial profiling makes you a bigot.
It means that evey black male baby born today and hereafter must suffer a life of being suspect of crime, because again, a minuscule percentage were actually guilty of crime in that area. And this is white privilege because even though, in absolute terms, whites commit much more crime, not a single one born today will be suspect because of his race. Not ONE.
Yet here in this very thread it is done...to reasonably justify the black kid's corpse lying face down on the ground....interesting no?
I'm sure you could scour the web and find a nine year old setting off a bomb, of which police would be necessary.
So you think scouring YouTube and finding a kid joyriding, in a place where you could do nothing given he driving a 2 TON vehicle, is a good counterexample to George Zimmeman calling the cops on a nine year old in his neighborhood looking 'suspicious.'
Looking 'suspicious' to George Zimmerman doesn't hold much credibility now does it because the kid he was 'suspicious' of had refreshments, not a gun, not a hammer, not a lock pick...refreshments.
And he was suspicious of a nine year old.
BOTH were black.
If you keep this idiocy up and think you are disproving an argument by taking a ridiculous extreme, we can stop all this now because there is no point. It isn't even worth my time.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Slovak:
Ok scalabrine, whatever you say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcqOgnQyXp4
Again the ridiculous examples dominate.
Don't be a lawyer Slovak.
I'm sure you could scour the web and find a nine year old setting off a bomb, of which police would be necessary.
So you think scouring YouTube and finding a kid joyriding, in a place where you could do nothing given he driving a 2 TON vehicle, is a good counterexample to George Zimmeman calling the cops on a nine year old in his neighborhood looking 'suspicious.'
Looking 'suspicious' to George Zimmerman doesn't hold much credibility now does it because the kid he was 'suspicious' of had refreshments, not a gun, not a hammer, not a lock pick...refreshments.
And he was suspicious of a nine year old.
BOTH were black.
If you keep this idiocy up and think you are disproving an argument by taking a ridiculous extreme, we can stop all this now because there is no point. It isn't even worth my time.
How in the world do you know that every black male Z called the cops on was unfamiliar???
Good neighborhood watchmen Zimmerman has all the black boy faces memorized in his neighborhood, especially ones with hoods on their head!?
It was about them being Black and you are supporting the behavior! That is a bigot. You condone actions of one individual profiling an entire race of males, MILLIONS, because of disproportionate crime rates (ignoring absolute crime rates which are far greater for whites, but that's normal because you'll accept those rates right up until the disproportionate black rates. White privilege and bigotry pure and simple.)
0
How in the world do you know that every black male Z called the cops on was unfamiliar???
Good neighborhood watchmen Zimmerman has all the black boy faces memorized in his neighborhood, especially ones with hoods on their head!?
It was about them being Black and you are supporting the behavior! That is a bigot. You condone actions of one individual profiling an entire race of males, MILLIONS, because of disproportionate crime rates (ignoring absolute crime rates which are far greater for whites, but that's normal because you'll accept those rates right up until the disproportionate black rates. White privilege and bigotry pure and simple.)
Hot Forum Topics
