Trayvon Martin

[mackenzie]

Unfortunately i can't guess how touchy or PC a fellow poster is, guessing and jumping to conclusions is your bag not mine

on the subject of reporting blacks i think more info is required really, you have made your mind up he is a rascist and he may well be, you just don't have any concrete facts to back it up

this thread alone proves the case isn't black and white(no pun) how any rational person can lean heavily to one side or the other is beyond me tbh

Come on. You must have an opinion based on what we DO know. I understand why he was acquitted I honestly do, but everything about the guy smacks to me of someone who had a bee in his bonnet about blacks.
If me having that opinion is contrary to yours then fine. We are all individuals.

I agree that the gun laws in America need to be looked at; it's a bloody mad state of affairs out there.

In all honesty i have no idea if he had a problem with blacks or was just pissed off with criminal elements in his area, he could see himself as some sort of clint eastwood wannabe, i haven't defended the guy

what is the strongest piece of info you have to suggest he is rascist?

The fact that he saw a young black lad as someone who needed to be watched, followed and apprehended.
I honestly can't get my head around that.

 

[mackenzie]

nothing patronising about being called a silly woman...

.

Rick, pardon my French, but how the fuck would you know?! ;-)

 

[hilts]

Come on. You must have an opinion based on what we DO know. I understand why he was acquitted I honestly do, but everything about the guy smacks to me of someone who had a bee in his bonnet about blacks.
If me having that opinion is contrary to yours then fine. We are all individuals.

I agree that the gun laws in America need to be looked at; it's a bloody mad state of affairs out there.

In all honesty i have no idea if he had a problem with blacks or was just pissed off with criminal elements in his area, he could see himself as some sort of clint eastwood wannabe, i haven't defended the guy

what is the strongest piece of info you have to suggest he is rascist?

The fact that he saw a young black lad as someone who needed to be watched, followed and apprehended.
I honestly can't get my head around that.

And this is my point martin was black there was nothing Zimmerman could do about that, that was the circumstances, if he was white would he have acted differently we don't know, should he not follow someone because of their skin colour, if the only fact you have
is that he followed someone and he was black and therefore is racist that is more than flimsy.

I read somewhere that sanford has one of the highest crime rates per population in the USA which means it must be pretty bad, maybe he saw a young kid hanging around in the rain who he did't recognise? you can't rationally determine his motives

 

[ElanJo]

You answer your own questions from your own point of view yet agree you were a harbinger of racial profiling with regards to your own safety, but don't class it as racist?? If you said that to an independent psych analyst, I would think they may offer you another opinion. Genius...

I cannot believe I have read that an unarmed teen's fight with an armed man with a history of aggressive behaviour was "almost certainly justifiable" in the result of death. You have no clue what happened. Where was Zimmerman's gun if he was able to discharge from being straddled? Obviously on him, so it was clear that Zimmerman's frame of mind was readied "for any eventuality" when he decided a 'slow walking' Martin, who was armed with sweets and a drink was 'suspicious'. But you can't make an argument against the 'premeditation factor' cos it means Zimmerman would have to be unarmed.

Your(now unsurprising) comment staggers belief. You are making assumptions on this part of Martin's involvement and, therefore, adjudging his life to be worth less.

There are some real class kunts on BM, for real.

I have more of a clue than you, I know that much. I know that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman and that he didn't stop bringing his arms down on him "MMA style" even when John Good came outside. At that point he is certainly the aggressor. Even if Zimmerman threw the first punch, for which there is no evidence, it doesn't matter. Considering Trayvon either waited at or turned around and went back up to the T, it makes more sense that he started it. But it doesn't matter.
BTW, stop saying "unarmed" or "armed with skittles/sweets", what relevance does it have? Zimmerman did not know whether or not he had a gun. It's just emotionally manipulative language in place of a real argument.

Being prepared does not equal premeditation, obviously.

Why is my comment "now unsurprising"?

How does the act of making assumptions about someone mean that as I result I am judging their life worth less?

You'll notice that I am asking you questions again as I always do (which is kind of foolish on my part because you rarely ever answer my questions). That's because you don't make arguments, and when you do they are all too often masked behind, let's say, convoluted grandstanding.

"Unsurprising" that you actually believe the sh*t you type.

Yes, I gather that, but I asked why is it "now" (unsurprising) to you, not what you meant by unsurprising.

Why are YOU persisting with the "ground and pound" line when it has been said on here that that statement had been retracted? Using a false support again?

But it had't been retracted. He talked about it in the trial. To accuse me of using 'false support again' means that I've used false support before. I haven't. If you think I have, well, then prove it.

You said that Martin's death was "almost certainly justifiable" which is claiming Martin's death, being unarmed(FACT and not RETRACTED!), to Zimmerman's armed non-disclosure makes sense. You don't feel for the kid who had no chance against that.

Is this in reply to my question regarding value from assumption? Don't pretend that you know what I feel.

You stated some bull about pulling out a machete and having the ability to shoot that person dead before or some fucking bollocks. I mean, wtf has that got to do with this situation, that isn't even remotely similar? False supporting argument. AGAIN.

FFS, you're dim, I created the machete scenario to illustrate that you can still be justified in using deadly force even if you start the fight.

You even said some crap about 'not being able to retreat'? At what point does this become a relevance? When he was on the phone to the police where he could he let them handle the event? When he was suggested not follow Martin? When he was in his car? When the confrontation happened where he COULD HAVE disclosed his firearm before the fight?

Not being able to retreat is relevant, pertaining to the use of deadly force in classical self defense, because ordinarily you'd have a duty to retreat. If you're pinned down or backed into a corner or a dead end, you have no other option. This becomes relevant in this case once Martin is straddled on top.

When you arm yourself with a deadly weapon, how can you NOT be in a pre-meditative state for a threat? This means you have contemplated a situation before an event. that means you KNOW you may have / want to use it at some point.

If you want to use premeditated in that sense then OK, I guess. People normally don't use the word in that way. Taking an umbrella with you is usually described as being prepared for rain, we don't usually say we're in a pre meditative state for dryness/wetness (whichever way you want to look at it) but alright...

That's a dick of a statement, even for you!

Considering you haven't replied to my points in order and have brought up stuff I've said to other people, I'm not sure what statement you're referring to here

So who else corroborates Martin's movement except for Zimmerman? John Good tries to verbally stop a fight, did he also say that Zimmerman's life was 'in danger'? No. He said to 'stop' or 'cut it out' and that he was 'calling the police'.

Which movement exactly? Good said he thought it was serious as he went back inside.

How many fights have you witnessed where you have seen the guys stop cos someone asked them to? It's very rare and you're using this argument with a teenager.

If Trayvon was in fear there is reason to believe he would have stopped when someone else arrived on the scene.

Pathetic.

:'(

 

[dazdon]

nothing patronising about being called a silly woman...

The best part about this entire thing is there are like 4 idiots on here supporting zimmerman and most of their defence of him is telling people to give up and accusing them of not watching the trial. Anyone who thinks that dumb prick needed to kill someone to defend himself in a fight he started should seek help.

 

[Bigga]

I have more of a clue than you, I know that much. I know that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman and that he didn't stop bringing his arms down on him "MMA style" even when John Good came outside. At that point he is certainly the aggressor. Even if Zimmerman threw the first punch, for which there is no evidence, it doesn't matter. Considering Trayvon either waited at or turned around and went back up to the T, it makes more sense that he started it. But it doesn't matter.
BTW, stop saying "unarmed" or "armed with skittles/sweets", what relevance does it have? Zimmerman did not know whether or not he had a gun. It's just emotionally manipulative language in place of a real argument.

Being prepared does not equal premeditation, obviously.

Why is my comment "now unsurprising"?

How does the act of making assumptions about someone mean that as I result I am judging their life worth less?

You'll notice that I am asking you questions again as I always do (which is kind of foolish on my part because you rarely ever answer my questions). That's because you don't make arguments, and when you do they are all too often masked behind, let's say, convoluted grandstanding.

"Unsurprising" that you actually believe the sh*t you type.

Yes, I gather that, but I asked why is it "now" (unsurprising) to you, not what you meant by unsurprising.

Why are YOU persisting with the "ground and pound" line when it has been said on here that that statement had been retracted? Using a false support again?

But it had't been retracted. He talked about it in the trial. To accuse me of using 'false support again' means that I've used false support before. I haven't. If you think I have, well, then prove it.

You said that Martin's death was "almost certainly justifiable" which is claiming Martin's death, being unarmed(FACT and not RETRACTED!), to Zimmerman's armed non-disclosure makes sense. You don't feel for the kid who had no chance against that.

Is this in reply to my question regarding value from assumption? Don't pretend that you know what I feel.

You stated some bull about pulling out a machete and having the ability to shoot that person dead before or some fucking bollocks. I mean, wtf has that got to do with this situation, that isn't even remotely similar? False supporting argument. AGAIN.

FFS, you're dim, I created the machete scenario to illustrate that you can still be justified in using deadly force even if you start the fight.

You even said some crap about 'not being able to retreat'? At what point does this become a relevance? When he was on the phone to the police where he could he let them handle the event? When he was suggested not follow Martin? When he was in his car? When the confrontation happened where he COULD HAVE disclosed his firearm before the fight?

Not being able to retreat is relevant, pertaining to the use of deadly force in classical self defense, because ordinarily you'd have a duty to retreat. If you're pinned down or backed into a corner or a dead end, you have no other option. This becomes relevant in this case once Martin is straddled on top.

When you arm yourself with a deadly weapon, how can you NOT be in a pre-meditative state for a threat? This means you have contemplated a situation before an event. that means you KNOW you may have / want to use it at some point.

If you want to use premeditated in that sense then OK, I guess. People normally don't use the word in that way. Taking an umbrella with you is usually described as being prepared for rain, we don't usually say we're in a pre meditative state for dryness/wetness (whichever way you want to look at it) but alright...

That's a dick of a statement, even for you!

Considering you haven't replied to my points in order and have brought up stuff I've said to other people, I'm not sure what statement you're referring to here

So who else corroborates Martin's movement except for Zimmerman? John Good tries to verbally stop a fight, did he also say that Zimmerman's life was 'in danger'? No. He said to 'stop' or 'cut it out' and that he was 'calling the police'.

Which movement exactly? Good said he thought it was serious as he went back inside.

How many fights have you witnessed where you have seen the guys stop cos someone asked them to? It's very rare and you're using this argument with a teenager.

If Trayvon was in fear there is reason to believe he would have stopped when someone else arrived on the scene.

Pathetic.

:'(

John Good was, indeed, asked about the 'ground and pound' description, but he also underlined that that was the only way he could describe what he saw as a complete action. To many people who see MMA, "ground and pound" means bringing individual hands, or double fists, down to the opponent's upper body/ facial area. John Good did not visually show this movement. In fact, he choose to visually move as two hands together, both arms parallel, and the whole movement causing his shoulders to raise and drop, repeatedly.

This did not indicate where his hands were in relation to Zimmerman's face. It could have been on his lapels, round his neck OR or on his face; there is no way of knowing. there is a way to deduce a clearer picture by common sense, though. Martin's hands round Zimmerman's neck would prevent him from 'screaming for help, two or three times'. Would you assume that hand strikes to the face would do the same, if the back of Zimmerman's head was against the concrete? I think this scenario is also unlikely as Zimmerman would be highly concussed and disorientated to reach and discharge his weapon.

This leaves the lapels(this is after the initial tussle, Zimmerman may have sustained those injuries in both of them falling to the ground) where Martin may have grabbed Zimmerman and is shaking him. Zimmerman would be 'bucking, allowing him to 'cry for help', but also allowing him to reach for his concealed weapon. It also covers what John Good saw in a snapshot with his description.

'Life in danger'? Unlikely.

I asked who else "corroborates Martin's movement" as in saw Martin 'disappear and reappear again' as Zimmerman describes? Just Zimmerman, I think. Unless you have a supporting witness I missed?

Your 'machete' argument is shit, as well you know. I pre-empted your response by framing it in comparison to the unarmed Martin case. See the difference? You truly are predictable.

You also choose to compare the arming of a deadly weapon(again something I inserted in case you chose to be pedantic and guess what...?) against an 'umbrella'. Not sure since when an umbrella was created to take a life on purpose. But, hey, this is you I'm talking to, isn't it...?

I ask about how many fights you may have witnessed where people break apart when asked to stop. You choose to ignore a valid question and frame Martin within your response. this'll be Martin unafraid to fight a man bigger than him as he didn't know he had a gun. Was it an unreasonable question?? No.


Therefore, we come back to the "now unsurprising" observation.



Am I surprised at your continuing predictability...??

 

[SWP's back]

Come on. You must have an opinion based on what we DO know. I understand why he was acquitted I honestly do, but everything about the guy smacks to me of someone who had a bee in his bonnet about blacks.
If me having that opinion is contrary to yours then fine. We are all individuals.

I agree that the gun laws in America need to be looked at; it's a bloody mad state of affairs out there.

In all honesty i have no idea if he had a problem with blacks or was just pissed off with criminal elements in his area, he could see himself as some sort of clint eastwood wannabe, i haven't defended the guy

what is the strongest piece of info you have to suggest he is rascist?

The fact that he saw a young black lad as someone who needed to be watched, followed and apprehended.
I honestly can't get my head around that.

But YOU personally already conceded that if it had been a white lad with a baseball and tattoos he'd have probably followed him as well.

 

[johnmc]

This leaves the lapels(this is after the initial tussle, Zimmerman may have sustained those injuries in both of them falling to the ground) where Martin may have grabbed Zimmerman and is shaking him. Zimmerman would be 'bucking, allowing him to 'cry for help', but also allowing him to reach for his concealed weapon. It also covers what John Good saw in a snapshot with his description.

Cant agree that he would have the strength to damage the back of Zimmermans head as he did as per the footage if he just had hold of the lapels.

Zimmerman isnt skinny and uit would take some doing to damage the back of his head like that.

This doesnt reflect my opinion on Zimmermans guilt but i do believe he was getting a good beating, but of his own making

 

[Bigga]

This leaves the lapels(this is after the initial tussle, Zimmerman may have sustained those injuries in both of them falling to the ground) where Martin may have grabbed Zimmerman and is shaking him. Zimmerman would be 'bucking, allowing him to 'cry for help', but also allowing him to reach for his concealed weapon. It also covers what John Good saw in a snapshot with his description.

Cant agree that he would have the strength to damage the back of Zimmermans head as he did as per the footage if he just had hold of the lapels.

Zimmerman isnt skinny and uit would take some doing to damage the back of his head like that.

This doesnt reflect my opinion on Zimmermans guilt but i do believe he was getting a good beating, but of his own making

I did qualify my opinion by the damage being sustained in the fall to the concrete with Martin ending on top. Don't get me wrong, I believe Martin delivered punches as well, but no other scenario makes much sense.

 

[johnmc]

I did qualify my opinion by the damage being sustained in the fall to the concrete with Martin ending on top. Don't get me wrong, I believe Martin delivered punches as well, but no other scenario makes much sense.

You could well be right, I wonder if it is known whether the injuries were caused by one blow or more than one. That might tell us a bit more but we would still never know the full story unless Zimmerman is called to witness in the civil case and is 100% honest.

Dont hold your breath for that though!

 

[mackenzie]

I concede that Zimmerman would probably have followed anyone that didn't fit his image or idea of 'normality' but how do we know he didn't? Yet all the calls to the Police seem to be about black lads.

 

[hilts]

I concede that Zimmerman would probably have followed anyone that didn't fit his image or idea of 'normality' but how do we know he didn't? Yet all the calls to the Police seem to be about black lads.

All the calls?

 

[mackenzie]

I concede that Zimmerman would probably have followed anyone that didn't fit his image or idea of 'normality' but how do we know he didn't? Yet all the calls to the Police seem to be about black lads.

All the calls?

Go on then, you tell me.

 

[hilts]

I concede that Zimmerman would probably have followed anyone that didn't fit his image or idea of 'normality' but how do we know he didn't? Yet all the calls to the Police seem to be about black lads.

All the calls?

Go on then, you tell me.

Tell you what? you have just said ALL the calls to the police were about black kids, you just made a statement of fact. I was hoping you would tell me where this info came from.

 

[mackenzie]

All the calls?

Go on then, you tell me.

Tell you what? you have just said ALL the calls to the police were about black kids, you just made a statement of fact. I was hoping you would tell me where this info came from.

The other poster said that his previous calls were predominantly concerned with black lads. Not 'all' I admit but certainly more than would be the norm according to that same poster.

Anyway, what's your problem with this case? He was acquitted wasn't he? Is it that you feel the 'race' card was called and so you need to defend?

Genuine question.

 

[hilts]

Go on then, you tell me.

Tell you what? you have just said ALL the calls to the police were about black kids, you just made a statement of fact. I was hoping you would tell me where this info came from.

The other poster said that his previous calls were predominantly concerned with black lads. Not 'all' I admit but certainly more than would be the norm according to that same poster.

Anyway, what's your problem with this case? He was acquitted wasn't he? Is it that you feel the 'race' card was called and so you need to defend?

Genuine question.

So by saying ALL you were being dishonest then nice one, i am not defending anyone as i have said many times, from memory you have said Zimmerman got enjoyment from his actions, that he racially stereotyped Martin, He has a bee in his bonnet about blacks, and all his phone calls were about blacks.

I keep questioning you about how you have come to this conclusion and what facts you have

so far you have managed - he followed a black kid(later admitting he may have done the same with a white kid) and the only other was a downright lie

my interest in this thread is how people seem to make up their minds one way or the other without any reasonable info

all you have done is type stuff you can't back up, eventually admit you can't back it up, and then post more shit and and away we go again

 

[mackenzie]

Tell you what? you have just said ALL the calls to the police were about black kids, you just made a statement of fact. I was hoping you would tell me where this info came from.

The other poster said that his previous calls were predominantly concerned with black lads. Not 'all' I admit but certainly more than would be the norm according to that same poster.

Anyway, what's your problem with this case? He was acquitted wasn't he? Is it that you feel the 'race' card was called and so you need to defend?

Genuine question.

So by saying ALL you were being dishonest then nice one, i am not defending anyone as i have said many times, from memory you have said Zimmerman got enjoyment from his actions, that he racially stereotyped Martin, He has a bee in his bonnet about blacks, and all his phone calls were about blacks.

I keep questioning you about how you have come to this conclusion and what facts you have

so far you have managed - he followed a black kid(later admitting he may have done the same with a white kid) and the only other was a downright lie

my interest in this thread is how people seem to make up their minds one way or the other without any reasonable info

all you have done is type stuff you can't back up, eventually admit you can't back it up, and then post more shit and and away we go again

I think you post shit. You really want this guy to be seen as a victim of circumstance or the race card and that pisses me off.
The trial and acquittal now gives a momentum for your desire to see that.

A 17 year old lad died and yet nobody is to blame??

 

[hilts]

The other poster said that his previous calls were predominantly concerned with black lads. Not 'all' I admit but certainly more than would be the norm according to that same poster.

Anyway, what's your problem with this case? He was acquitted wasn't he? Is it that you feel the 'race' card was called and so you need to defend?

Genuine question.

So by saying ALL you were being dishonest then nice one, i am not defending anyone as i have said many times, from memory you have said Zimmerman got enjoyment from his actions, that he racially stereotyped Martin, He has a bee in his bonnet about blacks, and all his phone calls were about blacks.

I keep questioning you about how you have come to this conclusion and what facts you have

so far you have managed - he followed a black kid(later admitting he may have done the same with a white kid) and the only other was a downright lie

my interest in this thread is how people seem to make up their minds one way or the other without any reasonable info

all you have done is type stuff you can't back up, eventually admit you can't back it up, and then post more shit and and away we go again

I think you post shit. You really want this guy to be seen as a victim of circumstance or the race card and that pisses me off.
The trial and acquittal now gives a momentum for your desire to see that.

A 17 year old lad died and yet nobody is to blame??

Sorry but you are a complete idiot, you make shit up, you lie, you don't have the decency to read peoples posts properly or understand what they are trying to say or you decide to just ignore it, you don't have a clue what the fuck i think but as per usual you make assumptions, you're obsessed by race on this case not me.

You have made your mind up on Zimmerman, you have made your mind up on me, in both cases you have fuck all to back it up with, surprise surprise

That is why you are an idiot, can i back it up? one just has to read your posts on here

 

[mackenzie]

So by saying ALL you were being dishonest then nice one, i am not defending anyone as i have said many times, from memory you have said Zimmerman got enjoyment from his actions, that he racially stereotyped Martin, He has a bee in his bonnet about blacks, and all his phone calls were about blacks.

I keep questioning you about how you have come to this conclusion and what facts you have

so far you have managed - he followed a black kid(later admitting he may have done the same with a white kid) and the only other was a downright lie

my interest in this thread is how people seem to make up their minds one way or the other without any reasonable info

all you have done is type stuff you can't back up, eventually admit you can't back it up, and then post more shit and and away we go again

I think you post shit. You really want this guy to be seen as a victim of circumstance or the race card and that pisses me off.
The trial and acquittal now gives a momentum for your desire to see that.

A 17 year old lad died and yet nobody is to blame??

Sorry but you are a complete idiot, you make shit up, you lie, you don't have the decency to read peoples posts properly or understand what they are trying to say or you decide to just ignore it, you don't have a clue what the fuck i think but as per usual you make assumptions, you're obsessed by race on this case not me.

You have made your mind up on Zimmerman, you have made your mind up on me, in both cases you have fuck all to back it up with, surprise surprise

That is why you are an idiot, can i back it up? one just has to read your posts on here

And you have a very right wing mindset that I find abhorrent.
You seek to find an excuse for Zimmerman or, at the very least, stick by what the Court said. Because it is comfortable for your preconceptions.
You won't change my opinion because I stand by what I said; that lad would not have died if he had been white.

 

[Bigga]

Tell you what? you have just said ALL the calls to the police were about black kids, you just made a statement of fact. I was hoping you would tell me where this info came from.

The other poster said that his previous calls were predominantly concerned with black lads. Not 'all' I admit but certainly more than would be the norm according to that same poster.

Anyway, what's your problem with this case? He was acquitted wasn't he? Is it that you feel the 'race' card was called and so you need to defend?

Genuine question.

So by saying ALL you were being dishonest then nice one, i am not defending anyone as i have said many times, from memory you have said Zimmerman got enjoyment from his actions, that he racially stereotyped Martin, He has a bee in his bonnet about blacks, and all his phone calls were about blacks.

I keep questioning you about how you have come to this conclusion and what facts you have

so far you have managed - he followed a black kid(later admitting he may have done the same with a white kid) and the only other was a downright lie

my interest in this thread is how people seem to make up their minds one way or the other without any reasonable info

all you have done is type stuff you can't back up, eventually admit you can't back it up, and then post more shit and and away we go again

Mac posed a very interesting question towards the end of her post and during this and subsequent posts you have failed to answer her question. It was a legitimate question.

Why not answer it...?