Justice for Zimmerman

Tanoomba · Jul 21, 2013

khalid_sl said:
Sure, racism is a serious issue. However, you cannot have a rational discussion on a topic if it is completely based around misinformation. That is why the argument that the president was just trying to start a discussion falls flat on its face. How can we have a discussion about issues like gang violence, "driving while black" and other real problems when we have the media blasting misinformation and making it sound like the #1 problem is white racists gunning down blacks in the streets?

The real thing that this should spark a discussion on is the media, because that is what it is about.

Absolutely. Why not bring the media into this? The media plays a huge role in race relations in general, whether through gangsta rap or stereotypes perpetuated in movies. That can and should be part of the discussion.

Gavinrad_sl said:
Pretty sure we've been over this territory, but if someone has you pinned and is punching you in the head, you are in danger of serious injury and/or death. That's why MMA refs practically tackle the winning fighter off the other one when they call a KO/TKO end to a fight. Try pulling your head out of your ass.

No, Gav. If somebody has you pinned and is punching you in the head, you are legally justified in believing your are in danger of serious injury and/or death. That's not the same thing as actually being in danger of serious injury and/or death.
Zimmerman wasn't KO'd. He wasn't stunned or even dizzy. He didn't suffer brain damage or a cracked skull. He had cuts to the back of his head and a broken nose. We have zero reason to believe that, after apparently beating on this guy for 40 seconds or so, Martin would have dramatically increased the severity of the beating up to and including killing or permanently disabling this stranger in a back yard of his dad's neighborhood. No MMA ref in the history of the sport would have pulled Martin off of Zimmerman after the 40-second "beating" he had given him, because he simply wasn't getting beat that bad. Legally, his actions were completely justified. That doesn't, in and of itself, mean his life was ever in danger. It doesn't mean it wasn't, either, but that's where the evidence points.

fanaskin · Jul 21, 2013

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...n-verdict?lite

From one point of view you can say on trayvons foundation they are mining more people to speak out and put pressure on stand your ground under the guise of "prayer circles"

http://trayvonmartinfoundation.org/circle-of-prayer/

the martin foundation page links to here.
http://www.clutchmagonline.com/2013/...erman-verdict/

2. Contact local government officials to call for the removal of "Stand Your Ground" laws in every state.
The stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first. The "Stand Your Ground" law disproportionately give whites more favorable opportunities to kill blacks as whites who kill blacks in Stand Your Ground states are far more likely to be found justified in their killings than blacks. In regard to the tragedy of Trayvon Martin's killing, the police initially did not charge Zimmerman with a crime, citing Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' law.

Chukzombi · Jul 21, 2013

Lleauaric_sl said:
When did the president say this? Pretty sure I remember him saying that SYG wasn't used in the court in his speech.

When he,said he was trayvon he went on to mention changing SYG.

fanaskin · Jul 21, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
Absolutely. Why not bring the media into this? The media plays a huge role in race relations in general, whether through gangsta rap or stereotypes perpetuated in movies. That can and should be part of the discussion.

The media profits from fanning the flames of racism, look how much content was generated in this thread in a short time, draegan can take this traffic and use that to sell advertising exactly like it works on tv, the more people watching the more advertising is sold. Which is exactly what charles barkley was talking about, they have a profit motive to rustle your jimmies for the same exact reason shock jocks like howard stern have a profit motive for saying provocative things.

Gavinmad · Jul 21, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
No, Gav. If somebody has you pinned and is punching you in the head, you are legally justified in believing your are in danger of serious injury and/or death. That's not the same thing as actually being in danger of serious injury and/or death. Zimmerman wasn't KO'd. He wasn't stunned or even dizzy. He didn't suffer brain damage or a cracked skull. He had cuts to the back of his head and a broken nose. We have zero reason to believe that, after apparently beating on this guy for 40 seconds or so, Martin would have dramatically increased the severity of the beating up to and including killing or permanently disabling this stranger in a back yard of his dad's neighborhood. No MMA ref in the history of the sport would have pulled Martin off of Zimmerman after the 40-second "beating" he had given him, because he simply wasn't getting beat that bad. Legally, his actions were completely justified. That doesn't, in and of itself, mean his life was ever in danger. It doesn't mean it wasn't, either, but that's where the evidence points.

I don't even know where to begin, you just have absolutely no connection with reality here.

Tanoomba · Jul 21, 2013

khalid_sl said:
So Zimmerman believed his life was threatened. Yet you think it is completely ignorant for people to think the same thing, even given the ME testimony going on at length about how serious head injuries are if they continue? Whatever.

Why would it be ignorant for people to think the same thing? We should all know that Zimmerman feared for his life. We should not assume that his life was actually in danger. That's a leap that isn't supported by any evidence.

Lleauaric · Jul 21, 2013

Maester Chuk_sl said:
When he,said he was trayvon he went on to mention changing SYG.

Yeah.. But he never said gz got off on technicality because of SYG. He specifically said it wasn't part of the case. And, I believe he only said SYG should be looked at and examined. Never called for them to be repealed or changed.

You kinda read into things. Seems to be alot of that going around.

fanaskin · Jul 21, 2013

Arguing with tanoomba is like arguing with a jesus freak everytime you point out the flaws and the overall pattern they fit into they retreat into whatever pocket of hazy darkness that the light of truth and reality hasn't been shown yet.

fanaskin · Jul 21, 2013

Lleauaric_sl said:
Yeah.. But he never said gz got off on technicality because of SYG. He specifically said it wasn't part of the case. And, I believe he only said SYG should be looked at and examined. Never called for them to be repealed or changed.

You kinda read into things. Seems to be alot of that going around.

McCain backs Obama's call for 'stand your ground' review

http://news.yahoo.com/mccain-backs-o...153105503.html

This is a masterpiece of political rhetoric when I read it actually.

Obama:
"And for those who resist that idea-that we should think about something like these 'stand your ground' laws-I just ask people to consider: If Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened?" the president said.

Borzak · Jul 21, 2013

If Martin had shot Zimmerman we would have never heard of the case.

I don't care if the president wants to talk about it, but why does everything have to be about him? My son, could have been me 35 years ago. It's like when Armstrong died and the WH released a photo of Obama looking at the moon.

fanaskin · Jul 21, 2013

When you build a cult of personality that's how you can throw that weight around.

There's a reason obama won "best marketing campaign of the year award", think about that he won an award from professional manipulators about being the biggest professional manipulator of that year.

http://blogs.hbr.org/quelch/2008/11/...elected_b.html
look how many times the phrase "emotional appeal" is used in this Harvard business review about his presidential marketing campaign.
http://adage.com/article/moy-2008/ob...r-year/131810/

http://deadwildroses.wordpress.com/2...-on-democracy/

"The Obama campaign greatly impressed the public relations industry, which named Obama 'Advertising Age's marketer of the year for 2008,' easily beating out Apple computers. A good predictor of the elections a few weeks later.The industry's regular task is to create uninformed consumers who will make irrational choices, thus undermining markets as they are conceptualized in economic theory, but benefiting the masters of the economy. And it recognizes the benefits of undermining democracy in much the same way,creating uninformed voters who make often irrational choicesbetween the factions of the business party that amass sufficient support from concentrated private capital to enter the electoral arena, then to dominate campaign propaganda."

Vaclav · Jul 21, 2013

BoldW_sl said:
Him calling in a pothole is racist as fuck, though.

Most pavement in Florida that I've seen is gray - definitively not racist.

Vaclav · Jul 21, 2013

Maester Chuk_sl said:
When he,said he was trayvon he went on to mention changing SYG.

To many people they're incorrectly intertwined because of the initial misreporting - his transition was clear to me however. (Not to mention from what I recall it wasn't SYG specific was it? I recall it being just "gun control" in general)

Tanoomba · Jul 21, 2013

fanaskin_sl said:
Arguing with tanoomba is like arguing with a jesus freak everytime you point out the flaws and the overall pattern they fit into they retreat into whatever pocket of hazy darkness that the light of truth and reality hasn't been shown yet.

What flaws? What pattern?
I know you guys hate these, but here's a hypothetical:
Let's say a guy's friends decide to pull a stupid prank on him for his birthday by giving him some kind of hazing. They sneak up behind him on the street, pull a large burlap sack over him and start to hit him with, say, broomsticks with newspapers wrapped around the ends. The guy has no idea what's happening, figures he's being targeted by a gang, several of the blows he's receiving are hitting his head and he starts to fear for his life. He manages to draw his concealed pistol and fires it, killing one of his buddies. In this situation, his friends broke the law (it still counts as assault if it's a prank), the guy was justified in believing his life was in danger and in using deadly force to defend himself, but at no point was his life actually in danger. See what I'm saying?

Zimmerman was getting beat up. he was scared, and his fear was justified. But when we look at the facts (the damage he sustained, the fact that Martin had never killed anyone before and had no reason to kill this one guy with his bare hands in someone's back yard), it's silly to believe his gun saved his life or that he would have suffered death or severe injury had he not shot Martin. Is this really so difficult to understand?

Jovec · Jul 21, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
Why would it be ignorant for people to think the same thing? We should all know that Zimmerman feared for his life. We should not assume that his life was actually in danger. That's a leap that isn't supported by any evidence.

Stop with this bullshit.

I've been in my share of youth/party/bar fights, and every one had the potential for serious injury and death. It's not because anyone involved was some sort of MMA/martial arts bad-ass, it's because it only takes one punch landing the wrong way to cause permanent damage or death. Or some other fluke event (as in, you take a punch/get shoved, stagger back, inadvertently trip, and crack your head on a bar top).

One punch or shove of the head into concrete is enough for someone to be in reasonable fear for their life. Add in multiple punches/shoves, and the lack of mobility by being pinned, and GZ being in fear for life should be the least controversial part of the case because GZ's life was in actual danger.

Chukzombi · Jul 21, 2013

Vaclav_sl said:
To many people they're incorrectly intertwined because of the initial misreporting - his transition was clear to me however. (Not to mention from what I recall it wasn't SYG specific was it? I recall it being just "gun control" in general)

go read fanaskin's quote.

fanaskin · Jul 21, 2013

we'll never know what that doctors opinion was about future damage because the judge upheld an objection.

Defense, medical examiner spar over Zimmerman's injuries

http://video.foxnews.com/v/252275856...mans-injuries/

the lacerations on the back of zimmermans by the evidence presented it was possible they where created by the impact of zimmermans head on pavement.

BoldW · Jul 21, 2013

fanaskin_sl said:
we'll never know what that doctors opinion was about future damage because the judge upheld an objection.

Defense, medical examiner spar over Zimmerman's injuries

I think I read somewhere that his head injuries WILL cause him permanent paranoia.

Tanoomba · Jul 21, 2013

Jovec_sl said:
Stop with this bullshit.

I've been in my share of youth/party/bar fights, and every one had the potential for serious injury and death. It's not because anyone involved was some sort of MMA/martial arts bad-ass, it's because it only takes one punch landing the wrong way to cause permanent damage or death. Or some other fluke event (as in, you take a punch/get shoved, stagger back, inadvertently trip, and crack your head on a bar top).

One punch or shove of the head into concrete is enough for someone to be in reasonable fear for their life. Add in multiple punches/shoves, and the lack of mobility by being pinned, and GZ being in fear for life should be the least controversial part of the case.

Like I said many, many times, George Zimmerman was entirely justified in fearing for his life. Nothing controversial about that. But we simply can not make the assumption that he would have been killed or suffered serious injury if he had not shot Martin. We can't. There's no evidence to support that, and at least some evidence to support the alternative. That's all I'm saying. I'm not taking a controversial point of view here. I'm not trolling. I'm saying you should hold yourselves to the same standards you hold everyone else to. If we're going to call everyone out on not paying attention to the case and ignoring the evidence that's right in front of their faces, we damn well better be careful not to make assumptions that go counter to the evidence right in front of our faces.

If you want to say "Hecould havedied or suffered serious injury", fine. He could have slammed the door on his hand when he got back into his car, too. The fact that itcould havehappened is why he was justified fearing for his life at all. But there's a difference between saying "He could have had his head hit at a certain angle with a certain amount of force that would have left him crippled" and saying "He didn't suffer life threatening injuries because he shot Martin before they could occur." If you can't see that difference, I don't know what to tell you.

Gavinmad · Jul 21, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
Like I said many, many times, George Zimmerman was entirely justified in fearing for his life. Nothing controversial about that. But we simply can not make the assumption that he would have been killed or suffered serious injury if he had not shot Martin. We can't. There's no evidence to support that, and at least some evidence to support the alternative. That's all I'm saying. I'm not taking a controversial point of view here. I'm not trolling. I'm saying you should hold yourselves to the same standards you hold everyone else to. If we're going to call everyone out on not paying attention to the case and ignoring the evidence that's right in front of their faces, we damn well better be careful not to make assumptions that go counter to the evidence right in front of our faces.

If you want to say "Hecould havedied or suffered serious injury", fine. He could have slammed the door on his hand when he got back into his car, too. The fact that itcould havehappened is why he was justified fearing for his life at all. But there's a difference between saying "He could have had his head hit at a certain angle with a certain amount of force that would have left him crippled" and saying "He didn't suffer life threatening injuries because he shot Martin before they could occur." If you can't see that difference, I don't know what to tell you.

Maybe you should research the definition of the word 'could'

Justice for Zimmerman

ジョーディーすれいやー

Well known agitator

Millie's Staff Member

Well known agitator

Mr. Poopybutthole

ジョーディーすれいやー

Sparkletot Monger

Well known agitator

Well known agitator

Bronze Baron of the Realm

Well known agitator

Bronze Baronet of the Realm

Bronze Baronet of the Realm

ジョーディーすれいやー

?

Millie's Staff Member

Well known agitator

Molten Core Raider

ジョーディーすれいやー

Mr. Poopybutthole