The Trayvon Trial

Cad · Jun 29, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
I'm saying Zimmerman shouldn't have assumed Martin had no right to be there because he was black and in a hoodie in the first place. If he did decide to report him as suspicious, he should have ended his involvement right there and yes, stayed in the fucking car. And actually, although you're being sarcastic the way you describe the cause-and-effect chain there, you're pretty much on the nose. You shouldn't put yourself in a position where you might be attacked (again, we have no proof Martin initiated the attack, so your bottom line is based on nothing), especially when such a situation could lead to someone's death (you know, like if you're carrying a gun). None of this is rocket science.

Actually the only proof we do have of what happened says Martin initiated the attack. There is absolutely zero proof he didn't initiate the attack.

Now you can completely discount what Zimmerman says happened if you want to, but thats the only evidence we have.

And by the way, thats a completely ridiculous stance to take. I shouldn't approach people on the street because they might attack me? Fuck you, its my street too. I'll talk to you if I want to. Attack me, and I might kill you. Take your chances.

khalid · Jun 29, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
If Zimmerman hadn't decided Martin was suspicious because he was black and wearing a hoodie

Again, you bring up racism, as if you can ascribe to Zimmerman that of course he was going after him because he was black. You look bad everytime you do that, its just slander.

Instead, its much more likely that he suspected something was up because he saw someone that he had never seen before going through the neighborhood. The same neighborhood that had a problem with crime.

Tanoomba · Jun 29, 2013

ZyyzYzzy_sl said:
You are guilty of everything you just accused me of in that paragraph yet you do not see it. How is it to have your head so far up your own ass and not see your own bullshit?

You're doing it again, dude. You're making vague statements that mean nothing and backing them up with nothing. I don't blame you, your attempts to back up what you say have fallen flat so far; you don't really have much alternative but to be vague and pointless.

ZyyzYzzy · Jun 29, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
You're doing it again, dude. You're making vague statements that mean nothing and backing them up with nothing. I don't blame you, your attempts to back up what you say have fallen flat so far; you don't really have much alternative but to be vague and pointless.

You contradict yourself continuously by applying vastly different standards to men and women all while claiming moral superiority. Again, see what I quoted from you above, and answer me how that does not make you a hypocrite. Condemning he actions of a man defending himself on one hand while defending and justifying attempted premeditated murder on the other.

edit - I don't want to make you angry or anything, bro. That'd probably make your body produce testosterone for the first time in 20 years. Being not use to it, you'll most likely lose your temper and hit your wife. I don't want her to pay to have you killed.

Vaclav · Jun 29, 2013

Cad_sl said:
Actually the only proof we do have of what happened says Martin initiated the attack. There is absolutely zero proof he didn't initiate the attack.

Now you can completely discount what Zimmerman says happened if you want to, but thats the only evidence we have.

And by the way, thats a completely ridiculous stance to take. I shouldn't approach people on the street because they might attack me? Fuck you, its my street too. I'll talk to you if I want to. Attack me, and I might kill you. Take your chances.

Depends on the context of how you approach - in most states (I'm not sure about Florida) approaching with your hand on your gun is a no-no for example - or less appropriate wordings than he quoted, etc.

If you believe everything was EXACTLY as Z said it was, I've got a couple bridges to sell you. Not the least of which is even if he tried to remember it's likely a blur, even if he's truly being honest he's likely putting together fragments of memory from the level of fear he likely was in to shoot.

Tanoomba · Jun 29, 2013

Cad_sl said:
Actually the only proof we do have of what happened says Martin initiated the attack. There is absolutely zero proof he didn't initiate the attack.

Now you can completely discount what Zimmerman says happened if you want to, but thats the only evidence we have.

Seriously?Seriously??
No, the words of the defendant do not count as proof. At all. Jesus Christ, man,seriously????
"I'd like to present as evidence exhibit A: I didn't do it, man! I totally didn't do it!"

Cad_sl said:
And by the way, thats a completely ridiculous stance to take. I shouldn't approach people on the street because they might attack me? Fuck you, its my street too. I'll talk to you if I want to. Attack me, and I might kill you. Take your chances.

Hey, now you're describing EXACTLY the situation that I was mocked for being uncomfortable with. Except the people mocking me said I was describing an impossible situation, one that only sociopaths that don't exist in our civil society would find themselves in. Well, this is an interesting revelation.

TrollfaceDeux · Jun 29, 2013

ZyyzYzzy_sl said:
edit - I don't want to make you angry or anything, bro. That'd probably make your body produce testosterone for the first time in 20 years. Being not use to it, you'll most likely lose your temper and hit your wife. I don't want her to pay to have you killed.

it's ok. it's self-defense. hit man is completely cool.

khalid · Jun 29, 2013

Vaclav_sl said:
Depends on the context of how you approach - in most states (I'm not sure about Florida) approaching with your hand on your gun is a no-no for example - or less appropriate wordings than he quoted, etc.

Sure dude, no one is denying that there are ways to approach someone that might initiate a fight and it be your fault. He could have come running Trayvon yelling curse words. He could have called him racial slurs with his hand on his gun and be talking about lynching or something.

Yet any of that isn't supported by the phone conversation, any eyewitness or Zimmerman's testimony.

Noble Savage · Jun 29, 2013

Watching Tanoomba implode is quite enjoyable.

khalid · Jun 29, 2013

Tanoomba is great. I agreed with him in the thread on women as friends, completely disagree with him here. He is coming at this from a way too emotional angle but at least he isn't making up shit like Duppin.

ZyyzYzzy · Jun 29, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
Hey, now you're describing EXACTLY the situation that I was mocked for being uncomfortable with. Except the people mocking me said I was describing an impossible situation, one that only sociopaths that don't exist in our civil society would find themselves in. Well, this is an interesting revelation.

Wrong. In your scenario, you described someone going out and starting a confrontation to deliberately lead to physical violence so that they can use deadly force and claim they were threatened. Do you not even remember what you typed?

Tanoomba_sl said:
Really? I guess that means I can grab a gun then go out and pick fights with random dangerous-looking people. Once they've overpowered me (I'm not much of a fighter), I can shoot them dead and say I was defending my own life. Then I can find someone else, pick a fight, get the shit kicked out of me and shoot them too. Lather, rinse, repeat, and all the goons I can shoot with no consequences. Sounds like a great system. What's missing from this hypothetical situation? Oh yeah, any responsibility on my part for instigating the fights. You can say that as long as I don't throw the first punch I'm not breaking the law, right? So I can find some drunk guy or a college jock or a roid-raged bodybuilder, tell him that after I fucked his mother her vagina looked like his face, then legally shoot the guy after he beats the shit out of me. It's consequence-free murder! Why isn't everybody doing this all the time?

Cad · Jun 29, 2013

Vaclav_sl said:
Depends on the context of how you approach - in most states (I'm not sure about Florida) approaching with your hand on your gun is a no-no for example - or less appropriate wordings than he quoted, etc.

If you believe everything was EXACTLY as Z said it was, I've got a couple bridges to sell you. Not the least of which is even if he tried to remember it's likely a blur, even if he's truly being honest he's likely putting together fragments of memory from the level of fear he likely was in to shoot.

It has nothing to do with what I "believe" and everything to do with what I can prove. I have no evidence of anything other than what Z says. No matter how much I don't believe him, his story is the only one. We can't speculate as to what happened if we want to judge him. We need proof, circumstantial or otherwise.

The problem is, the circumstantial evidence supports Z's story...

Tanoomba · Jun 29, 2013

ZyyzYzzy_sl said:
You contradict yourself continuously by applying vastly different standards to men and women all while claiming moral superiority. Again, see what I quoted from you above, and answer me how that does not make you a hypocrite. Condemning he actions of a man defending himself on one hand while defending and justifying attempted premeditated murder on the other.

edit - I don't want to make you angry or anything, bro. That'd probably make your body produce testosterone for the first time in 20 years. Being not use to it, you'll most likely lose your temper and hit your wife. I don't want her to pay to have you killed.

Here's something else that I said that you're choosing to ignore: That I can also imagine a situation where a man would be justified hiring a hitman to kill his wife. (Go ahead, go check)
Here's something I'm repeating for the third time in, what, four posts?: I'm not condemning Zimmerman for defending himself.
I can't believe that for you (and only you since you keep bringing it up again and again andagain and again) this is somehow about gender. Not everything is about penises and vaginas. Get the fuck over it.

Now, I'm going to suggest an experiment here. Before you write your next accusatory rant (with or without a cute hypothetical scenario with an awkward, forced punchline), why don't you re-read the words you're typing and think about whether or not I've already addressed that point. I don't mind our back-and-forth (I'm still here, after all), but having to repeat things because you either don't understand them, forget them or ignore them is, as I have mentioned, a bit annoying.

Cad · Jun 29, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
Seriously?Seriously??
No, the words of the defendant do not count as proof. At all. Jesus Christ, man,seriously????
"I'd like to present as evidence exhibit A: I didn't do it, man! I totally didn't do it!"

Hey, now you're describing EXACTLY the situation that I was mocked for being uncomfortable with. Except the people mocking me said I was describing an impossible situation, one that only sociopaths that don't exist in our civil society would find themselves in. Well, this is an interesting revelation.

Whose story do you want to go with? The nonexistent story you're just making up from no proof?

And I think you need to read what I said again if you think it's the situation you described.

Tanoomba · Jun 29, 2013

ZyyzYzzy_sl said:
Wrong. In your scenario, you described someone going out and starting a confrontation to deliberately lead to physical violence so that they can use deadly force and claim they were threatened. Do you not even remember what you typed?

Ah, so in Cad's scenario killing somebody would just be a happy coincidence. Got it.

Lithose · Jun 29, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
Seriously?Seriously??
No, the words of the defendant do not count as proof. At all. Jesus Christ, man,seriously????
"I'd like to present as evidence exhibit A: I didn't do it, man! I totally didn't do it!"

I think what Cad is referring to is the fact that Zimmerman had wounds, and grass stains indicating he was on his back. While Trayvon had injuries to his hands indicating he was striking him. Zimmerman lacked these "offensive" injuries, indicating he never even attacked Trayvon back.

Is that enough to slam dunk a case? Nope. Cad even admits it's circumstantial. But, it corroborates the illustration of events we have from Zimmerman thus far, hence the proof being on Zimmerman's side.

Noble Savage · Jun 29, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
Seriously?Seriously??
No, the words of the defendant do not count as proof. At all. Jesus Christ, man,seriously????
"I'd like to present as evidence exhibit A: I didn't do it, man! I totally didn't do it!"

Actually the fact that Trayvon was the person who initiated the confrontation was backed up by Trayvons girlfriend who was on the phone with him at the time. The first thing that gets said was by Trayvon according to her "What are you following me for?" Now according to George Zimmerman he said "You got a fucking problem, homie?" Now considering the girlfriend didn't think "Crazy ass cracka" was racist or that there was anything wrong with it I am probably not going to believe Trayvons initial interaction was so non threatening.

Tanoomba · Jun 29, 2013

Cad_sl said:
Whose story do you want to go with? The nonexistent story you're just making up from no proof?

And I think you need to read what I said again if you think it's the situation you described.

Excuse me, what story did I make up? I'm not making claims about who attacked who.
No, I don't need to read what you said again. It was pretty clear. Fuck with me at your own risk and maybe get killed. Got it.

ZyyzYzzy · Jun 29, 2013

You ignore the own words you have typed. Again, a man defending himself while physically being assaulted is wrong in this case to you. This also creates a loophole in your mind for a person to go out and kill people and get off. On the other hand it is completely acceptable in circumstances to you for an individual to hire a hitman. That is premeditated murder. Like a person sitting down and deciding that they are going to have a person killed. If you can not see how that is different, I reiterate, you are retarded.

You ARE condemning him for defending himself, though. In the stance you are taking, because of actions he took immediately before being assaulted, reasonably defending himself is not acceptable. You are saying a person can not approach an unfamiliar person in the area they live because it may lead to confrontation, an absolutely ridiculous notion.

And I am sorry but you are being sexist. "So I can find some drunk guy or a college jock or a roid-raged bodybuilder" "For others, perhaps a direct attack on your masculinity might do the trick." "Then we've got a huge legal loophole where any "macho" type guy". Hey I get it, you are a genius who found a gigantic legal loophole that has allowed for so many people to just out right and commit murder, sorry for arguing with you.

ZyyzYzzy · Jun 29, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
Excuse me, what story did I make up? I'm not making claims about who attacked who.
No, I don't need to read what you said again. It was pretty clear. Fuck with me at your own risk and maybe get killed. Got it.

You are insinuating Zimmerman started the confrontation and that he is a racist. Actually you called him a gun toting racist. Proof of such views on African Americans by Zimmerman please.

Edit - Here are your own words.

Tanoomba_sl said:
I'm upset that the actions of a racist prick resulted in the death of a young man who had done nothing wrong.

The Trayvon Trial

scientia potentia est

Unelected Mod

ジョーディーすれいやー

RIP USA

Bronze Baronet of the Realm

ジョーディーすれいやー

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

Unelected Mod

Kang of Kangz

Unelected Mod

RIP USA

scientia potentia est

ジョーディーすれいやー

scientia potentia est

ジョーディーすれいやー

Buzzfeed Editor

Kang of Kangz

ジョーディーすれいやー

RIP USA

RIP USA