Trayvon Martin's murderer George Zimmerman is still a free man

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rush spent three hours today talking about this case and how it wasn't about race, it was about the fear of a gay rapist. Martin beat Zimmerman because he thought he was going to get raped by a GAY man. He had to emphasize GAY as much as he could. He took something that the phone witness said on Piers Morgan last night and twisted into a bigot's wet dream. What was pathetic was that his listeners salivated over this theory.

The politicization of this case on both sides makes me sick...
 
Rush spent three hours today talking about this case and how it wasn't about race, it was about the fear of a gay rapist. Martin beat Zimmerman because he thought he was going to get raped by a GAY man. He had to emphasize GAY as much as he could. He took something that the phone witness said on Piers Morgan last night and twisted into a bigot's wet dream. What was pathetic was that his listeners salivated over this theory.

The politicization of this case on both sides makes me sick...

I mean that's just some of the most asinine things I have ever heard, but considering the source, I'm hardly surprised.
 
Rush spent three hours today talking about this case and how it wasn't about race, it was about the fear of a gay rapist. Martin beat Zimmerman because he thought he was going to get raped by a GAY man. He had to emphasize GAY as much as he could. He took something that the phone witness said on Piers Morgan last night and twisted into a bigot's wet dream. What was pathetic was that his listeners salivated over this theory.

The politicization of this case on both sides makes me sick...

Rush is an idiot. However I wonder if Rachel Jeantel did plant fear into Trayvon's mind by saying he could be a rapist. Could've been a motive but unlikely.

The politicization continues. Rush saying Trayvon was homophobic.

Yesterday, Bernie de la Rionda said Zimmerman was a coward for not testifying. Angela Corey called him a murderer. Seems they are sore losers for doing a terrible job and do not respect the jury.
 
Rachel Jeantel is an idiot. It takes me about an hour after hearing her speak for all the idiot residue to wash off my brain so I can start thinking straight again
 
MLK's niece on viral hoodie image: 'Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would not wear a hoodie'

The niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. says she is not a fan of the viral image of her uncle wearing a hoodie in support of Trayvon Martin. The image, created by artist Nikkolas Smith and spread widely by activist Van Jones on Twitter, shows a contemplative King wearing the garment, which has become a symbol of support for the slain 17-year-old.

“I can almost promise you Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would not wear a hoodie,” said Alveda King on the Andrea Tantaros radio show Tuesday when asked about the image. Alveda King is a former state representative in Georgia and a right-wing anti-abortion activist and minister.

King said she and two of her cousins are calling on Americans not to “fight or debate” about the case, which she thinks did not raise any significant racial issues. The 29-year-old neighborhood watchman who shot the unarmed Martin, George Zimmerman, was acquitted of all charges against him on Saturday. Zimmerman is half Hispanic, Martin was black. “You've got two grieving and hurting families,” King said, before quoting her uncle. “We all need to live together as brothers.”

Tantaros asked King if she had seen the hoodie photo. “What do you think of this image? And what would your uncle think?” she asked.

“Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would very likely not wear a hoodie,” she said. “I can assure you he would not wear sagging pants. I don't even think I’ve ever even seen his sons with sagging pants.” King then said the verdict had been reached and that Americans must accept it, before adding again, seemingly agitated, “I can almost promise you Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would not wear a hoodie.“

Marines are taught Combat Hunter, which is a program that teaches how to spot dangerous people and track targets, etc. Profiling is a big part of it, and there's no room for political correctness. Now everyone profiles everyone subconsciously, most people just suck at it. To those that know how to do it, how you look, act, and dress are powerful heuristic indicators. But that doesn't have to do anything with the color or someones skin.

Walking around with a hood up suggests you don't want to be seen/recognized/attract attention. Combine that with the fact that there's been recent burglaries in that very area, and its dark out. That makes you suspicious, from a professional standpoint. I'm not saying that Zimmerman in any way professionally knew how to profile someone, but the fact is that if I were in his shoes, I would agree with him. It wouldn't make a difference to me if he were white black brown or purple. (well maybe if he was purple) And I don't think it would have made a difference to Zimmerman either.

In fact, didn't Zimmerman not even know Trayvon was black when he initially made the 9/11 call to report him?
 
MLK's niece on viral hoodie image: 'Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would not wear a hoodie'

Marines are taught Combat Hunter, which is a program that teaches how to spot dangerous people and track targets, etc. Profiling is a big part of it, and there's no room for political correctness. Now everyone profiles everyone subconsciously, most people just suck at it. To those that know how to do it, how you look, act, and dress are powerful heuristic indicators. But that doesn't have to do anything with the color or someones skin.

Walking around with a hood up suggests you don't want to be seen/recognized/attract attention. Combine that with the fact that there's been recent burglaries in that very area, and its dark out. That makes you suspicious, from a professional standpoint. I'm not saying that Zimmerman in any way professionally knew how to profile someone, but the fact is that if I were in his shoes, I would agree with him. It wouldn't make a difference to me if he were white black brown or purple. (well maybe if he was purple) And I don't think it would have made a difference to Zimmerman either.

In fact, didn't Zimmerman not even know Trayvon was black when he initially made the 9/11 call to report him?




Zimmerman is neither a marine nor a law enforcement officer.

TM was doing nothing wrong. Nothing.
 
Zimmerman is neither a marine nor a law enforcement officer.

So what? You don't have to be to profile someone. Whether or not that was his responsibility as a neighborhood watchman is another thing. But I'm pointing out the several other factors that to me make a lot more sense in determining someone as "suspicious."

TM was doing nothing wrong. Nothing.

And technically neither was GZ, until the fight started. And that is what was the issue in court.
 
So what? You don't have to be to profile someone. Whether or not that was his responsibility as a neighborhood watchman is another thing. But I'm pointing out the several other factors that to me make a lot more sense is determining someone as "suspicious."
I'm sorry but your commentary was just silly. You're trying too hard to support an idiot's actions. It was raining, hoodies are great for that, even a self appointed watchman could assess that. There was nothing suspicious going on, period. Now one could argue circumstance, but that's entirely different. But seriously stop trying to defend his suspicion.

And technically neither was GZ, until the fight started. And that is what was the issue in court.
But out of the two, technicality or not, who at the point prior to the fight since we do not know who provoked who, was doing something wrong?

I think most logical people would say that an armed untrained citizen acting purely on false suspicion following an innocent man would say Zimmerman was in the wrong. Don't you?
 
I'm sorry but your commentary was just silly. You're trying too hard to support an idiot's actions. It was raining, hoodies are great for that, even a self appointed watchman could assess that. There was nothing suspicious going on, period. Now one could argue circumstance, but that's entirely different. But seriously stop trying to defend his suspicion.

Not saying he's not an idiot, just not a racist. Like I mentioned before, he had Trayvon pegged as suspicious before he was even aware of his race. Unless it was a conspiracy, and he pretended to not know Martin was black when the 9/11 operator asked what race he was so he didn't seem racist!

But out of the two, technicality or not, who at the point prior to the fight since we do not know who provoked who, was doing something wrong?

I think most logical people would say that an armed untrained citizen acting purely on false suspicion following an innocent man would say Zimmerman was in the wrong. Don't you?

Morally yes, legally no
 
Now one could argue circumstance, but that's entirely different. But seriously stop trying to defend his suspicion.

How can you separate the two? The whole reason he was being so "vigilant" was because of the circumstances. Or are you implying he would've followed someone in a hoodie had there not been previous issues in the neighbourhood?


But out of the two, technicality or not, who at the point prior to the fight since we do not know who provoked who, was doing something wrong?

Following someone you believe to be suspicious is not necessarily "wrong"
 
I also read Stevie Wonder is refusing to ever play again in Florida, or any other state with a Stand Your Ground law... I don't get how this case has brought so much outrage against it, whether its a good law or a bad law, it didn't have a fucking thing to do with this case! It was only brought up in early speculation that GZ might have used it to defend himself in court, but he didn't, because he didn't have as good a case if he went in that direction. So stand your ground or not, this still would have happened and GZ would still have been acquitted. And yet I hear people saying that it declares open season on black people, and other such things. Race HAS to be put into it. It makes no sense to me.
 
Not saying he's not an idiot, just not a racist.
Well I don't think there's really anyway to determine if he is a racist or not. Just don't fall for this trap of trying to defend his actions or pretend you know his feelings because then you become the other end of the spectrum that you're fighting against.

I think both sides(and it fucking sickens me to even say that about this case) have made too much of race and character in this case.

I don't know if it was race related, BUT I can understand why some are seeing it that way.

-Whether or not Zimmerman knew he was black or not right way, who knows, but right or wrong many would see certain clothing attributed to certain races or cultures.
-So Martin was tested for drugs upon his death, but Zimmerman wasn't(I believe there was some suspected RX drug use but it was by admission if I remember correctly) in what just world do we drug test the dead and not the shooter?
-At the end of the day you have a young black man dead, a death that could have been completely avoided if suspicion didn't get the worst in someone.

If I was a black man that still got profiled or looked at suspiciously in 2013(which don't fool yourself, still happens) this case would probably make me scared or angry.


At the end of day I guess what I'm trying to say is that if it was me on that night and I were in Martin's shoes; I probably would have not been followed, if he had I probably would have tried to defend myself the best I could(which would have meant being aggressive*), and I probably wouldn't have been tested for drugs.

*as someone who's trained, you're taught when dealing with a knife or club run if you possibly can, if you're not truly defending someone's life and running is an option, you are no less a man. But if you know you're up against a gun, you go in close in order to disarm or at least point away.

Morally yes, legally no
I think it's a gray area that has a lot of people upset.
 
Well I don't think there's really anyway to determine if he is a racist or not. Just don't fall for this trap of trying to defend his actions or pretend you know his feelings because then you become the other end of the spectrum that you're fighting against.

No there's not, but why would someone assume he's racist if there isn't any factual evidence that would suggest so. And I didn't mean to defend him, just understand his reasoning. But it's mine or anyone else's best guess.
 
if he had I probably would have tried to defend myself the best I could(which would have meant being aggressive*), and I probably wouldn't have been tested for drugs.

Wouldn't you have first told him to fuck off or at least ask why he was following you? According to GZ, he didn't do any of that and just went immediately to attack mode. I don't think its unreasonable to suggest that in this situation it would have been more appropriate for Trayvon to use words first before fists
 
No there's not, but why would someone assume he's racist if there isn't any factual evidence that would suggest so. And I didn't mean to defend him, just understand his reasoning. But it's mine or anyone else's best guess.

You mean George isn't racist. I just assumed he was because that's all I've been hearing about in the media and from Sharpton and Jesse. And now my DOJ is still looking to charge him in a civil right violation so there has to be something there.

Interesting, I wonder what would have happened had Trayvon survived with only a gunshot wound to his leg. Would my DOJ be looking to charge Trayvon with a civil rights violation for attacking a "crazy ass cracker? Highly doubt it.

The left wants to stir up their base on this case and I feel it will backfire on them.
 
Wouldn't you have first told him to fuck off or at least ask why he was following you? According to GZ, he didn't do any of that and just went immediately to attack mode. I don't think its unreasonable to suggest that in this situation it would have been more appropriate for Trayvon to use words first before fists

If this account is accurate (and it's GZ's account, so taken FWIW) then it seems Trayvon just wanted to beat his ass.

And if it were true, I could understand that feeling of anger. Especially from a 17 year old that likely doesn't know how to deal with such things just yet (hell, some adults never do). So in that sense it is believable enough. Especially if he could have just as easily went home.

On the other hand, let's talk straight...at what point does a good ol' fashioned beatdown become a life/death struggle where TM suddenly decides he's going to spend the rest of his life in prison (GZ said he went for the gun and grabbed it) simply because Mr. Stay-Puft was following him? A guy, GZ, that evidently wasn't posing a physical threat to Martin at all. Or is it more plausible that GZ felt threatened and went for the gun first? And wouldn't that make a LOT more sense considering where he had the gun (back waistband above his hip) and the fact that it was pitch dark and that his own account places TM's knees (as GZ was on his back) in front of where the gun was?

And the fact that no fingerprints or DNA from TM were found on the gun. And the fact that Zimmerman hit him in the heart? (Imagine them both struggling for the gun - movie style - and him managing to get that shot off?). Or would it have been an easier shot if he was nearly unimpeded as he aimed it?

And if GZ truly did go for the gun first, doesn't that change some things?

I had doubted that GZ feared for his life a few days back. But I've moved off of that. I think I was being entirely too speculative about his motivation. At this point I believe it is certainly plausible he did, if not very likely. But I still don't think the gun story quite adds up. So if I can't buy that account, how can I place stock into other portions of his account? I don't think he murdered him regardless, I just don't know if he was totally justified in pulling that gun - EVEN IF - he thought he was going to be killed. Does Trayvon Martin 'freely' pay for his life because Zimmerman can't fight back with his fists?
 
in what just world do we drug test the dead and not the shooter?

Because an autopsy was performed on the deceased whom the police were unable to assess before his death. They had the benefit of speaking with Zimmerman directly after the incident to determine whether he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Seems pretty standard to me. No need to make everything suspicious
 
I probably would have not been followed, if he had I probably would have tried to defend myself the best I could(which would have meant being aggressive*), and I probably wouldn't have been tested for drugs.

*as someone who's trained, you're taught when dealing with a knife or club run if you possibly can, if you're not truly defending someone's life and running is an option, you are no less a man. But if you know you're up against a gun, you go in close in order to disarm or at least point away.

You don't defend yourself by initiating physical contact. This is a joke. There's no proof Zimmerman was brandishing his gun.

I'll bite, since you've mentioned it several times. What exactly is your "training"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom