Robert Zimmerman brother of George Zimmerman has stirred the issue of racism.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/2 … 79949.html
Clearly listening to Robert Zimmerman he appears to be a educated young man and one can understand a sibling being protective of a family member yet and still should that protectiveness vilified the victim in spite of the facts?
With all the statements that he makes with respect to the idea that it is his brother who is the victim and not the young child dead?
The idea that the dead victim who has been from the beginning Guilty Of Nothing and then set upon by Mister George Zimmerman deserved to be killed? You know what bothers me is people looking for photographs to make young teenage Trayvon Martin a dangerous person such as (oh he's giving the finger so he must be dangerous!) How many times is the finger given on America's roadways? Here is another fact we seem to be overlooking if a genuine criminal has served their time in prison and is now walking the streets that still does not give anyone the right to pursue that individual just because they're walking the streets.
You should probably read your own post carefully, comparing it to that by Robert. Not that it is racist, but;
" vilified the victim in spite of the facts?" You mean the fact that Zimmerman was attacked and smashed to the concrete? Or the facts brought out in a trial that has not yet happened?
"With all the statements that he makes with respect to the idea that it is his brother who is the victim and not the young child dead?" You mean the man that has spent nearly a year in jail because Trayvon attacked him? Who is the victim again?
"The idea that the dead victim who has been from the beginning Guilty Of Nothing and then set upon by Mister George Zimmerman deserved to be killed" Who set upon who? Who "threw the first punch" by physically attacking the other?
"genuine criminal has served their time in prison and is now walking the streets that still does not give anyone the right to pursue that individual just because they're walking the streets." You might consider extending this one to accused, but not proven guilty, people as well.
Do you remember early photos of both Trayvon and Zimmerman? Where Trayvon's pic was of a happy youngster several years younger and Zimmerman's portrayed a shambling bum of a man? Did you protest the obvious spin and lie in those pics, too?
The point is that you have vilified Zimmerman, just as Robert did Trayvon, yet he is guilty only in the minds of a public overwhelmed by racist comments and demands for "justice" without a trial.
Do try and remember "innocent until proven guilty by a jury of peers". When he is found guilty, though, don't bother with "I told you so!" because right or wrong there is still no excuse for assigning innocence OR guilt before the trial is over.
Zimmerman stalked Trayvon, a young man who did nothing. If some crazy guy was following me, I would fight back, too. I wish Trayvon had had a gun to protect himself.
Ever had a store security rent-a-cop "stalk" you? Follow you around the store? Or another employee stay at your elbow, asking if you need help? Your use of the term "stalk" is far, far different from what went on that night.
"If some crazy guy was following me" Martin had exactly the same reasons you do to declare Zimmerman was insane - zero. Or do you have evidence Zimmerman was schizophrenic? Was he bipolar? Did he have depressive disorder? Is he a kleptomaniac? What makes you claim that Zimmerman was insane and what is your diagnosis outside of "crazy"?
More of the same, then - statements about what happened with zero evidence to back it up. A complete lack of actual knowledge coupled with a willingness to judge and convict without every knowing what happened.
Thank GOD our justice system doesn't work that way.
The idiot said blacks are dangerous. I bet Zimmerman thought the same way when he stalked Martin.
Clearly something motivated George Z. to pick a Black kid walking down the street doing nothimg wrong only to be killed.
We may never know what Zimmerman was thinking, but he'd called in numerous "suspicious persons" in the past. Zimmerman's brother probably DOES see Zimmerman as the victim, just as Martin's family sees Martin as the victim.
Was Zimmerman "profiling"? Maybe, but to know if he had a legitimate reason to do that - we'd have to know the racial percentages of criminals vs. victims in that specific neighborhood. If there was a rash of young black men breaking into houses, Zimmerman certainly might have profiled Martin.
But profiling and racism are two very different things.
The young black boys that shot the baby in the face might have been profiling the woman, thinking "whites have all the money," but that wouldn't necessarily make their crime a racist crime or a hate crime.
Sometimes, things aren't black and white. Sometimes, there are many shades of gray.
Actually, he could not profile no matter what.
It's illegal to be a vigilante, whether you are accusing a white, black, mexican, whatever race. The 9/11 dispatcher told him to stop following Martin, and Martin's cell phone audio shows he was afraid Zimmerman was trying to hurt him when he told his girlfriend someone was following him. What kind of person carries a gun around and stalks people they find suspicious? One that is looking for a fight. The police also didn't test Zimmerman for being drunk, but they did test Martin for drugs! http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin … VeLRxyUQ4o
Additionally, how can you rule out that Martin wasn't acting in self-defense? Pathetic to defend such a douchebag. Even my conservative dad doesn't do such a thing,and he hates almost everything liberal.
Gimme a break. People profile all the time whether you admit it or not. And it's legal. Profiling is a mental process based on available knowledge. Do you know that police departments hire actual "profilers" for just that reason? Remember - in this nation - it's "innocent before proven guilty in a court of law."
I didn't say Martin wasn't acting in self-defense. There's no way for me to know if he was or wasn't. But, don't get your heart set on that girl's testimony - she's already lied more than once under oath.
Many big-time legal minds have said that the case against Zimmerman is very weak. I don't care one way or the other as long as the man gets his day in court. None of what you said is actual evidence - it's all just your opinion. You're entitled to that - but don't feel bad if the courts don't agree with you.
If Zimmerman is found guilty - I hope he rots in jail, but no man in this nation should be tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.
Anyone else notice that Sooners video showed Trayvon Martin as a 12 year old? Would that be the media profiling? All whites are racist?
http://sadhillnews.com/wp-content/uploa … -news2.jpg
Profiling even by law enforcement has been deemed in the past in numerous situation as in fact being racist.
Generally when one garners attention or suspicion there at Least Needs to Be a Probable Cause. Seeing Someone Walking down the Street Minding Their Own Business Is Not Probable Cause-No Matter What Lies You Tell Yourself about That Individual or Individuals.
The fact that Blacks or other minorities may be committing a crime does not automatically state that the next minority one encounters must be the perpetrator-that my friend Is What Is Known As a Racist Perspective.
SStar - profiling doesn't mean blaming things on black people. It means using statistics to determine who is consistently committing a specific type of crime and being aware of the increased risk. Obviously a person must be judged on their own merit.
Profiling is an actual science. More white people abuse cocaine - more black people abuse crack. More white people are serial killers, more blacks are in gangs.
Anything that is the truth isn't racist. We can't sweep things under the carpet just because we don't like them.
We have a low black graduation rate. If we ignore that - we're doing blacks a disservice. We have a higher black unemployment rate as well.
Until you can embrace the facts of any matter - you can't be a vehicle for change.
Your perception of profiling is just that your perception. The facts are profiling has been used consistently to label and especially black minorities as being this or that.
Once one has established a stereotype which is what profiling does then take for example cases which have been used when a police officer sees a black man in a very expensive vehicle been the act of profiling says that that car was stolen because it is occupied by a black minority this kind of thinking is called racism because once the officer stopped the vehicle for no other reason than the driver is black only to discover that the driver is someone like Mister Will Smith who has been profiled and basically stereotyped-Racism.
You know a white person can drive an expensive car or a white person can drive an inexpensive car-No Big Deal not the same for minorities.
It is not my voice alone which singles out profiling as racist, perhaps some research in a number of these minority groups would enlighten you as to the effects of profiling. If one is not among those who are being profile then they can see no problem with it.
I have read my own post carefully and the facts are as I have revealed them. The repeated statements you have written of those coming from a killer where is your proof beyond the words of that killer that justifies your remarks?
How is it that an innocent child walking the street doing no wrong, bothering no one can wind up dead by some stranger in violation of the law itself by intervening in this person's life for absolutely no reason.
All the conjectures that were made about this child were all lies by some deluded illusion in the mind of this so-called neighborhood watch individual..
No, my post stands firm in the facts that are evident that this child has no logical reason for being dead from someone who I personally believe with the problems they were having in their life had no business being in a neighborhood watch program where he is a threat to society.
You repeat the error, while claiming it is no error at all. That you were there, looking down and watching what happened and thus know the "facts" beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'm sure your post stands firm, but that doesn't make it right either factually or ethically as you were not, in fact, watching the incident unfold. You continue to play judge yourself instead of allowing that all-important "jury of peers" to do the job.
I disagree and will continue to do so - your post is no different at the root than that of Robert. At least he has the excuse of protecting a loved family member from the vagaries of a society of people willing to judge, convict and punish without a trial - what is your excuse for making such statements?
When presenting the facts one need not be judgmental for they are proven evidence.
As shocking as it may sound should someone for whatever reason decides to approach me and attacked me I don't necessarily need to get his background or his reasoning to feel justified in vilifying some stranger who threatened my life. His reasoning could be he's having a bad day-(frankly I don't care) that doesn't give him a reason to intervene in my life.
Fortunately people did not let this situation continue the way it had otherwise the killer of this child would be walking free and young innocent Trayvon Martin would simply be another statistic in a wrongful death.
"Proven evidence"? Such as the doctored 911 tape from NBC? Such as the repeated declarations that Zimmerman had no injuries and did not receive any care? You don't have one piece of "proven evidence" - not one shred of it has been examined in a court of law and found to be correct.
That's what a court of law is for; to judge the evidence. You may disagree, and claim that all evidence "proving" Zimmermans guilt is valid and all evidence "proving" the opposite is false, but that's not what courts do. Thank goodness.
All you have is opinion of what evidence is correct and what is a lie. An opinion made without interviews, without seeing or hearing it, without anything more than listening to the media. An opinion made by "judging" only evidence showing innocence - any that shows guilt need not be judged. An opinion you are only too glad to share with the world, just as Robert did, to "stir the pot" just as he did.
Thank goodness you won't be serving on any jury where I am being charged - you haven't the foggiest idea of what "impartial" means.
This may come to you is an absolute shock but generally on many of these jury cases the jurors are often not given all the facts and thusly judgments are made based on speculation and opinions
True - they often do not get all the facts. Any juror, however, that will make a determination "beyond a reasonable doubt" based on speculation and opinion needs shot themselves. They're playing with a person's life, based on prejudice (not meaning racial) and speculation.
Just as, apparently, Zimmerman did when he approached Martin based on a speculation that Martin didn't belong there. And, although your own opinions and speculations will carry virtually no weight in a trial, just as your own unsupported "facts" do when you post them as fact in a public forum.
Is that really the company you wish to keep? That of jurors, Zimmerman (either one) or others that encourage speculation and opinion to replace proven facts in determining a person's future?
Perhaps there are those like you who either can't or refuse to address issues which of the sees as obvious so much time is spent convening the committee, setting dates or what have you the reality is though things are sometimes just as they seem. If I want to see the effects of gravity I do not need to go through Einstein's history notes I can simply stand on the edge of a cliff and drop all rock.
As much as one would like to think that we are doing good by coming together as a jury to rectify a problem my experience on a few of these jury trials was that for the most part many of the people didn't want to be on the jury, secondly some people had businesses they wanted to get back to so they were prepared or rather desired a quick judgment. There were other jurors looking forward to going to some sporting event and this jury trial was going to interfere with that.
I'm afraid many of these jury trials are not the benevolent event that we want to make them out to be.
If you want to see the effects of gravity, drop a rock, yes. If you want to see what happened that night you will have to wait for the evidence to come in; although you have already "dropped your rock" by picking and choosing what evidence supports a pre-formed opinion, it just makes that opinion worthless.
Juries -again correct Many jury trials are not the benevolent event we want them to be.
Still far, far better than an opinion of someone sitting 1,000 miles surfing the web for anything negative to reinforce their opinion. Of the two, I absolutely know which I would rather have making a decision for my future. (Truthfully, most accused are probably better off going without a jury. Unless they're guilty, anyway).
Fortunately here in America you can have your view and I can have mine.
I believe I will take my leave now.
I agree. I'm not going to convince you to wait for evidence, and you're not going to convince me to form an opinion from lying media and prejudice.
I'm not going to convince you a jury is the right way to go; you're not going to convince me that your (or my own) opinion is superior to that jury.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Other than most religions, I can't think of a country, organization, group or individuals who would try to take away or deny anyone's right to be wrong.
Often not but that is what they should aim to be.
Wilderness also defended the cops who did this (WARNING, link contains graphic photo of disabled man who was beaten to death by three cops):
http://rt.com/files/usa/news/force-thom … ramos-169/
Seems to be his thing, defending people who kill unnecessarily.
You are correct, at least to a point.
I will always defend the idea of innocent until proven guilty, and will always scorn the idea that guilt can be determined by race (Zimmerman, white, killed a black so he's guilty of murder) or a few snippets from the media. Only fools make their minds up from such things.
I agree, innocent until proven guilty. However, sometimes it takes an outcry from the citizenry (as in the Steubenville rape case, the Zimmerman shooting, and the death by beating of an unarmed disabled man) to even get the perpetrators to be considered for arrest, much less to trial. Authorities would sometimes rather look the other way than risk their beloved institutions coming under fire, and that is just plain wrong.
Yeah - I remember the "outcry" from the public about Zimmerman. The doctored tape, the insistence that he was simply out looking for a black boy to kill. That absolute "fact" that he was uninjured and never treated.
People would rather ignore facts in favor of their own prejudices in spreading the rumors. Which makes finding impartial jurors nearly impossible after the outcry, but of course that's the point. If a huge hue and cry can convict without evidence that helps get the "right" decision from the court, after all.
There are people that believe in what our justice system is supposed to be, and there are those that want what they want and to hell with evidence - spreading emotion, lies and insinuations is all part of the deal to get a conviction, justified or not.
And what happens if you are wrong after it all comes out in the trial?
We don't know about either side... wait until the trial.
My point is that there would have been no trial in any of those three cases without the public outcry. Get it?
Interesting that you refer to mere public sentiment about a shooting as "vigilante" while defending an actual vigilante who took it upon himself to follow an unarmed kid and shoot him.
I can only speak for the Zimmerman case, but there is little to no doubt that there would have been a trial.
Yes, the public demanded that he be jailed on the spot, and was extremely vitriolic when he was not, but there is no reason to think that public demand that he be hanged resulted in the arrest. Public demand may or may not have resulted in other arrests, but to then declare that this one would not have happened without it is without basis or evidence.
What is it PP, that makes you think I defend Zimmerman? I don't. I just condemn and scorn people that decide guilt based on media, their own racism and prejudice. Look back on these forums a year ago and you will find that Zimmerman absolutely left his house to find a black kid to kill. You will find that he was absolutely never injured. You will find that it was illegal to walk the streets himself. Anyone saying such things, let alone going public with it, deserves nothing but scorn. They certainly don't deserve to be listened to,
And that most definitely includes "Seems to be his thing, defending people who kill unnecessarily". You have no idea whatsoever if it was necessary or not. You weren't there, you haven't talked to anyone that was and there has been no sworn court evidence either way. You nevertheless declare that it was unnecessary, and deserve only to be ignored or scorned as a result.
He stalked and murdered a kid in cold blood. U.S. should have ended "wet foot/dry foot" 30 years ago and this would not have happened. Racist Cubans. Go figure.
You too? Where were you hiding while you watched it happen? Helicopter overhead maybe? With a long range mic to listen it? I do hope you videoed it and have turned that video over to the prosecuting attorney!
You have no more idea than I do what actually happened that night; the only difference is that I'm honest enough to say so instead of declaring guilt without having the faintest idea whether it was or not.
I wasn't only talking about Zimmerman. You defended three cops beating an unarmed disabled man to death. You also repeatedly stated that the teenage girl who was dragged around, raped, and urinated on while unconscious bore some responsibility for being raped.
It's really pretty creepy, actually.
And, yes, I do believe that just because Zimmerman had an injury does not mean he needed to kill a teenager. Heck, abused women have been convicted of murder after killing a husband who severely beat them and nearly killed them.
I understand that you believe that. You believe it however, because you want to and for no other reason - I know this because you don't have any more facts about the case than I do and I haven't the foggiest if it was necessary, an accident or if Martin pulled the trigger himself.
I don't know, you don't know - the only real difference is that I recognize I don't know and you don't care if you do or not when you begin spouting "facts" that are nothing of the sort. I care if an innocent man is convicted, you don't because you "know" he's not innocent. You are quite willing to endorse mob justice; I'm not.
Nor do I ever recall ever defending three cops beating an unarmed disabled man to death. Probably more of the same; I defend the system as better than mob rule and you make the calls yourself without information. The same thing you are doing here.
You're right that it's creepy; to think that there are still people out there that think vigilantism is acceptable is astounding in this day and age. It's no longer the 1800's Wild Wild West, you know.
LOL, expressing an opinion on the internet is "vigilantism"? Since when? Walking around with a gun, following a teenager because....why?, and then shooting him after instigating a struggle: What is that? THAT is vigilantism and since you seem to be so concerned with vigilantism, why aren't you more concerned with actual vigilantism than this imaginary definition you seem to have created?
Expressing the opinion that three trained cops can't subdue an unarmed disabled man without killing him is "vigilantism"? One of my uncles is a cop and he thinks that disabled man was murdered. Is that vigilantism? Come on.
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/80406?p … ost1735786
Edited to add: Actually, it was six trained cops.
When that opinion is helping drive the same thing throughout the country, when it will seriously affect the man's life after trial whether innocent OR guilty, when worthless opinions are presented as factual it becomes vigilantism. Disgusting and unacceptable.
And the episode with the bound man was exactly what I said - I defended no cops, only promoted letting the law take it's course. Exactly as here.
Here you go again; "instigating a struggle". You don't know that - the only information to date is that Martin threw the first punch. However worthless that information is, it is still all that is available at this point, so when you accuse Zimmerman of instigating it you are way out of line.
Same with accusing Zimmerman of vigilantism; you may be correct that he did, but you don't know. Neither do I, but I do NOT make the accusation, either. Let the court do that - they have information that neither you or I do.
You don't get it, PP, and I don't think you ever will. Nearly every thread I see in these forums along these lines is the same; somebody spouting pure BS without having a shred of actual knowledge or information. It is unfortunate that the net provides such a wonderful forum for that kind of nonsense, but I for one refuse to participate in it. I got caught in that trash once - assuming guilt based on lies from the net - it will not happen again. I don't even care that in that particular case the net was right - it is totally disgusting that thinking, reasoning people will stoop to such behavior to fulfill their blood lust and pretend outrage about something they know nothing about. "Pretend" outrage because you don't know what happened; any outrage cannot be real without knowing that.
I don't know, wilderness. I can cut you some slack on Zimmerman because it isn't as clear, but not on the death of a disabled man at the hands of six cops or the rape of an unconscious teenage girl. Both of those cases would never had been pursued were it not for public outrage. Some things are clear to reasonable people. I'm sure you think you are the "rational" one but if everyone was like you, those Steubenville boys would still believe they were just having a little fun. And those six cops would think they can justify killing a man just because they're cops.
It makes me sick.
Personally, I don't care if it makes you sick. I don't care if you cut some slack. I don't even care if you exclaim to the high heavens that without the trash talk on the web that justice will never be done.
I care about me, about how I feel about me, and I know that posting lies (it's on the net so it has to be true, right?) in an obvious effort to hurt someone doesn't make me feel good about myself. I'll continue to hold my peace on those issues until I have knowledge of them, and I will continue to promote the idea that everyone should do so.
We are a nation of laws, not a nation of individuals out to get someone whether declared innocent OR guilty by a jury of their peers. I accept that, and I guess I'll have to accept that there are others that do not.
As Jeff the poster would say...there fixed it for you.
Apparently you can't tell black people apart either, (how surprising) that is one of the many fake photos of Trayvon which are not of him, other fine white gentlemen like yourself have trolled about to find photos of scary black people to convince yourselves you are in the right. Your posts on this thread are sickening.
The website that posted that photo issued an apology for putting the wrong person in the photo, of course you swallowed it whole.
Well...even if this is a fake (and I'm not saying it is) the media only shows a picture of Trayvon as a 12 year old...where's a picture from the last 5 years?
Denial is a sick thing Josak.
The picture is fake, even the posters have apologized, it's a 28 year old rapper. Which you of course bought hook line and sinker because #1 you have no interest in checking your sources or facts #2 because it fits your racist image of what a young black man who got shot must look like.
The reason the images first released were old is because parents stop taking so many photos of their kids as they grow into teenager hood, I have tons of albums of my kids when they are children, hardly anything from their teens.
I would have to doubt that reason for using an old photo. Any media site worth anything at all would either publish a current one or not publish at all. Or, just possibly, publish an old one with a clear disclaimer that it is years old.
No, the purpose of publishing a pic of that cute little boy was to vilify Zimmerman as a racist murderer. Plus, of course, rake in the $$ from advertisers loving the high readership numbers.
Pandering to the racists that think the only reason to kill any black person is because they're black. Did you fall for it? About half the country seems to have...
So you mean to tell me Josak that Trayvon Martin didn't have a driver's license photo or that his facebook photo was of him when he was 12? Especially in the world of today, what teenager doesn't have a bunch of pictures of themselves with all the camera phones....
I don't know if the 17 year old has a drivers license, many parents cannot access their child's facebook so they released old photos first, later on other photos became more prevalent ie.
So instead of waiting for a current picture they posted a picture of Trayvon as a 12 year old and Zimmerman in county orange? Yeah, that sounds fair.
Sorry are you now complaining about unfair representations after posting a picture of SOMEONE ELSE as Trayvon? Because a five year old photo is way better than a photo of someone else who is 11 years older.
Well we just have your word (no website backing up anything you say) that that picture is fake.
Is the person in this picture innocent....I'll tell you who it is once you give your answer...
How could a baby with a face like that ever do anything wrong?
Actually if you read my post you will see I did indeed provide a link to back it up, look again, real hard this time man
I am guessing that is Hitler... or is it Trayvon Martin?
You can't tell who it is? Maybe it's a good person...maybe it's a bad. But do you see how out-dated photos are total garbage?
And I did a bit of research turns out that picture I posted was of Trayvon....just not the right one. Multiple kids called Trayvon. You said it was the 28 year old Rapper called Game...yeah that's not him..Game's a big guy. But I did find a picture of Trayvon that was supposed posted a few days before his death....
Such a sweet little boy.
You continue to mischaracterize calling for justice (i.e., an arrest and trial) as "out to get someone." I know it's easier to argue against an exaggeration. I get it.
Of course we are a nation of laws. Do you see me on the evening news hunting down and hanging anyone? No, all I'm doing is advocating that trained cops not be allowed to beat to death a disabled man, that some self-appointed mall cop with a gun not be allowed to follow and shoot an unarmed teenager, and that spoiled, cretin teenage boys not be allowed to rape and humiliate an unconscious teenage girl.
Have I posted a lie? No, I've posted an opinion on an internet forum, an opinion that's shared by a lot of people. Oooooh, I'm awful.
Really? Just calling for "justice"? Let's look at some of your "calls" - going back through some of your posts on this thread:
"defending an actual vigilante who took it upon himself to follow an unarmed kid and shoot him" Do you know what a vigilante is?
"Zimmerman had an injury does not mean he needed to kill a teenager" And you know there was no need to shoot how?
"and then shooting him after instigating a struggle" How do you know who started the physical struggle?
Quite the calls for justice aren't they? Can you point to even one that can be backed up as true beyond a reasonable doubt at this point? Is even one aimed at police or the court system?
No, they are nothing more than rabble rousing - lies to raise public opinion against Zimmerman without a single care as to innocence or guilt. You will, of course, make your own decision as to whether or not such rabble rousing is an awful thing to do to someone. Or to the self respect of the person making the statements.
Yes, a vigilante is a person who takes the law into his or her own hands. Sounds like Mr. Zimmerman, doesn't it?
As for the rest, again, those are my opinions based upon what I've read. I could be wrong; I could be right. As you keep saying, it is up to the courts to decide. However, as I keep pointing out, in particularly the cases of the murdered disabled man and the raped girl, the perpetrators would have gone on their merry way without an arrest were it not for people who had similar reactions to mine.
I am thankful for those rabble rousers, as you call them. Don't worry; my self-respect is doing just fine.
[vij-uh-lan-tee] Show IPA
1.a member of a vigilance committee.
2.any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.
1) technically describes a neighborhood watch, but neither of us is referring to that. 2) certainly does not apply; as far as we know Zimmerman did nothing wrong in speaking to Martin. Hindsight shows it was pretty stupid, not nothing.
If you're going to repeat unsubstantiated claims from the internet as your opinion, you might make it clear that you are merely repeating what you read on the net - that there is no proof and you have chosen the opinion you have because...well...just because. It's good enough for teens and younger children through the country, after all, and should be good enough for everyone else, too.
"However, as I keep pointing out, in particularly the cases of the murdered disabled man and the raped girl, the perpetrators would have gone on their merry way without an arrest were it not for people who had similar reactions to mine."
Sorry - your claim that perpetrators would not have been arrested has no proof behind it had the public not made demands. It is a claim, nothing more.
You're thankful for the rabble rousers, yes. Until you are falsely accused and find yourself on the wrong end of that. Things might just look a little different then; have a little different appearance when it becomes personal.
I will add as well that you know as well as I do that such statements, from thousands or millions of people, make an unbiased jury nearly impossible to get. It will also, if the finding is innocent, make life very difficult for an innocent victim of public opinion.
So - are you out to "get" him (Zimmerman)? Knowing the results of this kind of garbage, you aren't trying to hurt him regardless of any verdict? Nice try.
Hogwash. Are you saying no one else like you exists? LOL
I am quite certain they exist. From the number of trashy threads like this it seems unusual, though.
What? Stating an opinion based on what you've read? Imagine that! And you stated it so emphatically: "I am quite certain they exist."
How do you know that is true? Do you have any real evidence or are you just making stuff up to support your argument? Maybe you are one of a kind. But how could you possibly know one way or another? How can you so emphatically state something that you have no idea is true or not?
That "trashy" stuff works both ways, doesn't it?
At least two do; both my son and daughter-in-law find that making false claims, including those with out basis, is unethical. That makes at least 3, which means I'm not alone.
Okay, so you took an informal survey of your family, hardly what I would call unimpeachable evidence.
[This is exactly what you do, provide all kinds of namby-pamby qualifications for why this is "just speculation" or you "can't possible know that" or "maybe this" or whatever, ad infinitum.]
I just KNOW that it is not okay for six cops to beat to death an unarmed disabled man. I just KNOW it, and pretty much everyone else does, too.
Yes, you may call me a liar for providing that evidence; it is not a video or court recordings of trial proceedings. I understand that.
Why don't you question the things about Zimmerman that you want to hear the same way? Because you want to hear them?
PP, I won't argue the death of an unarmed disabled man except to note that the disabled part refers to schizophrenia; hardly the "disability" are pretending it to be. Do try and be honest, giving full information that might be pertinent.
Wait. Sorry, I forgot - honesty and full information is the last thing you'll want to provide. It might allow a reader to better understand and that's not a good thing when one is trying to convince without evidence.
So beating a mentally disabled man to death en mass is better?
Not that I know of. But knowing that the "disability" can give almost superhuman strength might just make a reasoning being sit back and say "Wait. There just might be a little more to this than cops beating a disabled, hogtied (from the thread, although we never found out if the man was tied before or after the beating) person to death"
Don't know that there ever was (I've never seen the end of this one) but it should make a person question the veracity of someone simply claiming that cops beat a disabled man to death for no reason.
There is considerable evidence to support that schizophrenia does not give one superhuman strength; rather, schizophrenics can be less sensitive to pain which can give the appearance of superhuman strength.
Just wanted to clarify that.
Also, show me where I said it was for "no reason." I'm guessing (yes, guessing, so sue me) the reason they did it is there seems to be a pattern among some police officers to think that the slightest hesitation or resistance to a verbal command, however harmless or unintentional, is justification for brutality.
I've seen cops behave like total asses just because they can.
You misunderstand. I am not calling you a liar. I am also certain there are those like you out there. I was treating your statement of such certainty the way you do others who make similar statements, to make a point. That is all.
How is schizophrenia not a disability? In fact, it was probably why he didn't respond the way the police officers expected him to. He was undoubtedly killed because of his disability, in a sense.
I understood that; I am suspect (not an authority source) and so is my data. The question remains, though - if I am suspect, why isn't other information from no better sources?
You say "disability" I think a wheelchair. Or missing a leg. Something like that, something that makes the man unable to fight back.
Schizophrenia not only does not do that, it can make the person far more willing to fight but also far more able as well; the antithesis of the picture your words gave me. Your use of the simple word without description gives a very false picture and lacks very important information.
And yes, it probably played a huge part in why what happened did. His disability brought about his death in a round a bout way.
Your misleading term, my misunderstanding, his disability - all have nothing to do with declaring that 4 (or 6) cops are guilty of murder without ever having a trial, though. And that was what I took exception to in that thread just as I do in this thread.
Sorry, I'm not buying that just because I didn't explain the disability that means I was being intentionally misleading. I assumed you already knew that, given that you apparently read about it.
Of course you don't buy it. If you did buy it you couldn't live with yourself, but most people are quite capable of lying to themselves, of rationalizing their own actions to be OK when they clearly are not to an objective observer. That's why I'm in this thread - to try and convince just one more person that they really do not have the ethical right to condemn someone without knowing everything possible about whatever happened. You rationalize the lies, innuendos and misleading statements as OK because the ends justify the means - public outrage is necessary to get cops to move. They are not OK and they are seldom necessary to get a lawbreaker into a courtroom.
And yes I did read it (I commented on it), but nearly 2 years ago. After skimming over it I even remember some of the arguments made - that the man was hogtied before being beaten (false), for instance.
And I remember the very same basic arguments from me; without information no call could be made as to the guilt of the cops (to murder).
You're reaching pretty far there, wilderness. Whatever makes you feel better.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/28/justice/c … ce-beating
And your point, giving a link to a website from 9/2012 indicating a cop was charged (not found guilty - charged) from an incident in 7/2011, about the time of the other thread?
Are you claiming that those condemning that cop were right after all? Because they certainly weren't. They weren't right in the condemnation because they didn't know anything. Even if your link showed the cop was found guilty of murder they would still be wrong in their decision to declare guilt before trial.
What are you reaching for? Me to say it's all right to condemn, to declare guilt, to make decisions well over a year prior to charges even being made let alone evidence examined? Not going to happen - I'll leave that to someone with no conscience.
See I have agreed with a lot of what you say but I think this is an interesting point, I am unsure whether Zimmerman is guilty of any crime (the trial will decide) but does someone who stalked a kid walking home on the basis that "he looked suspicious" (which we are IMO deluding ourselves if we think was anything other than racial) and then killed him in the confrontation caused by this deserve to live a normal life even if innocent, if your prejudice causes the end of a child's life is it justice to go right back to your own, I am not advocating stringing him up but I certainly wouldn't want the guy in my neighborhood.
Recognizing that the racist aspect is your opinion, what is that opinion based on?
So far we "know" that Zimmerman helped and coached neighborhood kids of all races, specifically including blacks. We know he was part black. We know that NBC doctored a tape to strongly insinuate race was a concern. As far as I've heard, the only kid out that night was black. Which one of these gives the impression that his actions was racially motivated?
When it comes to Mister Zimmerman in this atrocity with young Trayvon Martin I say "If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, acts like a duck "It Is a Duck." America has enough history in racism that we don't need to start from scratch. Racial injustice has permeated America from the lowest level in our society to the judicial system that we held so highly.
Years ago if a black person had did something nonblacks felt was unlawful and you just happen to be in the area where they were looking for the perpetrator more times than not an innocent black person was lynched and usually the Law Would Do Nothing to These Perpetrators.
While I agree racism still exists...Zimmerman doesn't strike me as the racist type.
Did you know his wife and him took two black kids out in a "Big Brother" type program. Later the program ran out of funding but the couple continued to take the two black boys out on activities using their own money.
And regardless of what SStar would like to believe...didn't the FBI clear Zimmerman of all racist charges?
Your right SStar sometimes if it acts like a duck, its a duck. And Trayvon was a 17 year old with a past history of drug dealing, petty theft (stealing womens jewelry from lockers), spraying gang symbols on school property, and assault.
It sounds like ZImmerman put down a thug that night, not a child.
Your view of Mister Zimmerman not being a racist is in fact your view it is not my view.
Did you know that bigots, plantation owners, slave owners hated black people with a passion but still gave black people the job of raising their children.
Do you also know that if you suspect someone of being guilty of a crime you cannot act on your suspicions even if you see that person walking down the street minding their own business. Suspicion is not enough probable cause to intervene in someone else's life. At least from where I'm sitting the thug is the one who pursues someone for no good reason.
Seth gave some reasonable roots for his belief that Zimmerman did not act out of racism.
You say he did - what are the roots of your belief?
So tell us SStar the FBI cleared him of racism...what do you know that they didn't? Perhaps you should go tell them they made a mistake. Here I'll make it easy for you.
I am unsure about Zimmerman's guilt or otherwise, we shall see at trial, on the other hand I am absolutely sure your choice to call Trayvon a "thug" or describing it as "putting down" (as one does to an animal) is completely independent from his race ... totally...
My reference was not to Trayvon it was not he pursuing but rather being pursued.
That reply was aimed at Seth not you, sorry for the confusion.
Looking at Trayvon's past criminal history I see a guy who started graduating to more serious crimes. It was only a matter of time before Trayvon became a statistic part of the 44% of the Prison population. He was 1 year away from being an adult.
The way I see it, Zimmerman was attacked by an angry teenage (because we all know teenagers are so rational). Zimmerman's story adds up, but what the story you believe doesn't.
Why call the cops on himself? Why bash his own head into the concrete? And out of all the people Zimmerman called the cops on, why did Zimmerman decide to kill this guy?
Yeah Zimmerman put down a bad dog. Nope that's not based on race. That's based on the fact that Trayvon was getting worse, and it was only a matter of time before he landed in jail. This way he wouldn't take innocent life with him.
OH I see because you are an expert in human development, obviously a kid who has committed some petty crimes is going to then kill people. Christ I have a junior record! I am now in my 60s I grew up black and poor! the stereotyping is incredible.
"Not based on race" sure, you just referred to a human being, not even an adult yet as an animal for a second time.
Well some people are animals. Take the recent story of the 13, and 15 year old the shot a mother (leg) and the infant in her stroller (head). I'd say that qualifies as no longer human and deserving of a "put down." Or do you think they should be let off the hook...maybe ground them-no tv or videos game a week.
And where's the stereo typing? Where did I say Trayvon Martin was black therefore guilty. I said look at his past, wasn't he serving a school suspension when he was killed? Where did you think Trayvon was headed.
A study back in 94' revealed that 3/4 of the juveniles criminals that were a threat to the public came from broken homes. Another study showed that over half of the prison population grew up in broken home. Studies also show that lesser crimes can eventually lead to bigger ones.
So far Josak I've put my faith in ZImmerman's story. I've displayed the facts...you've displayed that your black and therefore the world must be racist. Give me a story about a white/brown/purple/pink kid that has a past like Trayvon and you'll hear me say that same thing, but using the race card is a pathetic argument especially when no racism is present.
All your posts scream racism, when no racism is present. I posted the FBI website for SStar when he started claiming ZImmerman was racist...do you also know something they don't...do you need me to post that website for you?
Trayvon Martin case does have alot of racism though...from the black side. Obama comment, Spike Lee...etc
You post the FBI website because of things that I've said well do me a favor posted several more times for me Because Whether You like It or Not People Are Entitled to Their Opinion EVEN IF THAT OPINION DOESN'T AGREE WITH YOURS!
The actions I've seen leading up to the death of young Trayvon indicates more to me than just someone trying to do their job. Now take that and posted on the FBI website.
Freedom of speech still exist in America.
I wasn't posting that because your opinion disagreed with mine. I was just thinking that since your convinced he's a racist that maybe you might have some sort of insider information that could help out the case.
I mean you are obviously claiming he is a racist for a rational reason and not just because Trayvon Martin was black. I figured your information could help swing the case.
After all do you want a lynching or justice to be done?
Maybe somebody else would swallow that bull but not me.
You are entitled to think what you like about this Mister Zimmerman as well as anyone else because I choose not to share your view does that mean you going behind my back trying to garner support for your position as if you only have the justifiable reasoning behind the events occurring that night.
"Maybe somebody else would swallow that bull but not me."
Your right SStar your much too clever for me, I can't pull one over your eyes. ;D.
Although I am a little curious what support I'm garnering, although the way you put it makes it sound heroic. So keep saying it...
As for the rest of you...tomorrow we ride for MORDOR!
See I am not playing a race card, that term is correctly used when a person attempts to prove or aid a point by claiming the other side is racist, as I have already said I don't know if Zimmerman is guilty or not, for me there is insufficient evidence released, perhaps we shall see at trial. My ONLY point was not that I think Zimmerman is racist but that YOU ARE, that your comments are, that your behavior has been, not to mention disrespectful of the dead child and his family.
If I posted a photo that falsely showed a white alleged criminal as a snaggle toothed redneck with a shotgun and stereotyped him as violent then I would be rightly called a racist, if you get a black teen then falsely put a photo of a 28 year old rapper associated with violence it's "obviously not racist". Actually it's very racist not to mention poorly researched, it demonstrates a desire to wish to stereotype (falsely) black people as violent and potential victims as perpetrators.
If I call a white alleged criminal an incestuous cracker then I am quite rightly labelled a racist, if you call a black teen a thug with the racial connotations of that word then you are quite rightly labelled a racist.
If you call a black kid whose crimes are petty theft and "a suspension" an animal who should be put down then one has serious motive to question either your bias or your grip on reality.
If you suggest that because someone has petty theft convictions and is serving a suspension they are going to end up killing someone again your bias or your sanity are in question.
Your behavior has been disgusting, I am sure you lack the capacity to realize it or how the legacy of such discrimination harms society but I felt compelled to tell you anyway as I was too sickened to stay quiet something I have only ever done once before, I hope you can have a look at your posts think how you would feel if I suggested your child deserved to be put down because he had a pretty criminal record and admit at least to yourself the discrimination in your comments and attitudes, but I doubt you can, very few racists have ever believed they were racist.
"See I am not playing a race card, that term is correctly used when a person attempts to prove or aid a point by claiming the other side is racist" So quote a racist remark from this thread from me...thug? Lolz
A violent person, esp. a criminal.
With all the racial words I could of picked I used thug...meaning a violent criminal...want to know of a few non-black thugs I think we should put down? Holmes is one, a violent criminal that is a waste on the Justice System...clearly bad.
As for the picture...I guess you failed to read the caption under it...Media Biased. But then again you failed to provide any type of factual argument besides using the race card. Or calling me insane.
And for my final trick I'll show our audience just how full of crap you really are.
Your quote from Earlier....
" I am unsure whether Zimmerman is guilty of any crime (the trial will decide) but does someone who stalked a kid walking home on the basis that "he looked suspicious" (which we are IMO deluding ourselves if we think was anything other than racial) and then killed him in the confrontation caused by this deserve to live a normal life even if innocent, if your prejudice causes the end of a child's life is it justice to go right back to your own, I am not advocating stringing him up but I certainly wouldn't want the guy in my neighborhood."
So in that first sentence you said your not sure of him being guilty...but in the last you say you don't want that type of guy in your neighborhood. Now if your not sure if he is guilty, then why wouldn't you want him in your neighborhood. Why wouldn't you want a potentially innocent man in your neighborhood, especially one that volunteers for neighborhood watch and takes under-privileged kids in a Big Brother Program.
Now you also in your last post said you don't think ZImmerman was racist ("My ONLY point was not that I think Zimmerman is racist-Josak) but you also wrote "we are IMO deluding ourselves if we think was anything other than racial"....so which is it...Is Zimmerman racist or is he not? Because if you know something maybe you should contact the FBI.
My reasons for not wanting this guy in my neighborhood are outlined in brackets.
This is Zimmerman's 911 transcript
Zimmerman: Somethings wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out, he's got
something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is.
[Even at this point Mister Zimmerman hasn't said one thing that this kid did which is against the law]
Dispatcher: Just let me know if he does anything ok
Zimmerman: How long until you get an officer over here?
Dispatcher: Yeah we've got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does
Zimmerman: Okay. These assholes they always get away. When you come to the
clubhouse you come straight in and make a left. Actually you would go past the
[Apparently Mister Zimmerman has classified Trayvon Martin as a derogatory term without having made any contact]
Dispatcher: So it's on the lefthand side from the clubhouse?
Zimmerman: No you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left…uh
you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. Shit he's running.
[Still there is no allegation of wrongdoing by Trayvon Martin but now there is a need on Mister Zimmerman's part to chase]
[a kid who has done nothing wrong.]
Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance…fucking [unintelligible]
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
[One would think if one is working for the law then they would respect the law however not so with Mister Zimmerman]
[It seems apparent the line of reasoning Mister Zimmerman is following-this kid is classified in Mister Zimmerman's]
[ mind as a assholes and so he needs to take his gun and deal with this person who still has done nothing wrong]
Dispatcher: Alright sir what is your name?
Zimmerman: George…He ran.
Dispatcher: Alright George what's your last name?
You seem to of left out the beginning...where it shows why he called the cops...let me add that...
(http://www.examiner.com/article/george- … ranscribed)
The 911 call was one of Zimmerman's nearly 50 calls in the past year
We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there’s a real suspicious guy. It’s Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle.
This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about. [00:25]
You've also left out the end where he lost Trayvon.
OK, what’s your apartment number?
It’s a home. It’s 1950 – oh, crap, I don’t want to give it out – I don’t know where this kid is [inaudible] [3:40]
OK, do you just want to meet with them at the mailboxes then? [3:42]
Yeah, that’s fine. [3:43]
Alright, George, I’ll let them know you’ll meet them at …
Could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at? [3:49]
OK, that’s no problem.
There's a bit more but it's just giving dispatch his number and saying goodbye. Notice how Zimmerman lost Trayvon. According to Zimmerman's story he was walking back to his car when Trayvon came out of the darkness after him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55l2Dj6AeFY Zimmerman's Account.
So SStar you don't want to live in a neighborhood where people report suspicious activity? I don't know about you but I'd rather have the cops called on me by accident then have my apartment broken into.
I didn't seem to leave out the beginning of the transcript I deliberately left it out As I Have Said Time and Time Again Being Suspicious Isn't It Enough to Intervene in People's Lives.
Mister Zimmerman made a number of accusations against this kid regarding him being suspicious, he has something in his hands But every accusation Mister Zimmerman made as far as portraying this kid as even being a party to the crime for which he says took place WERE ALL WRONG!
You are perfectly welcome to live in any neighborhood where people Are Prejudged and Prejudge Wrongly!
Here is a hypothetical scenario:
let's say you and a stranger or at the airport, baggage department. Your suitcase has not shown up but the stranger next to you is holding a suitcase that looks exactly like yours-are with you within your rights to demand that suitcase?
The only reason I can think of to leave part of it out is to try and spread your own opinion (ignoring some of the facts because they don't fit your conclusion) rather than let other draw their own conclusion using ALL the facts. Playing prosecuting attorney, in other words, rather than jury.
To demand the suitcase? Certainly not. To politely ask the stranger to re-check the name tag? Of course, and I have done so in the past. Of course, I had to approach and speak to said stranger in order to do that - suspicious that he had the wrong bag, I "intervened" in his life.
Ever heard of someone being stopped for weaving over the road? Where the cop was suspicious the driver was drunk? Or heard of a case where a cop, having stopped a car for something, detains it and calls for the drug dogs based on suspicion? Security the world over, whether it be cops, military, store security or the secret service watch, follow, speak to and sometimes detain people they are suspicious of. It's how crimes are prevented rather than allowing one to happen and then make an arrest.
When it comes to the transcript Show All of It it changes nothing.
The suspicious scenario you present most of them show probable cause. If a woman is walking down the street swinging her purse looking around where is the probable cause to intervene in her life?
There were more definitions but I chose this one:
to interfere with force or a threat of force
Also, those scenarios involve security personnel who are either in uniform or can present I.D. That is a very different thing than being followed at night by a stranger for no reason. I have been followed before, and believe me, it is scary. As I was being followed, my mind was racing with ideas for how I would defend myself should my follower approach me. I am skilled in martial arts so some of these ideas were pretty injurious. If I had attempted to defend myself, and my follower shot me, would I be blamed for my own death? I hope not. Would the man who killed me be found within his rights to shoot me while I was defending myself from a situation he created? I hope not.
"Would the man who killed me be found within his rights to shoot me while I was defending myself from a situation he created"
At this point in our knowledge of the actions that night, Martin did not defend himself from a situation created by Zimmerman; he defended himself from an imagined scenario that he created himself. He apparently had no reason to attack Zimmerman (there was no violence actually indicated) outside of his own fear. Being approached by a stranger is not a reason to knock them down - just as you say (and I've experienced the same) the mind races with ideas of what might happen but that's no reason to attack yourself and I presume you did not do so. Martin did.
We will hopefully understand eventually just why he did that, but in the meantime it seems prudent to acknowledge our ignorance and not prejudge actions by either man. There is little doubt in my mind that the actions of Zimmerman that night were stupid in the extreme, that he should have stayed in his car or at least kept his distance, but not doing so does not make him a murderer and certainly does not make him a racist out looking for a black kid to kill. He did, after all, have just as much right to walk the street that night as Martin did and, as his past record of calls to 911 plainly show, did so regularly in an effort to protect his neighborhood.
What? He imagined that some freaked out nutcase was following him with bad intentions?
We do know that according to the dispatch transcript that Zimmerman supposedly lost Trayvon Martin....why didn't Trayvon call the cops? We also know that Trayvon had MMA experience but honestly as Soul Man Dancer pointed out...if he imagined "some freaked out nutcase" was following him why take the chance? He escaped. Call the cops.
Let me explain websinha
During the police dispatchers transcripts Zimmerman states that he lost the kid.
" I don’t know where this kid is (3:40)"
He then walked towards the mailboxes where the confrontation took place. Between the time when Trayvon Martin "escaped" Zimmerman and the incident occurred Trayvon Martin could have called the cops. Someone was following him, why not call the cops? He had a cell phone.
But we also know that Trayvon had MMA experience (Mixed Martial Arts). But honestly if Trayvon really thought some nutcase was following him, why take the chance with a confrontation when he had a cell phone.
I understand that reading all the transcript changes nothing for you. That doesn't mean, however, that others would not find that section describing reasons for following to be irrelevant; they might feel it is an important part of the activity that happened that night. By "forgetting" to include it, then, you are encouraging them to draw conclusions without having full knowledge - or is that the desired result of your post?
Your concept of probable cause will be different than mine, different than Zimmerman's and likely different than any one else for that matter. You don't have the knowledge or prior experience in the neighborhood, for instance, and that will absolutely make a difference in what is considered probably cause. That you find no "probably cause" for Zimmerman to follow Martin is irrelevant; Zimmerman obviously thought he had it.
Your scenario: if you are on a dark street, in the rain, and someone approaches you, would you find more danger in a male teen, holding an unknown object while peering around him, or the woman cheerfully swinging her purse? I know which one would bother me more to have approach me, and I know which one I would more suspect of looking for something to steal...
Intervene means use of force. By your definition, then, Zimmerman did not "intervene" in Martins life until Martin attacked him. You might want to reconsider your thinking here...
Good post Wilderness.
I'd like to add. Even in your version SStar the suspect was wearing a hoodie, hence the Million Hoodie March) But wearing a hoodie can get you shot in certain areas of the US and I bet if you were to jump on youtube. Search for "7 eleven robberies"
You'd find that the majority of the robbers wore hoodies.
While wearing a hoodie at isn't a crime (currently wearing a hoodie-it's cold in Cali) having the hood-up is suspicious. It helps hide your identity. I've worked Security before, you watch people hoodies.
And again SStar either decided to leave something out (the rest of the definitions-typically the higher the number the less that meaning is used for the word)
in·ter·vene [in-ter-veen] Show IPA
verb (used without object), in·ter·vened, in·ter·ven·ing.
1.to come between disputing people, groups, etc.; intercede; mediate.
2.to occur or be between two things.
3.to occur or happen between other events or periods: Nothing important intervened between the meetings.
4.(of things) to occur incidentally so as to modify or hinder: We enjoyed the picnic until a thunderstorm intervened.
5.to interfere with force or a threat of force: to intervene in the affairs of another country.
Question SStar since intervene means with force or threat of force does that mean....
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl … s/1997421/
The pope was asked to beatup both Britain and Argentina? To use force?
(Personal note: No offense is meant to anyone of Catholic Faith. For this picture I simply thought of the most peaceful man I could think of to use in my argument that had a story about intervene. Obviously, to intervene usually means to mediate)
The definitions I choose to use is of my choosing stop expecting me to think and act like you. Perhaps that is one of the initial issues with this Zimmerman case is the idea of prejudging people because of some distorted idea that this is how a person is supposed to behave. If a person decides to skip down the street rather than walk down the street that does not deem them evil or suspicious only in the mind of some observers.
(Sorry, off topic real quick)
Y'all have to go read Seth's article about an underwater sculptor... it's at the bottom of his list of hubs. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
by VC L Veasey 5 years ago
If Martin's hand was covering Zimmerman's mouth as he claims, wouldn't the screams have sounded muffled? Zimmerman's DNA wasn't found on Martin's hands so was it Zimmerman or Martin screaming?
by Sooner28 5 years ago
http://www.kpho.com/story/22831147/zimm … ack-internThis is the last discussion I will start on this trial. I am just throwing this out there for those who insist that Zimmerman was a racist who profiled Martin. Zimmerman can be accused of paranoia, and jumping to conclusions...
by VC L Veasey 5 years ago
Why Did Some people See George Zimmerman As The Victim And Trayvon Martin As The Aggressor?Why did they believe and not question his account of how their confrontation started?
by chipsball 5 years ago
Having survived the "Rites of Passage of an African-American Teenager in America" myself as a teenager and having raised four African-Americans teenagers in America I feel so blessed today that none of them ever encountered George Zimmerman. Nor having them ever being judged by the jurors...
by Ralph Schwartz 3 years ago
George Zimmerman is "proudly" selling the gun he killed Trayvon Martin with - Thoughts?George Zimmerman is auctioning the gun he used to kill Trayvon Martin.The post lists the weapon purportedly used to kill Martin at a starting bid of $5,000. "I am honored and humbled to announce...
by chipsball 5 years ago
The most important phase of this criminal trial will be the selection of six (6) jurors and (4) alternate jurors who will determine the outcome. Selecting jurors who can set aside their feelings towards either the State of Florida or the Defense, listen to the testimony that only comes from the...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|