A Walk down Zimmerman Lane

Conspirator
Posts: 1021
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:15 am

PostSat Jul 20, 2013 7:20 pm » by Chronicnerd


Ok,

So I have been paying a ~little~ more attention to the ripples of the "not guilty" verdict and how this is being received by a specific group of Americans.

Before anything else is said and/or debated I would like anyone following this thread to carefully read over the below definition of the word "prejudice":
prej·u·dice
[ préjjədiss ]
opinion formed beforehand: a preformed opinion, usually an unfavorable one, based on insufficient knowledge, irrational feelings, or inaccurate stereotypes
holding of ill-informed opinions: the holding of preformed opinions based on insufficient knowledge, irrational feelings, or inaccurate stereotypes
irrational dislike of somebody: an unfounded hatred, fear, or mistrust of a person or group, especially one of a particular religion, ethnicity, nationality, sexual preference, or social status



Based on the above definition of "Prejudice", we can now say the following is *definitively* true:

Liberals are prejudice of Conservatives, because they often assume that all conservatives are driven by "monetary benefits" with little concern for the "little guys".

Conservatives are prejudice of Liberals, because they often assume that all liberals are driven by a more "socialistic" (take from one to give to another) agenda.


The above two statements make me prejudice of both Liberals and Conservatives for even posing my "preformed opinion" of both parties.

Now that we have a general idea of the *true* definition of the word "prejudice" and how it can be used in ways that do not necessarily *need* to include any form of *race*, we can start to look at the groups of people involved in all of this chaos.


So far, I can classify people (i.e. anyone who has any form of opinion on this whole issue) as the following:

Group 1.) Jury Verdict is Fair/Just Verdict Based on Law:
Whatever the Jury decided is the "best form of justice" because it was presented in the court of law, all the evidence presented, and an independent jury made their decision based on the laws and the evidence.


Group 2.) Jury Verdict is Respected/Still think Racial Profiling/Prejudice Bias Existed:
This group respects the legal system and the Jurors verdict, however they believe there was still a form of "racial profiling" that was happening.


Group 3.) Jury Verdict is "Legally Correct", but think Zimmerman was still being prejudiced :
This group of people believe there are *many* racist systems/mechanisms/people who are just trying to "do harm to the black community" and this case is "just another example of how black people are being exploited and racially profiled by anyone who doesn't seem to have a black skin tone".




Here is my first pass at explaining things as *they unfolded after the verdict*, which similar concepts and behaviors ~could~ be extrapolated back in time to the first few weeks after Trayvon was killed (but primarily specific to *after* the verdict):

** this is only my opinion based on looking at all of the primary personalities involved **


Group #2 started out primarily as the "leaders" and/or "speakers" of the ~Media Blitz~ that had been formed around this whole case. These people are more educated, and were in some shape-way-form involved in the "propagation" of the "Zimmerman is Guilty" media blitz.

They generalized their responses to the jury's verdict as "respecting their opinion and how they came to their opinion", however they *** still believed Zimmerman was racially profiling Trayvon and/or that there is a "sociological" racial profiling happening ***.

The people in Group #2 was limited to people who intentionally or unintentionally utilized the two words "Prejudice Biased" in the same sentence as using the word "Racial Profiling".

As in, the first few days after the verdict it was common to hear people say something similar to:
"I believe Zimmerman was racially profiling Trayvon, which makes him prejudice biased during the conflict. Had he not been prejudice biased (white teenager instead of black teenager) then none of this might have happened."

============================
Racial Profiling:
Simply means that one is intentionally looking for specific "physical/visual descriptions":

Examples :
The man that robbed the store was white, bald, and had tattoo's.
(Racial profile: Caucasian, Bald, Male that has tattoos)

The woman that hit my car and drove away was a large black woman.
(Racial profile: Black, Obese, Female)

Racial Profiling includes a race *specific* trait that *HELPS* in the *identification* of *specific* types of people that can be classified for <insert reason for profiling here>.

-------------------------------------------------------
Some ~commonly~ used REASONS for racial profiling:
-------------------------------------------------------
1.) Terrorism: A specific race, of a specific genetic line that has distinctively unique physical characteristics, that wishes to do harm to some group. The group would most likely form a "Racial Profile" of this group of people in order to *Identify* and be *Alert* that something bad could happen (i.e. the whole reason behind using this technique).

2.) Personal Experience: A person experiences specific types of behaviors of a group of people or person who all can be racially profiled based on a specific physical characteristic. The experience *typically* has to be some form of physical and/or emotional trauma that develops this form of "personal racial profiling".

3.) Statistical Facts: A specific group of people, that can be identified by a unified physical characteristics, who statistically have been proven to do <insert any act or action done by said group of people>.

4.) Blind/Ignorant Prejudice: An individual can come to an "ill-conceived" conclusion that a specific group of people that can be defined by a unified physical characteristic always <insert any excuse/reason mentally created by said individual of the "ill-conceived" conclusion>

============================


Why the definition?

The initial members from Group #2 were claiming a form of "Bias" that Zimmerman already had due to *Statistical Facts* (#3 Above under Racial Profiling), and as such there was a form of "Racial Profiling" happening.

What this did, unfortunately, was stir the pot in the "less good intention-minded" people of Group #2 who realized there was the "perceived usage" of the word(s) "Prejudice" and "Racial Profiling" that could potentially stir up some media and political leverage.

Thus, towards the middle of this past week (7-18-2013) we started to see many of the more "Black Civil Rights" oriented people become very vocal about:

1.) Prejudice Bias
2.) Racial Profiling
3.) Stand Your Ground

This, in turn, started to kick up the "energy" level of Group #3 (Jury Verdict is "Legally Correct", but think Zimmerman was still being prejudiced), who I believe "misunderstood" the usage of the Prejudice Bias, Racial Profiling, and have no idea that Stand Your Ground has nothing to do with the Zimmerman case (or if it did, it was Trayvon who was standing his ground and Zimmerman who encroached first...which there has never been any evidence to support any of that).


So, at this point we now have year *ANOTHER* media frenzy about the "Civil Rights" of Trayvon, which is being held up from Group #2's usage of the words:

"Racial Profiling" and "Prejudice Biased"


The real meaning behind these two words, based on the *FACTS*, is the following:

Racial Profiling within the Zimmerman Case:
Zimmerman's Neighborhood had been getting robbed quite a bit, and each *visual encounter* recorded in *each police record* shows the burglars were all black and male.

Because of these *facts*, Zimmerman already had a "Racial Profile" on what he was "Watching out for":
Unfamiliar, Black, Males

His job was "Neighborhood Watch" which was something the Neighborhood members had decided would be a good thing if they helped keep an eye out for anyone who "fit the description" of the people who had been robbing them... they had to come up with a set of unified physical characteristics between the robbers that was common amongst them all in order to *GIVE ZIMMERMAN A GOOD IDEA OF WHAT TO WATCH FOR*.

A profile... in this case is did involve skin color and as such it becomes a "Racial based Profile"...which does not mean that is is "racist or racial" in the context of *CIVIL LIBERTIES*, but *PRIMARILY* for identification purposes.

I believe, this is what the *initial* members of Group #2 (i.e. lawyers and other closer to the family members) had to be insinuating when they initially brought it up after the jury's verdict.


Prejudice Bias within the Zimmerman Case:
There are two parts to this:
1.) Pretty much this phrase can be interchanged with "Racial Profiling" as they pretty much end up at the same place: Zimmerman had a predetermine set of criteria he was "Watching out for".
2.) Due to *Historic* statistics on violence within the young adult black American communities, there was some mention they believed Zimmerman was more *biased* and *emotionally affected* by said "biases" that he might have "pulled the trigger" more from "bias" than from "true realistic fear" of his life (which would then open a door to discount the Federal Level Self Defense ruling).



At the end of the day here is what I know to be true:

1.) There are those who only understand the word "prejudice" as being something is more about "white hate towards black people". When they hear someone use the word "prejudice", they only think "racist" and are less likely to look at or understand the *true* context in which the word is being used. This insights anger and frustration, which then results in what we have been seeing around the USA with all of the riots.

2.) There are those who understand the difference in the contextual usage of the words, but also understand there are a large portion of Americans who *don't*... and as such they *play* off of this in order to *manipulate* people through their *emotions* and not their *brains*.

3.) Whether *anyone* likes it or not here are the facts:

-- The majority of Crimes in the area were committed by "Young Black Males"
-- Many people are afraid of *some* black people, because of stereotype, but that is due to:
.........Media imposed stereo types (Gangsta's) and Trends/Styles (clothing)
.........Statistical *facts*
.........A bit of "Over Reaction" in some people due to "fear"
.........Linguistic intonations and slang usage (which points back to media influenced 'Gangsta' look)
-- Zimmerman was "Watching for" the profile created by *PAST EXISTING CRIMES* in the neighborhood
-- Zimmerman obviously was not a "traditional racist (based on ignorance)", but was *Biased* due to recent experiences and statistics.
-- Zimmerman made the mistake of exiting his vehicle when the dispatcher told him not to
-- Due to Zimmerman's potential *Bias* and/or *Fear for Neighbor's Life* he might have felt the "duty" to keep an "eye" on him until the police arrived (purely my own speculation)
-- Trayvon was *SEEN* (eyewitness) on top of Zimmerman and Punching him
-- Zimmerman was "trapped" under Trayvon, and as such this was a *FEDERAL* level Self Defense case:
.......Fear of death or severe bodily injury with no immediate retreat = right to use deadly force.


So:

Stand Your Ground = *NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS WHOLE THING*

Prejudice Bias = Based on Zimmerman's previous encounters and his neighbor's previous encounters

Racial Profiling = The final "Profile" of the "type of person" Zimmerman was to "Watch out for"



Prejudice Bias in this case *DOES NOT* mean that Zimmerman just shot him because he was black and Zimmerman is *Ignorantly* prejudice biased.

Racial Profiling in this case *DOES NOT* mean that Zimmerman came up with his "own" profile based on "ill-conceived" biases/reasons, but based on previous robberies and descriptions of "said robbers".


Either case....

There is a *BAD BUNCH* of Apples in Group #2 and Group #3 that seem to *want* to create a division between Americans...

There is a group of people (for the 100+ protests today), that are trying to "hop on any coat tail possible" to get their "organizations" exposed to the Black Community to try and *reduce* black crime...which in turn... will *reduce* the future prejudice biases towards "blacks"...

Finally, there is a group of "community organizers" and "public speakers" who understand in order to get an audience... you have to have a reason for the "audience" to come listen to you speak... if there is some form of "Racial Injustice" involved... the black community, from Group #2 and #3...perhaps a few from #1, will most definitively come out for "the cause".

All of this in the name of "not directly talking about the elephant in the room":

The fact that a "non-black" person is more likely to "use deadly force" when being straddled/pinned on the ground and pounded in the face by a "black young adult" than a "white young adult" should not *shock* anyone...

The common "black" music (youth oriented rap etc) talks/raps about black oppression, "the man", and generally about "taking justice into one's own hands", and the younger black generation is more likely to grow up in a tougher neighborhood where potentially disputes are handled through fighting disputes out (black on black crime is the highest it has ever been)....

As such... Trayvon was *just* as *biased* in his assessment of Zimmerman (i.e. "cracka comment")...which this is all *due to how Trayvon was raised*... how he was told to "handle older people" (i.e. you know: "respect your elders")...and also possibly had more of a "fight or flight" reaction...with the "flight" portion dulled out due to his upbringing (including the schools he attended).

So, the fact that had Trayvon been a white kid this whole thing might not have happened?

Sure... here is why:

Profile of a white 17 year old:
Caucasian Young Adult

Profile of a black 17 year old:
Black Young Adult

Immediately, Zimmerman *might* have stopped to ask him where he was going... and I say *might*... but he *might* not have... because he *DIDN'T FIT THE PROFILE OF THE PAST BURGLARS*.

If Zimmerman *had* stopped and asked the ~proposed~ white 17 year old where he was going?

Well... the white 17 year old very likely did *not* grow up under the same circumstance and more than likely *did not* perceive "rap" music or the like the same way someone who ~was black might~, and as such a white 17 year old kid might dress much differently... might not have even gone *out* at night to get food...and *might not* have smoked pot earlier...thus giving him the munchies to want to go out, in the rain, to get some "munchie food".

So... *ABSOLUTELY* had the boy been white...this all *very likely* would not have happened...

But... the *REASON(S)* as to why it would not have happened...and the *REASON(S)* the white 17 year old might have ~reacted differently~ has *NOTHING* to do with *IGNORANT* Prejudice Bias (#4 of "Reasons for racial profiling"), but has *EVERYTHING* to do with how a specific *PROFILE* of a specific *GROUP OF PEOPLE* which can be narrowed down to both Gender and Physical Appearance is a form of "Racial Profiling", but done so based on factual data of how those types of people have acted towards a specific other set of people (i.e. Neighborhood) in the past...

Everything else... is just a bunch of *MEDIA HYPE* and *POLITICAL LEVERAGE THROUGH SOCIOLOGICAL DIVISION*...

Trayvon's Dad or at *LEAST* his Dad's GIRLFRIEND ** HAD TO KNOW ** that they had been having issues in their neighborhood with robberies and while it sucked that it was always young black men spotted doing it... they *SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THIS* and *SAID SOMETHING OR DRIVEN TRAYVON* to get his food.

I think the *TWO* biggest mistakes on *BOTH* parties behalf were:

1.) Trayvon's Dad should have been more cautious with his son (always getting into trouble) =OR= Trayvon left without his Dad or Dad's Girlfriend knowing (to smoke a J and get munchie food).

2.) Zimmerman got out of his vehicle.


The rest is just how something like this is *most likely* to play through under these specific conditions due to *historic behaviors* of a specific race and gender in that region of Florida... biases all based on how a specific group of people had *historically behaved*...

Zimmerman was shorter and fatter and older...
Trayvon was taller (longer legs), lighter, and younger...

No one asked the question: "Why didn't he run home? He could have out run Zimmerman... no problem."
No one asked the question: "Did his Dad or Dad's Girlfriend know he went out at night and in the rain?"
No one asked the question: "What kind of parent allows their teenager to walk around at night in their neighborhood while it is raining and there have been lots of crimes?"

This is a case of mistakes in:
Decisions (Zimmerman)
Socially Influenced Biases (Media and Statistical Facts)
Poor Parenting (Trayvon's Parents/Dad/Girlfriend)
Understanding *Definitions* of words and their *CONTEXT*/*USAGE*

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 338
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 5:50 pm

PostSat Jul 20, 2013 7:33 pm » by handy4321


Image

Here is your innocent little child. Oh, how cute. He is signing "love thy neighbor".

Conspirator
Posts: 1021
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:15 am

PostSat Jul 20, 2013 8:27 pm » by Chronicnerd


Not replying to that post because I think that image ~doesn't~ help the issue...and as such don't want to replicate it again with a reply.

Sure... but do you know the "context" of that picture? I mean, can you 100% say that this picture is him showing "defiance and rebellion" or perhaps is he "making fun of 'gangsta' type people"?

All of this stuff about who they both are is not something we, as a third party group in the chain of people involved (i.e. spectators), should be jumping to any form of conclusion...

Teenagers are *dumb*... I know I was... I know I drove a "hot rod", wore torn jeans, boots, and a white t-shirt at one phase of my life... and was a "bad boy"...

Did that mean that was who I was or did that mean I was *developing my own personality by imitating other personalities* and seeing which one "felt right" for me?

How he *looked* and *sounded* most definitively had something to do with it, however was it Trayvon who came up with his "own unique style and look"... or was Trayvon "trying out a common 'look'/'personality'" which was *heavily* pushed, via media, to the black youths?

I am not implying Trayvon was "innocent of any form of delinquent act" that had been on his record, he obviously was "trying out" a specific personality that was *most likely influenced in one way or another from the more youth oriented stereotypes pushed out via media to the black youths*.

As such his "awareness" of how this look might be perceived in one community might be perceived completely differently in his Dad's girlfriend's/Zimmerman's neighborhood.

I would bet there might be one or two pictures of you that if the "context" was ~unknown~ yet the picture was posted and used to prove some "negative characteristic" of you... that there would be at least *one* photograph that someone has taken at one point or another that could be used against your "disposition/attitude/personality".

Setting aside the "Teenagers will do dumb things" concept... all the picture shows is that he was large enough to pin someone like Zimmerman down...and he was physically fit enough to have run away...

The real *major* point from my previous post was to show how "linguistic nuances" and "exploitation of people's lack of education" are being used by a group of people all associated with or aligned with the *PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATIC* party...who have been *using* these techniques to keep the "division" between Americans.

Think about it...

~If it was possible~ to solve all of our "government/political" issues... meaning...everyone in America has a "fair shot"...all laws are as "fair as they could get and still cover so many different ideologies/religions/races"...then what? What does a politician offer someone? Would there be "anything better" they could offer people if "it was all good"?

Think about it...

What would become of all special interest groups, lobbyists, unions, and political organizations?

If we came to a "balance" that "just worked always and was as fair as it could ever get"...then why elect people?

It would become more of a "maintaining" and "government program funding" based organization that had all of the organizations it needed, the laws didn't need "altering", and there was no real *thing* that anyone senator could offer over any other senator...or president...or mayor...etc...

It would default to just "maintain" the system... as in just a job to make sure funding went to the appropriate places...people come and go (hire/fire/death), but no real changes in laws... because there would be no need...

Therefore...it is *NOT* to the advantage of the *CAREER* politician to *FIX* things... and as such.. you will *ALWAYS* need people creating *PROBLEMS* with the *SYSTEM*... even if there are none at all... because otherwise... why keep electing them? What issues would they debate on??

Just be careful what you believe...historically humans have been known to exchange many lives or exchange the happiness of many people for wealth and power... this is factual *human nature*...as far as any historical text book we have on this planet has recounted.

Allowing them to manipulate one's "focus" on the *WRONG* things, only allows them to continue to "trick" everyone into believing there are "sides"...

Heck... how many *LAWS/SUB-CLAUSES* do you think we will have to *REVIEW*, *ADJUST*, and *DEBATE* over on public TV for "Obamacare"?

20,000+ pages of new regulations/laws...

I think that is at *LEAST* a couple of decades by my count of how we have handled Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

Yes Trayvon had gotten into a bad bunch of people...

But it *does not* change how the media and the *PROGRESSIVE LEFT* has been trying to make such a big deal over this *ONE PARTICULAR CASE*...there have been several cases of actual *WHITE MEN* shooting *BLACK MEN* that were *WAY* more questionable since Trayvon was shot...

Why not cover those if it *ISN'T ABOUT THE PROPAGANDA WHICH NEEDS A LARGE VIEWER BASE TO WORK*???

So...the picture posted...everyone has seen it and it only will *add* to the *agenda*...

Instead... force the conversation back to what is being said *TODAY* and how that will *IMPACT* our future...

Zimmerman was found not guilty... the rest of all of this media propaganda hype is nothing more than a political agenda to "muck around" in more laws...which in turn will probably turn out, 5 to 10 years from now, being bad ideas...people bitching about them...and then they *adjust more*...but always with "extra stuff everyone doesn't want or know about"... as future added security that there will always be:

A need for laws to be adjusted/balanced or an "improvement" in the system...which in turn will keep the government "cogs" turning...political battlefield alive...and always have at least *TWO* sides to "American Politics".

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 338
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 5:50 pm

PostSat Jul 20, 2013 9:14 pm » by handy4321


Sure... but do you know the "context" of that picture? I mean, can you 100% say that this picture is him showing "defiance and rebellion" or perhaps is he "making fun of 'gangsta' type people"?


You mean the type of people who would say, physically attack someone because of close proximity? I think this statement speaks volumes. The kid WAS a, so-called, "gangsta", that is painfully obvious. The only law/laws broken in this case was assault and battery and justice was served for the crime. People wanting to protect themselves and/or their property by means of observing suspicious looking characters is not a crime. Do you dispute this?

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 8927
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:52 pm

PostSat Jul 20, 2013 11:27 pm » by Noentry


handy4321 wrote:
Noentry wrote:Image

I see a boy who had committed no crime went to shop, bought some sweets and was gun down on his way home. The law says Zimmerman is not guilty.
Its the minors fault for :headscratch: acting like a minor.
Not the adult who followed an innocent boy, Zimmerman was in his rights to kill an unarmed minor who had broken no laws.

Bravo fucking bravo :clapper:


The man in the video who broke in and beat the woman in front of her child was also unarmed. I guess he is also a victim of racial profiling as well? Yes, poor, poor non-violent, innocent teen! You are a piece of work!
So, what you are saying is that Martin had the right to self-defence even if there was no threat to his safety, but Zimmerman had no right to self-defence while getting his skull caved in, correct?
Also, is assault and battery not against the law?


Are you saying that all victims of crime are a result of racial profiling?
I dont believe that for one sec.
In your approximation all white on black crime is racially motivated?
Perhaps you think all black on white crime is racially motivated?

I dont see the world that simply in black and white there are many shades of grey.
Why am I a piece of work? :headscratch:

In this case, imo, the incident was due to both parties racially profiling the other. Their misguided prejudices caused this incident, They both got it wrong and the minor payed with his life, the adult will have to live with himself. If he is a decent human being he will live to regret shooting an unarmed innocent teenager. He will one day ask himself, ( if he has not already ) what could I of done differently?

Trayvon on the other hand will never get that chance.



@ Chronicnerd I agree with you the media has manipulated this incident. And are behind the great racial divide in America and around the world. Divide and concur as they say.
They play us like like musical instruments and the majority happily strum along to the tune of their making.


I am in the group 2, but I still 100% agree with you the ptb are in the position of keeping this a racially motivated killing, using race batters who have make a living on promoting racism.

The issue is not does America or the rest of the world have racist elements within their society. We all know this to be true.
The issue for me is if I have committed no crime and am followed by a stranger and I get shot and killed that is wrong. Imo.
There was only two witnesses to the initial encounter, one is dead one is alive.
Does anyone think if the shooter was aggressive and was to blame for this he would say oh no sorry, I am to blame give me life. He will lie to save his skin. We can never be sure he is telling the truth. Never.

This case is not open and shut we have many witnesses who say Trayvon on top,we have no witnesses to say Trayvon was smashing his skill into the concrete.
There is no medical evidence that Zimmerman had concussion so his life was never in danger.
What we have here is the case of a weakling man who can not handle a 17 year old boy carries gun, gets into a confrontation with boy, boy gets the better of weakling man and man shoots boy at point blank range.
Every way I look at this it is wrong.

The verdict is Legal mind you, no man should be found guilty of a crime unless the evidence can prove so.
But imo morally Zimmerman was the adult, in this scenario he was armed and he ignored the advice given to him, that would of lead to this not ending with a killing of nan innocent child.

In recent generations gone by once you entered adolescence you were considered an adult.
In modern times this was changed because we extended this because...........well do I really need to explain.
CN explained it perfectly already.
"The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority.
The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority.
The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking."
A. A. Milne

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 338
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 5:50 pm

PostSun Jul 21, 2013 2:39 am » by handy4321


If he is a decent human being he will live to regret shooting an unarmed innocent teenager.


There you go with that "innocent" again. While teenager is correct, adolescent is as well. He was NOT a child. As for the innocent part, he was innocent of a lot of things. One thing he was not innocent of was assault and battery. THAT WAS THE CRIME COMMITTED! Granted, the punishment was severe but he could have chosen not to attack. You are simply trying to bait a racial motivated war for whatever reason.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 8927
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:52 pm

PostSun Jul 21, 2013 2:56 am » by Noentry


handy4321 wrote:
If he is a decent human being he will live to regret shooting an unarmed innocent teenager.


There you go with that "innocent" again. While teenager is correct, adolescent is as well. He was NOT a child. As for the innocent part, he was innocent of a lot of things. One thing he was not innocent of was assault and battery. THAT WAS THE CRIME COMMITTED! Granted, the punishment was severe but he could have chosen not to attack. You are simply trying to bait a racial motivated war for whatever reason.


You misunderstand me.
Not innocent like pure.
Innocent like he had committed no crime before the event we are talking about.
"The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority.
The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority.
The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking."
A. A. Milne

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 338
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 5:50 pm

PostSun Jul 21, 2013 4:25 am » by handy4321


Noentry wrote:
handy4321 wrote:
If he is a decent human being he will live to regret shooting an unarmed innocent teenager.


There you go with that "innocent" again. While teenager is correct, adolescent is as well. He was NOT a child. As for the innocent part, he was innocent of a lot of things. One thing he was not innocent of was assault and battery. THAT WAS THE CRIME COMMITTED! Granted, the punishment was severe but he could have chosen not to attack. You are simply trying to bait a racial motivated war for whatever reason.


You misunderstand me.
Not innocent like pure.
Innocent like he had committed no crime before the event we are talking about.


Which event are you referring to? If the "event" you are referring to is the shooting, it was immediately preceded by the ASSAULT AND BATTERY! Where I live, that is a crime. If someone were on top of me and bashing my head into the concrete, I would do whatever possible to put an end to it also. So you see, the word "innocent" does not fit Trayvon Martin in any way shape or form. Martin was in the middle of committing a crime and was stopped. He always had the choice not to commit that crime.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 8927
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:52 pm

PostSun Jul 21, 2013 5:02 am » by Noentry


handy4321 wrote:
Which event are you referring to? If the "event" you are referring to is the shooting, it was immediately preceded by the ASSAULT AND BATTERY! Where I live, that is a crime. If someone were on top of me and bashing my head into the concrete, I would do whatever possible to put an end to it also. So you see, the word "innocent" does not fit Trayvon Martin in any way shape or form. Martin was in the middle of committing a crime and was stopped. He always had the choice not to commit that crime.


There is no proof he smashed his head into concrete. The only witness who saw Trayvon on top did not see this. So this is you being manipulated by the media

What you are doing is blaming this event on the result instead of the incitement.
What started this event? Who started this event?
At what point did this situation begin in your mind?
"The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority.
The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority.
The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking."
A. A. Milne

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 338
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 5:50 pm

PostSun Jul 21, 2013 5:33 am » by handy4321


Noentry wrote:
handy4321 wrote:
Which event are you referring to? If the "event" you are referring to is the shooting, it was immediately preceded by the ASSAULT AND BATTERY! Where I live, that is a crime. If someone were on top of me and bashing my head into the concrete, I would do whatever possible to put an end to it also. So you see, the word "innocent" does not fit Trayvon Martin in any way shape or form. Martin was in the middle of committing a crime and was stopped. He always had the choice not to commit that crime.


There is no proof he smashed his head into concrete. The only witness who saw Trayvon on top did not see this. So this is you being manipulated by the media

What you are doing is blaming this event on the result instead of the incitement.
What started this event? Who started this event?
At what point did this situation begin in your mind?


Apparently, the injuries were all the proof needed for the jury to exonerate Zimmerman as it should have been. I guess your saying that the media manipulated the evidence(injuries)so well that they fooled medical personnel as well as the police and everyone in between. The resulting death was the end of the situation and Martin inflicting pain and injury on Zimmerman was the start. How did this start in your mind?
What you are doing is omitting the very important part of a known thug assailing a man and trying to portray him as an innocent child.

As far as incitement goes, all the crime in the area was "the incitement". I say again, people have the right to protect their persons and belongings.


PreviousNext

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook