Obligatory Zimmerman Trial thread [OT] Yes, we're doing this

Guilty or Not

  • Guilty

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Not Guilty

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
WickedLiquid said:
Is he that jerk who ruined all those magician's secerts?

No, that was GOB Bluth.

I don't have an opinion one way or the other about his guilt or innocence. I'll leave that to the judge and jury. I've been following it on the radio though to try and stay informed.
 
Ok, I'll bite...plus I'm bored and got time to type another one of my usual long ass posts.

He's guilty as fuck and should receive the harshest penalty possible under the law.

The problem with this case is that the media fucked it up from the start when they took this story and tried to sensationalize it with the racial aspect of a white guy shooting an unarmed black teen. Except George Zimmerman (who will be referred as GZ from this point forward) isn't white. Not 100% anyway. So rather than correct their mistake, the media made it even worse by calling him a white-hispanic. What the fuck? Do people call the President a white-black? My son is two different races. Would I identify him to someone as a white-asian? Fuck no. I would say he is bi-racial, just like the President and GZ.

The focus of the story should have been about the ever increasing amount of people walking around armed every single day and how many of these people suddenly are much braver than they would be if they were unarmed. Do you think GZ would have gone out of his way to confront that kid if all he had on him was a flashlight? We can only speculate, but my money is on: no way. He was not afraid of getting in a confrontation because he knew if things went bad he had that gun. These types of people are not buying guns to protect their homes or their families, they are buying them as a solution for all their problems.

"When a problem comes along, you must shoot it!" to paraphrase a song.

But this isn't just about guns and I don't want this to sound like some anti-gun rant. This is about vigilantism. This is about some wannabe cop (my opinion of him) that went out looking for trouble, found it, could not handle it, and shot a kid because of it.

The simple fact is that as soon as he saw this kid he instantly decided this kid was up to no good even though he had not witnessed the kid doing anything wrong at all. The kid was just walking, but that was enough for GZ to determine that the kid was a fucking punk and he was going to confront him because he didn't want the asshole to get away. This is documented on the 911 call.

To sum up, GZ gets out of his car, starts following the kid. The kid gets freaked out and tires to get away. GZ catches up with him and confronts him. A fight starts, GZ gets his ass kicked by the kid so, GZ shoots him dead. Somehow the Defense says that falls under the Stand Your Ground law in that state.

So if I was in Florida with you and got in your face and goaded you enough to the point that you starting kicking my ass, I could then turn around and shoot you in the face and say that my life was in danger. MAKES TOTAL SENSE!

In conclusion, (I loved english papers that made you have to have that final paragraph.) he needs to be found guilty to send a message to would-be neighborhood watch rambos like him. That armed vigilantes roaming the streets with absolutely zero training of any kind, stopping anyone they deem suspicious, and taking the law into their own hands will NOT be tolerated in our society.

I don't want to live in a county where my neighbor down the street can pull a gun on me and ask me what I'm doing on his street and ask for my ID before I'm allowed to go to my home all because he doesn't like the way I look.
 
C_nate said:
To sum up, GZ gets out of his car, starts following the kid. The kid gets freaked out and tires to get away. GZ catches up with him and confronts him. A fight starts, GZ gets his ass kicked by the kid so, GZ shoots him dead. Somehow the Defense says that falls under the Stand Your Ground law in that state.
Not entirely how it went down from what i hear. He was doing neighborhood watch in a gated community (which murrikans seem to equate with 'castle') and saw some kid walking along at night in a hoodie. Now, why you'd straight up call the cops instantly is on z-man, but i'd probably go check out what he was doing. He got out of his car and started following him, kid started running (both perspectives have different views - z-man saw punk kid in hoodie running away, martin saw random dude start following him so was like 'fuck that'). z-man loses martin and starts walking back to his car, martin rolls up and asks why he was following him, then the fight starts.
Poor itty bitty kid martin (notice all the pictures of him around 13 the media like to use) is a punk teenager and knows how to fight, starts kicking z-mans ass. Toward the end of the fight, z-man starts fearing for his life (no idea if the kid will stop or what he'll do if he gets z-mans gun - important), pulls the gun and shoots him.

No doubt z-man was a fucktard about everything, but it's not like everything's on him. If he had've just straight up shot the kid, we'd be talking murder, but in the eyes of the law (those important things, americans might not have heard of them with their 'justice' system lately) the case is very simple: 2 guys walking along at night on public footpath, one is armed, 1 starts altercation with armed person, armed person doesn't pull weapon straight away until not knowing how the fight will go, shoots other person. He was armed legally, and defended his life against an attacker.

Which would you rather have:
Neighborhood watch assholes bothering you
or
No more self-defense allowance

Because that's what this case is deciding.


Of course, he'll be found guilty. Imagine the riots and bullshit that would happen if he wasn't.
So he'll go down for one of the weaker manslaughter charges and get early parole just after the public has stopped caring.
 
A common misconception about the case is that GZ was part of some formal, organized neighborhood watch program, but he was not. He was out there on his own, doing his own thing. That he took it upon himself to appoint himself Sheriff of his neighborhood is pretty telling of his mental state in my opinion. He was flyin solo that night. Vigilante style.

Even if he was part of such a program he went against and flat out broke just about every guideline for every watch program in the states.

The main function of a person on neighborhood watch is to observe and report. Hence it being called neighborhood WATCH and not neighborhood INTERVENE. You are also encouraged to work in pairs, not solo and to have meeting with watch members.

Neighborhood watches are not vigilante organizations. When suspecting criminal activities, members are encouraged to contact authorities and not to intervene.

The single undisputed fact about the whole thing, and it is the one thing I can't get past, is that if GZ had listened to the 911 dispatcher who told him not to follow TM, no confrontation would have happened, no fight would have happened, and no shooting would have happened. The kid would still be alive and GZ would not be in a courtroom fighting for his freedom.

2 guys walking along at night on public footpath, one is armed, 1 starts altercation with armed person, armed person doesn't pull weapon straight away until not knowing how the fight will go, shoots other person. He was armed legally, and defended his life against an attacker.

But it's not that simple at all. It wasn't two guys just walking along. 1 was just trying to go home and the other was actively following him and trying to stop him. What you are saying is that it is ok for me to go get a gun and purposely start altercations with people and if any of them get angry enough to attack me over what I am saying/doing then I can just shoot them dead and say I was defending myself. It's not defending yourself if you are the one seeking out the confrontation, get what I am saying?

Speaking on lesser charges though, in a funny twist, his defense was arguing against letting the jury consider the lesser charge of manslaughter because of a weird law in Florida. Because of the law, even a lesser charge on a crime committed with a gun still carries a lengthy term behind it. So if they find him guilty of manslaughter he could still be facing up to 30+ years behind bars.
 
93% of all black americans are killed by another black american. 500 plus died last year in chicago alone, and this rarely makes the news. That is the real tragedy.

This zimmermann stuff is just ignorance and stupidity hand in hand, based on superficial nonsense. The man's a card carrying democrat (who can't be racist! only republicans are racist right? and me!), a "white hispanic," whatever the fuck that means, and considered a good guy by his peers, white and black.

Is he guilty of being fucking stupid? Hell yes. Was it motivated by race? Only if you're a fucking idiot. Even the prosecutor has claimed it didn't have anything to do with race.

Juan Williams has been the most sensible person about this. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 89698.html

I'd say manslaughter, which is now allowed by the way. So One vote for Manslaughter.

I think another article on it I read had the best line: If he had been shot by another black person, no one would have gave a shit.
 
Considering the jury just asked for clarifications on the manslaughter instructions it sounding like it will probably be that.
 
Eyebrows, stop it. You don't event want to know what you sound like.

When two black people gun each other down its equally stupid, also due to extreme ignorance, some prior grievance, or poverty. It's not because the other one was black.

If you're the prosecutor on this, you want to stay as FAR away from race as possible. Why muddle up your argument when you have all the evidence you need?

The underlying issue in this case is about profiling and being profiled. George went hunting, and finding him guilty of a lesser charge than murder is the state of Florida basically saying he had some legitimate reasoning behind why he tracked down Trayvon and took his life.

btw - I'm super happy Trayvon got to tool this guy up before he gunned him down. GZ sucked at fistacuffs.


this thread sucks Chris. shame on you
 
UrbanMasque said:
Eyebrows, stop it. You don't event want to know what you sound like.

When two black people gun each other down its equally stupid, also due to extreme ignorance, some prior grievance, or poverty. It's not because the other one was black.




this thread sucks Chris. shame on you

I never said the reason was because the person is black, i said it's a black person. Do you truly have that little respect for me that you think that is the conclusion I'd reach? You drew that conclusion on your own.

I don't really care about skin color at all; when bush was prez, I didn't say "glad whitey's in power!" That stuff is stupid. It can be a black-chinese one legged transvestite with a glass eye; if they're on the ball, a decent human being, and have good policies, I'm all for it. What is determined at birth (gender, skin color, etc.) has no meaning to me whatsoever. Being white does not make you special; same with all the other colors. Maybe as a society being white is seen an advantage, but if we all and always see it like that with a "us vs. them" mentality, we'll never advance. You judge me based on assumptions and your own prejudice.

Once you peel back the idiotic racial layers laid on by the media, What we have here is a somewhat ignorant kid being shot and killed by an equally ignorant grown man. Treyvon was no saintly kid, and gz is no hero.

And I agree, this thread sucks.
 
..Treyvon was no saint..
1307641577001.png
 
He was 17.

Were you a saint at 17? Cause I know I sure as hell wasn't.

He wasn't a criminal either. I think people lose sight of that. They are quick to call him a punk thug but there is no evidence to support it. He wasn't out there hurting people.

What is sad to me is that I got a chance to grow out of my punk phase and become what I'd like to think is a decent human being. TM will never get that chance because of some overzealous vigilante with a hero complex.

Edit:

Also, numbers without context don't mean much. You mentioned the 500 murders in Chicago but failed to mention why. I've lived in or around Chicago my whole life and I can tell you that that violence is contained to a few select areas that are totally run by gangs. The vast majority of those murders were gang related. Until the city does something about it's school system, people stuck in crushing poverty, the gang problem, and how much everyone loves their drugs (supply and demand) then you won't see the problem go away anytime soon. As it is now, the city and police are content to let them continue shooting each other because it's just a bunch of poor black kids, so who cares.
 
^a few news posts I've read said (or claimed) that he had recently been arrested for fighting, had stolen jewelry and a lockpicking kit on him (also arrested for). I was also 17, and petty crime and fighting isn't regular for most 17 year olds i know and knew, black or white. The drug shit shouldn't be a concern, although the "purple drank" shit I've also seen reported sounds a little messed up.

And about the chicago thing; it is mostly gangs, but it's gang warfare brought on by this endless, stupid, and racist "war on drugs." that shit needs to end (look something me and urbs agree on!). There are also a lot of kids caught in the crossfire in a lot of these shootings. Maybe I can find it, but there was an article about a kid trying to organize a party at a YMCA (in chicago) and a few gang members started shit, and ended up braining him with a baseball bat while they where trying to clear the kids out.

The MSM said nothing about this. That is why it is a tragedy.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
16,686
Messages
270,776
Members
97,723
Latest member
mncraftmod
Top