Conquer Club

I will speculate a little bit. Zimmerman is a neighborhood watchman. He saw a stranger (Trayvon did not live there) walking through the closed community. The watchman asked Trayvon if he lived there and maybe where he was going. Trayvon told him to go f*ck himself. Zimmerman got out of the car and told Trayvon to show him how someone fucks themselves. They got into a fight, Trayvon was getting the best of Zimmerman, and Zimm pulled out the gun and shot him.

If a grand jury finds there is enough evidence to try Zimm in front of his peers and he is found guilty, fine, lock his ass up. The police files will be opened in a couple weeks. But to me this isn't about Zimm or Tray, it's about the media severely misrepresenting the facts and intentionally misleading people. I call it the Loughner/Fluke strategy.

The saddest thing is, if Zimmerman were a black person, nobody would be talking about it, which is where the real racism is if you ask me...only reporting stories where a non-black person shoots a black person....

Phatscotty wrote:I will speculate a little bit. Zimmerman is a neighborhood watchman. He saw a stranger (Trayvon did not live there) walking through the closed community. The watchman asked Trayvon if he lived there and maybe where he was going. Trayvon told him to go f*ck himself. Zimmerman got out of the car and told Trayvon to show him how someone fucks themselves. They got into a fight, Trayvon was getting the best of Zimmerman, and Zimm pulled out the gun and shot him.

If a grand jury finds there is enough evidence to try Zimm in front of his peers and he is found guilty, fine, lock his ass up. The police files will be opened in a couple weeks. But to me this isn't about Zimm or Tray, it's about the media severely misrepresenting the facts and intentionally misleading people. I call it the Loughner/Fluke strategy.

The saddest thing is, if Zimmerman were a black person, nobody would be talking about it.

Exactly...they probably would have just thrown him in prison.

Statistically speaking of course.

I would also point out that you were trying to very much do some misleading yourself with your facts, and were very much using the facts to suggest something they didnt.

AAFitz wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I will speculate a little bit. Zimmerman is a neighborhood watchman. He saw a stranger (Trayvon did not live there) walking through the closed community. The watchman asked Trayvon if he lived there and maybe where he was going. Trayvon told him to go f*ck himself. Zimmerman got out of the car and told Trayvon to show him how someone fucks themselves. They got into a fight, Trayvon was getting the best of Zimmerman, and Zimm pulled out the gun and shot him.

If a grand jury finds there is enough evidence to try Zimm in front of his peers and he is found guilty, fine, lock his ass up. The police files will be opened in a couple weeks. But to me this isn't about Zimm or Tray, it's about the media severely misrepresenting the facts and intentionally misleading people. I call it the Loughner/Fluke strategy.

The saddest thing is, if Zimmerman were a black person, nobody would be talking about it.

Exactly...they probably would have just thrown him in prison.

Statistically speaking of course.

I would also point out that you were trying to very much do some misleading yourself with your facts, and were very much using the facts to suggest something they didnt.

Which ones? I have been trying to make sure to point out when I'm speculating or when we don't know, but I have caught myself miswording things a few times.

Phatscotty wrote:

Aradhus wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:How did Zimmerman get a broken nose? How did he get a cut on the back of his head?

Just wondering if anyone knows.

Assuming that is true, could it be that he attacked the kid he was fucking stalking, and the kid defended himself?

You guys are clowns.

911 call

“This guy looks like he’s up to no good or on drugs or something,” Mr. Zimmerman told dispatch, in his initial call. “It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.” Mr. Zimmerman continued: “He’s here now just looking at all the houses. Now he’s just staring at me.” Then he added a second later: “He’s coming to check me out. He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is. Can you get an officer over here?”

Was he on drugs, or up to no good? What was in his hands?

AAFitz wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Aradhus wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:How did Zimmerman get a broken nose? How did he get a cut on the back of his head?

Just wondering if anyone knows.

Assuming that is true, could it be that he attacked the kid he was fucking stalking, and the kid defended himself?

You guys are clowns.

911 call

“This guy looks like he’s up to no good or on drugs or something,” Mr. Zimmerman told dispatch, in his initial call. “It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.” Mr. Zimmerman continued: “He’s here now just looking at all the houses. Now he’s just staring at me.” Then he added a second later: “He’s coming to check me out. He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is. Can you get an officer over here?”

Was he on drugs, or up to no good?

Dude, I was just quoting the 911 phone tapes. I have no idea

Phatscotty wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Aradhus wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:How did Zimmerman get a broken nose? How did he get a cut on the back of his head?

Just wondering if anyone knows.

Assuming that is true, could it be that he attacked the kid he was fucking stalking, and the kid defended himself?

You guys are clowns.

911 call

“This guy looks like he’s up to no good or on drugs or something,” Mr. Zimmerman told dispatch, in his initial call. “It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.” Mr. Zimmerman continued: “He’s here now just looking at all the houses. Now he’s just staring at me.” Then he added a second later: “He’s coming to check me out. He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is. Can you get an officer over here?”

Was he on drugs, or up to no good?

Dude, I was just quoting the 911 phone tapes. I have no idea

Dude, I was just pointing out that the 911 call doesnt at all mean anything out of context.

If the guy Zimmerman was out for blood, as perhaps the gun suggested....the 911 call especially if the facts are untrue, is actually evidence against him.

Technically speaking, up to no good, is not even remotely a crime. I certainly could accuse you of it right now...


I again need to point out here, however, that Zimmerman very much may have very much been innocent of everything, and completely may have been indeed responsible for stopping an actual crime...but, I definitely think the facts of the case need to be investigated very closely, because its very possible an innocent person lost his life at the hands of another, through no fault of his own.

pimpdave wrote:

It wouldnt be funny if it wasnt true.

AAFitz wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Aradhus wrote:

Assuming that is true, could it be that he attacked the kid he was fucking stalking, and the kid defended himself?

You guys are clowns.

911 call

“This guy looks like he’s up to no good or on drugs or something,” Mr. Zimmerman told dispatch, in his initial call. “It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.” Mr. Zimmerman continued: “He’s here now just looking at all the houses. Now he’s just staring at me.” Then he added a second later: “He’s coming to check me out. He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is. Can you get an officer over here?”

Was he on drugs, or up to no good?

Dude, I was just quoting the 911 phone tapes. I have no idea

Dude, I was just pointing out that the 911 call doesnt at all mean anything out of context.

If the guy Zimmerman was out for blood, as perhaps the gun suggested....the 911 call especially if the facts are untrue, is actually evidence against him.

Carrying a gun means he was out for blood? He's been carrying a gun for over 10 years....just wondering what took him so long...

and I don't follow you on the 911 call. I think you mean Zimmerman may have just been covering his own ass? Yes I think that is possible. What do you mean that it's evidence against him?

Phatscotty wrote:
Carrying a gun means he was out for blood? He's been carrying a gun for over 10 years....just wondering what took him so long...

and I don't follow you on the 911 call. I think you mean Zimmerman may have just been covering his own ass? Yes I think that is possible. What do you mean that it's evidence against him?

If the kid wasnt on drugs, didnt have anything in his hand, and wasnt up to no good.... he had absolutely no reason to be going near him and possibly confronting him causing the entire situation.

I have no wonder what took him so long as you asked, but I wonder how many murderers had a gun for over ten years before killing someone? Ive had a car for well over 20 years and haven't run anyone over. If I decide to run down some kid because I think hes up to no good tomorrow, will you defend me too?

Phatscotty wrote:You guys are clowns.

I think you're the one in the circus act here, and I for one, am fully entertained.

but gotta work dammit...Ill try to resume later

AAFitz wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:You guys are clowns.

I think you're the one in the circus act here, and I for one, am fully entertained.

but gotta work dammit...Ill try to resume later

you misquoted. #1 Aradhaus said that #2 you should know I do not call people here names.

Sorry I ruined your entertainment

Phatscotty wrote:I will speculate a little bit. Zimmerman is a neighborhood watchman. He saw a stranger (Trayvon did not live there) walking through the closed community. The watchman asked Trayvon if he lived there and maybe where he was going. Trayvon told him to go f*ck himself. Zimmerman got out of the car and told Trayvon to show him how someone fucks themselves. They got into a fight, Trayvon was getting the best of Zimmerman, and Zimm pulled out the gun and shot him.

Even in your speculative fantasy, Zimmerman is obviously at fault.

"He told me to go f*ck myself", is not a valid reason to confront someone physically. Also, losing a fight to and unarmed person half your size (a fight that you initiated), is not a valid reason to shoot someone to death.

Aradhus wrote:are you smoking crack tgd? A - Obama looks like a black man. What the f*ck are you talking about? Is he not speaking out enough about white kids being gunned down and the murder not investigated properly?

B - the point he is making is that wether you're the son of the president, or some random schmo on the street, your death deserves to be treated with the same level of investigation. Without bias. Without prejudice. With justice.

The point he's making is that when it's politically beneficial for him, he will address violent crimes directly.

Do you know how many violent crimes happen in the United States to young black people? How many times has the president directly addressed these? Zero? Why is he addressing it now? The answer is because it's politically beneficial for him to do so.

From what I've read, this is a crime and a violent crime and a violent crime against a young black man, and it's horrible and it shouldn't happen and we should all be outraged. But we should all be outraged any time this happens. And we're not. And the president certainly is not. So, again, why is he outraged now?

thegreekdog wrote:

Aradhus wrote:are you smoking crack tgd? A - Obama looks like a black man. What the f*ck are you talking about? Is he not speaking out enough about white kids being gunned down and the murder not investigated properly?

B - the point he is making is that wether you're the son of the president, or some random schmo on the street, your death deserves to be treated with the same level of investigation. Without bias. Without prejudice. With justice.

The point he's making is that when it's politically beneficial for him, he will address violent crimes directly.

Do you know how many violent crimes happen in the United States to young black people? How many times has the president directly addressed these? Zero? Why is he addressing it now? The answer is because it's politically beneficial for him to do so.

From what I've read, this is a crime and a violent crime and a violent crime against a young black man, and it's horrible and it shouldn't happen and we should all be outraged. But we should all be outraged any time this happens. And we're not. And the president certainly is not. So, again, why is he outraged now?

Or.... He's answering, because the media repeatedly ask him about it... And his point was almost exactly what your last paragraph is.

Aradhus wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Aradhus wrote:are you smoking crack tgd? A - Obama looks like a black man. What the f*ck are you talking about? Is he not speaking out enough about white kids being gunned down and the murder not investigated properly?

B - the point he is making is that wether you're the son of the president, or some random schmo on the street, your death deserves to be treated with the same level of investigation. Without bias. Without prejudice. With justice.

The point he's making is that when it's politically beneficial for him, he will address violent crimes directly.

Do you know how many violent crimes happen in the United States to young black people? How many times has the president directly addressed these? Zero? Why is he addressing it now? The answer is because it's politically beneficial for him to do so.

From what I've read, this is a crime and a violent crime and a violent crime against a young black man, and it's horrible and it shouldn't happen and we should all be outraged. But we should all be outraged any time this happens. And we're not. And the president certainly is not. So, again, why is he outraged now?

Or.... He's answering, because the media repeatedly ask him about it... And his point was almost exactly what your last paragraph is.

The media repeatedly asks him about a lot of things, like Syria or Iran or his manufacturing plan, and he chooses not to answer those questions. Please don't mistake my criticism of the president for my support of the crime. I don't support the crime. If the president wants to address violence against black men, he should spend some time coming up with some solutions and less time giving soundbites so that racists like Jesse Jackson can use those soundbites.

Phatscotty wrote:I will speculate a little bit. Zimmerman is a neighborhood watchman. He saw a stranger (Trayvon did not live there) walking through the closed community. The watchman asked Trayvon if he lived there and maybe where he was going. Trayvon told him to go f*ck himself. Zimmerman got out of the car and told Trayvon to show him how someone fucks themselves. They got into a fight, Trayvon was getting the best of Zimmerman, and Zimm pulled out the gun and shot him.

A neighborhood watch is supposed to watch, it's right there in the name. Watch doesn't include investigate or interrogate. If someone with no uniform or badge approached me on the street and started demanding I answer questions about my travel plans I'd probably tell them to go f*ck themselves also.

Carrying a firearm, Zimmerman had a special obligation to avoid confrontation but it seems he sought it out. I don't agree with Aradhus that this was premeditated, race based or part of a conspiracy. I'm not even sure if Zimmerman has legal responsibilty. It seems, though, that he might have moral responsibility.

Timminz wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I will speculate a little bit. Zimmerman is a neighborhood watchman. He saw a stranger (Trayvon did not live there) walking through the closed community. The watchman asked Trayvon if he lived there and maybe where he was going. Trayvon told him to go f*ck himself. Zimmerman got out of the car and told Trayvon to show him how someone fucks themselves. They got into a fight, Trayvon was getting the best of Zimmerman, and Zimm pulled out the gun and shot him.

Even in your speculative fantasy, Zimmerman is obviously at fault.

"He told me to go f*ck myself", is not a valid reason to confront someone physically. Also, losing a fight to and unarmed person half your size (a fight that you initiated), is not a valid reason to shoot someone to death.

lmao

"Speculate" =/ "invent a scenario that would fit your worldview when we already possess most of the relevant information."

Zimmerman wasn't supposed to have a gun. The dispatcher Zimmerman spoke with was adamant that he not pursue Trayvon, because he wasn't supposed to do that. Zimmerman sounded angry that "they always get away."

Timminz wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I will speculate a little bit. Zimmerman is a neighborhood watchman. He saw a stranger (Trayvon did not live there) walking through the closed community. The watchman asked Trayvon if he lived there and maybe where he was going. Trayvon told him to go f*ck himself. Zimmerman got out of the car and told Trayvon to show him how someone fucks themselves. They got into a fight, Trayvon was getting the best of Zimmerman, and Zimm pulled out the gun and shot him.

Even in your speculative fantasy, Zimmerman is obviously at fault.

"He told me to go f*ck myself", is not a valid reason to confront someone physically. Also, losing a fight to and unarmed person half your size (a fight that you initiated), is not a valid reason to shoot someone to death.

Not many people think Zimmerman isn't at fault. But what is he at fault for? What kind of legal case is there against him? Murder? Probably not, assuming the witness accounts are correct. Man Slaughter? Probably not, assuming that the witness accounts are correct. Some sort of lesser deadly negligence charge? That's possibly where his legal fault lays. That's still a serious charge. I don't think anybody feels especially great about defending George Zimmerman. He's either a nimrod or he had a serious lapse in judgment. But many of us object to the media's myriad of irresponsible reporting and social engineering in the wake of the tragedy. I also am annoyed that blacks aren't held to account. They just get to scream racism any time they want and we're not supposed to challenge them. F that. They know the facts. They just want attention and to be victims of the man. PS said it best__ they murder more people than anyone. They need to take responsibility for their own actions instead of looking for scapegoats.

spurgistan wrote:"Speculate" =/ "invent a scenario that would fit your worldview when we already possess most of the relevant information."

Zimmerman wasn't supposed to have a gun. The dispatcher Zimmerman spoke with was adamant that he not pursue Trayvon, because he wasn't supposed to do that. Zimmerman sounded angry that "they always get away."

Why wasn't he supposed to have a gun? Every law abiding citizen is allowed to have a gun if they choose to. That's why we have the 2nd Amendment.

ViperOverLord wrote:I also am annoyed that blacks aren't held to account. They just get to scream racism any time they want and we're not supposed to challenge them.

I'm gonna go ahead and offer you the chance to rephrase that. Perhaps, I would gently suggest, in a way that doesn't suggest you hold an irrational grudge against African-Americans.

Symmetry wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:I also am annoyed that blacks aren't held to account. They just get to scream racism any time they want and we're not supposed to challenge them.

I'm gonna go ahead and offer you the chance to rephrase that. Perhaps, I would gently suggest, in a way that doesn't suggest you hold an irrational grudge against African-Americans.

There are more blacks in the US than just those who are African-Americans. There are also African-Americans who are not black. And yes, people like Al Sharpton do get to cry racism without any challenge to their irrational grudges against white people.

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:I also am annoyed that blacks aren't held to account. They just get to scream racism any time they want and we're not supposed to challenge them.

I'm gonna go ahead and offer you the chance to rephrase that. Perhaps, I would gently suggest, in a way that doesn't suggest you hold an irrational grudge against African-Americans.

There are more blacks in the US than just those who are African-Americans. There are also African-Americans who are not black. And yes, people like Al Sharpton do get to cry racism without any challenge to their irrational grudges against white people.

I'm a little baffled, I must say, how precisely is Al Sharpton not challenged? Presumably you're looking at different sources than me, as he seems to be challenged fairly often. I'm also a little unclear on your irrational grudges against white people line that you feel black people have.

Symmetry wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:I also am annoyed that blacks aren't held to account. They just get to scream racism any time they want and we're not supposed to challenge them.

I'm gonna go ahead and offer you the chance to rephrase that. Perhaps, I would gently suggest, in a way that doesn't suggest you hold an irrational grudge against African-Americans.

I'm not going to pander to your liberal condescension. I said what I meant. You choose to see an irrational grudge that does not exist.

And here's the full quote that was based on rational thinking:

I also am annoyed that blacks aren't held to account. They just get to scream racism any time they want and we're not supposed to challenge them. F that. They know the facts. They just want attention and to be victims of the man. PS said it best__ they murder more people than anyone. They need to take responsibility for their own actions instead of looking for scapegoats.

I know you'd rather reduce it to a sensational come on instead of realizing the fullness of the logic.

ViperOverLord wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:I also am annoyed that blacks aren't held to account. They just get to scream racism any time they want and we're not supposed to challenge them.

I'm gonna go ahead and offer you the chance to rephrase that. Perhaps, I would gently suggest, in a way that doesn't suggest you hold an irrational grudge against African-Americans.

I'm not going to pander to your liberal condescension. I said what I meant. You choose to see an irrational grudge that does not exist.

Then you're kind of racist dude. Sorry, but the idea that "blacks" aren't held to account is ridiculous. I'm guessing, from the tone of your post, that this isn't the first time you've been called racist over something you've said, and that you're annoyed that so many people call you racist.

I would suggest that if a lot of people call you out on the stuff you say as racist, perhaps, and I put this gently, the problem doesn't lie with the "blacks", but with the stuff you say.

Which, obviously, is pretty racist.