Conquer Club

Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Concerning Zimmerman Verdict

 
Total votes : 0

Re: Zimmerman Sues NBC

Postby patrickaa317 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 10:54 am

Woodruff wrote:Well, now he's free to live in hiding. Sadly, I'm rather serious...how does one go about living their life after this sort of exposure?

For what it's worth, this seems to me like it was probably the right verdict. Despite the fact that I consider Zimmerman to be SIGNIFICANTLY responsible for the incident, the burden of proof for the charge simply wasn't there. I am glad that it seems to have not been a political decision.

Plus it looks like the prosecutors were doing things that were at the least unseemly, as far as providing information to the defense.

That being said, how is the following justice in comparison (I hate to mention the obvious difference):

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57434757-504083/fla-woman-marissa-alexander-gets-20-years-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/


I could be wrong as I haven't read all the fine details on either case but from my understanding there are two differences, Zimmerman's case was based on self-defense, Alexander's case was based on stand your ground. While these two have similar situations, the trials/cases are different. The real main difference is zimmerman was already carrying a gun when he was attacked whereas Alexander was confronted, then left the building to go to her garage, get a weapon, then fire a shot. Her life was not in immediate danger since she had access away from the proposed risk (evident by going outside to her car). Had Alexander had a weapon already on her when confronted, it may have resulted in a different conclusion for her case.
taking a break from cc, will be back sometime in the future.
User avatar
Sergeant patrickaa317
 
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: Zimmerman Sues NBC

Postby Woodruff on Sun Jul 14, 2013 11:21 am

patrickaa317 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:Well, now he's free to live in hiding. Sadly, I'm rather serious...how does one go about living their life after this sort of exposure?

For what it's worth, this seems to me like it was probably the right verdict. Despite the fact that I consider Zimmerman to be SIGNIFICANTLY responsible for the incident, the burden of proof for the charge simply wasn't there. I am glad that it seems to have not been a political decision.

Plus it looks like the prosecutors were doing things that were at the least unseemly, as far as providing information to the defense.

That being said, how is the following justice in comparison (I hate to mention the obvious difference):

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57434757-504083/fla-woman-marissa-alexander-gets-20-years-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/


I could be wrong as I haven't read all the fine details on either case but from my understanding there are two differences, Zimmerman's case was based on self-defense, Alexander's case was based on stand your ground. While these two have similar situations, the trials/cases are different. The real main difference is zimmerman was already carrying a gun when he was attacked whereas Alexander was confronted, then left the building to go to her garage, get a weapon, then fire a shot. Her life was not in immediate danger since she had access away from the proposed risk (evident by going outside to her car). Had Alexander had a weapon already on her when confronted, it may have resulted in a different conclusion for her case.


I do recognize the different aspect to it, and I don't disagree with what you said there.

And yet..."found not guilty" and "twenty fucking years" is pretty huge disparity for two reasonably similar situations. And EVEN ASIDE from the Zimmerman case and ignoring it completely...twenty years for firing a warning shot at a man with a history of spousal abuse? Justice?

See, the REAL problem here as I see it is that it would have been to her ADVANTAGE to have killed her ex-husband. That way, as with Zimmerman, there would have been only one side to the story. Unfortunately for her, she took the high road.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Zimmerman Sues NBC

Postby notyou2 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 2:37 pm

Inb4 all the redneck right wing fucktards say she will be safe from him in prison.
Image
User avatar
Captain notyou2
 
Posts: 6447
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:09 am
Location: In the here and now

Re: Zimmerman Sues NBC

Postby Jdsizzleslice on Sun Jul 14, 2013 5:41 pm

Let the riots begin. I hope everyone here realizes that this had NOTHING to do with white people. Someone from a Hispanic descent was defending himself against a Black kid roaming the streets.
User avatar
Brigadier Jdsizzleslice
 
Posts: 3576
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 9:55 pm
32

Re: Zimmerman Sues NBC

Postby patrickaa317 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 5:57 pm

notyou2 wrote:Inb4 all the redneck right wing fucktards say she will be safe from him in prison.


I don't think it'd be limited to just a redneck rightwing demographic. Anyone that said this should be considered 'a fucktard'.
taking a break from cc, will be back sometime in the future.
User avatar
Sergeant patrickaa317
 
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: Zimmerman Sues NBC

Postby patrickaa317 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:04 pm

Woodruff wrote:
patrickaa317 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:Well, now he's free to live in hiding. Sadly, I'm rather serious...how does one go about living their life after this sort of exposure?

For what it's worth, this seems to me like it was probably the right verdict. Despite the fact that I consider Zimmerman to be SIGNIFICANTLY responsible for the incident, the burden of proof for the charge simply wasn't there. I am glad that it seems to have not been a political decision.

Plus it looks like the prosecutors were doing things that were at the least unseemly, as far as providing information to the defense.

That being said, how is the following justice in comparison (I hate to mention the obvious difference):

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57434757-504083/fla-woman-marissa-alexander-gets-20-years-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/


I could be wrong as I haven't read all the fine details on either case but from my understanding there are two differences, Zimmerman's case was based on self-defense, Alexander's case was based on stand your ground. While these two have similar situations, the trials/cases are different. The real main difference is zimmerman was already carrying a gun when he was attacked whereas Alexander was confronted, then left the building to go to her garage, get a weapon, then fire a shot. Her life was not in immediate danger since she had access away from the proposed risk (evident by going outside to her car). Had Alexander had a weapon already on her when confronted, it may have resulted in a different conclusion for her case.


I do recognize the different aspect to it, and I don't disagree with what you said there.

And yet..."found not guilty" and "twenty fucking years" is pretty huge disparity for two reasonably similar situations. And EVEN ASIDE from the Zimmerman case and ignoring it completely...twenty years for firing a warning shot at a man with a history of spousal abuse? Justice?

See, the REAL problem here as I see it is that it would have been to her ADVANTAGE to have killed her ex-husband. That way, as with Zimmerman, there would have been only one side to the story. Unfortunately for her, she took the high road.


I agree that is a huge disparity in the situations, though I wouldn't say they are super similar. Had Zimmerman went back to his house to get his gun then went and shot Trayvon, then he would have definitely been guilty of 2nd degree.

Though you do have a point where it would have been better off to have killed her ex-husband, maybe future people in her situation will learn from her mistake. I'm mostly joking about that but I don't have much time for dickhead people who beat their spouses or children.
taking a break from cc, will be back sometime in the future.
User avatar
Sergeant patrickaa317
 
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: Zimmerman Sues NBC

Postby Woodruff on Sun Jul 14, 2013 10:35 pm

Jdsizzleslice wrote:Let the riots begin. I hope everyone here realizes that this had NOTHING to do with white people. Someone from a Hispanic descent was defending himself against a Black kid roaming the streets.


Defending himself in a situation he sort of brought on himself, of course...
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Zimmerman Sues NBC

Postby Woodruff on Sun Jul 14, 2013 10:40 pm

patrickaa317 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
patrickaa317 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:Well, now he's free to live in hiding. Sadly, I'm rather serious...how does one go about living their life after this sort of exposure?

For what it's worth, this seems to me like it was probably the right verdict. Despite the fact that I consider Zimmerman to be SIGNIFICANTLY responsible for the incident, the burden of proof for the charge simply wasn't there. I am glad that it seems to have not been a political decision.

Plus it looks like the prosecutors were doing things that were at the least unseemly, as far as providing information to the defense.

That being said, how is the following justice in comparison (I hate to mention the obvious difference):

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57434757-504083/fla-woman-marissa-alexander-gets-20-years-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/


I could be wrong as I haven't read all the fine details on either case but from my understanding there are two differences, Zimmerman's case was based on self-defense, Alexander's case was based on stand your ground. While these two have similar situations, the trials/cases are different. The real main difference is zimmerman was already carrying a gun when he was attacked whereas Alexander was confronted, then left the building to go to her garage, get a weapon, then fire a shot. Her life was not in immediate danger since she had access away from the proposed risk (evident by going outside to her car). Had Alexander had a weapon already on her when confronted, it may have resulted in a different conclusion for her case.


I do recognize the different aspect to it, and I don't disagree with what you said there.
And yet..."found not guilty" and "twenty fucking years" is pretty huge disparity for two reasonably similar situations. And EVEN ASIDE from the Zimmerman case and ignoring it completely...twenty years for firing a warning shot at a man with a history of spousal abuse? Justice?

See, the REAL problem here as I see it is that it would have been to her ADVANTAGE to have killed her ex-husband. That way, as with Zimmerman, there would have been only one side to the story. Unfortunately for her, she took the high road.


I agree that is a huge disparity in the situations, though I wouldn't say they are super similar. Had Zimmerman went back to his house to get his gun then went and shot Trayvon, then he would have definitely been guilty of 2nd degree.


You're right in that they're not super similar...Zimmerman killed someone and this black woman didn't. Yet if I didn't know any better, I would be almost forced to assume that the 20-year verdict went against Zimmerman rather than someone who intentionally didn't kill anyone.

patrickaa317 wrote:Though you do have a point where it would have been better off to have killed her ex-husband, maybe future people in her situation will learn from her mistake. I'm mostly joking about that but I don't have much time for dickhead people who beat their spouses or children.


I'm actually not joking about that. It's clear to me that if I have an intruder in my home, I will have to kill them, simply out of self-defense. And that makes me sick.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Zimmerman Sues NBC

Postby patrickaa317 on Sun Jul 14, 2013 10:51 pm

Woodruff wrote:
patrickaa317 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
patrickaa317 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:Well, now he's free to live in hiding. Sadly, I'm rather serious...how does one go about living their life after this sort of exposure?

For what it's worth, this seems to me like it was probably the right verdict. Despite the fact that I consider Zimmerman to be SIGNIFICANTLY responsible for the incident, the burden of proof for the charge simply wasn't there. I am glad that it seems to have not been a political decision.

Plus it looks like the prosecutors were doing things that were at the least unseemly, as far as providing information to the defense.

That being said, how is the following justice in comparison (I hate to mention the obvious difference):

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57434757-504083/fla-woman-marissa-alexander-gets-20-years-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/


I could be wrong as I haven't read all the fine details on either case but from my understanding there are two differences, Zimmerman's case was based on self-defense, Alexander's case was based on stand your ground. While these two have similar situations, the trials/cases are different. The real main difference is zimmerman was already carrying a gun when he was attacked whereas Alexander was confronted, then left the building to go to her garage, get a weapon, then fire a shot. Her life was not in immediate danger since she had access away from the proposed risk (evident by going outside to her car). Had Alexander had a weapon already on her when confronted, it may have resulted in a different conclusion for her case.


I do recognize the different aspect to it, and I don't disagree with what you said there.
And yet..."found not guilty" and "twenty fucking years" is pretty huge disparity for two reasonably similar situations. And EVEN ASIDE from the Zimmerman case and ignoring it completely...twenty years for firing a warning shot at a man with a history of spousal abuse? Justice?

See, the REAL problem here as I see it is that it would have been to her ADVANTAGE to have killed her ex-husband. That way, as with Zimmerman, there would have been only one side to the story. Unfortunately for her, she took the high road.


I agree that is a huge disparity in the situations, though I wouldn't say they are super similar. Had Zimmerman went back to his house to get his gun then went and shot Trayvon, then he would have definitely been guilty of 2nd degree.


You're right in that they're not super similar...Zimmerman killed someone and this black woman didn't. Yet if I didn't know any better, I would be almost forced to assume that the 20-year verdict went against Zimmerman rather than someone who intentionally didn't kill anyone.

patrickaa317 wrote:Though you do have a point where it would have been better off to have killed her ex-husband, maybe future people in her situation will learn from her mistake. I'm mostly joking about that but I don't have much time for dickhead people who beat their spouses or children.


I'm actually not joking about that. It's clear to me that if I have an intruder in my home, I will have to kill them, simply out of self-defense. And that makes me sick.


Zimmerman was being pummeled, already had a weapon on him and used it to defend himself. Alexander was confronted, had a moment to escape, retrieved a weapon, returned to the scene and fired the weapon. That is the key difference that you seem to refuse to recognize. Had zimmerman left the scene, returned, then shot Trayvon and if Alexander had a weapon on herself and was being pummeled when warning shot was fired; the rulings would have been reversed.

I still agree that Alexander's 20 years is ridiculous but recognize these two cases are apples and oranges; or red apples and green apples at the very least.
taking a break from cc, will be back sometime in the future.
User avatar
Sergeant patrickaa317
 
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: Zimmerman: Not Guilty

Postby Phatscotty on Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:20 am

I was surprised to learn that the only one who used a racial slur turned out to be Trayvon Martin himself, in how he described Zimmerman to his girlfriend in a text.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Zimmerman Sues NBC

Postby stahrgazer on Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:01 am

patrickaa317 wrote:Zimmerman was being pummeled, already had a weapon on him and used it to defend himself. Alexander was confronted, had a moment to escape, retrieved a weapon, returned to the scene and fired the weapon. That is the key difference that you seem to refuse to recognize. Had zimmerman left the scene, returned, then shot Trayvon and if Alexander had a weapon on herself and was being pummeled when warning shot was fired; the rulings would have been reversed.

I still agree that Alexander's 20 years is ridiculous but recognize these two cases are apples and oranges; or red apples and green apples at the very least.



They're not as apples-and-oranges as you make it sound. Zimmerman wouldn't have been pummelled if he hadn't stepped out of the vehicle, which means he had an escape and didn't take it, just as Alexander had a temporary escape and didn't take it - I say temporary because being confronted implies she was being followed/stalked and maybe felt that just running again would buy the stalker time to plan something worse.

Also, maybe you have to be a woman in Florida who's had some dude be violent against her to realize how "cracker" some of the "law enforcement" is, how, "now now little lady, you oughtn'ta made him angry like that," the "officers" get and use as an excuse to NOT protect her from the nasty "hims" who are set out to hurt her.

They didn't arrest the guy who strangled me in my home. It was before "stand your ground," and they told me if I'd shot him I'd be up for murder, and never mind the purple marks around my neck I wore for 6 months, and never mind the sprained wrists and bruises from being tossed over and into my furniture and my body being used to break my lamp after he broke back in. And never mind they wouldn't serve the restraining orders and he was coming by every night and calling, and they wanted ME to provide THEM with his current address even though the "victim advocate" offices kept telling me where NOT to go because that's where he was working.

And to be told it was my fault because I'd initially let this guy in...

...To be told I should sell my house and move to prevent him stalking me in my own home...

Pretty sad that a woman isn't allowed to do what she needs to make sure she's safe from violence when the cops won't, while a dude can fairly actively invite violence by stepping OUT of his vehicle when told NOT to by the cops.

If Zimmerman had died, and Martin lived, I imagine Martin's defense would sound like this: "Man, I was walking home from getting my munchies, minding my own business on a public street when this dude followed me and I was afraid for my life, and based on Florida's 'Stand your ground' law, I defended myself."

I don't think Zimmerman actively planned to shoot when he stepped out of the vehicle, so it wasn't homicide. He wasn't doing anything illegal or directly harmful, so it also wasn't manslaughter.

But if Alexander had planned to use that gun in advance, I highly doubt it would've been in the garage - unless it was there because the dude was harassing her elsewhere and she felt threatened enough to need protection.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...

Re: Zimmerman Sues NBC

Postby Nobunaga on Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:56 am

After the verdict:

The President wrote:We should ask ourselves if we're doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that's a job for all of us. That's the way to honor Trayvon Martin.


The President of the United States is speaking of honoring a man who pinned another to the ground and beat him senseless.

What the f*ck is Obama doing in the middle of this sh*t? This is madness.

Source: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07 ... lence?lite
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Nobunaga
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:09 am
Location: West of Osaka

Re: Zimmerman Sues NBC

Postby comic boy on Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:36 am

Jdsizzleslice wrote:Let the riots begin. I hope everyone here realizes that this had NOTHING to do with white people. Someone from a Hispanic descent was defending himself against a Black kid roaming the streets.


I think what you meant to say was ;
' A hispanic coward stalked a black kid for no other reason than the colour of his skin , he then got his arse kicked so murdered the innocent teenager in order to escape. '
Im a TOFU miSfit
User avatar
Brigadier comic boy
 
Posts: 1738
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:54 pm
Location: London

Re: Zimmerman Sues NBC

Postby notyou2 on Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:58 am

comic boy wrote:
Jdsizzleslice wrote:Let the riots begin. I hope everyone here realizes that this had NOTHING to do with white people. Someone from a Hispanic descent was defending himself against a Black kid roaming the streets.


I think what you meant to say was ;
' A hispanic coward stalked a black kid for no other reason than the colour of his skin , he then got his arse kicked so murdered the innocent teenager in order to escape. '


That seems to be a fair and accurate statement of the facts. Pity the kid died.
Image
User avatar
Captain notyou2
 
Posts: 6447
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:09 am
Location: In the here and now

Re: Zimmerman Sues NBC

Postby patrickaa317 on Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:54 am

stahrgazer wrote:
patrickaa317 wrote:Zimmerman was being pummeled, already had a weapon on him and used it to defend himself. Alexander was confronted, had a moment to escape, retrieved a weapon, returned to the scene and fired the weapon. That is the key difference that you seem to refuse to recognize. Had zimmerman left the scene, returned, then shot Trayvon and if Alexander had a weapon on herself and was being pummeled when warning shot was fired; the rulings would have been reversed.

I still agree that Alexander's 20 years is ridiculous but recognize these two cases are apples and oranges; or red apples and green apples at the very least.



They're not as apples-and-oranges as you make it sound. Zimmerman wouldn't have been pummelled if he hadn't stepped out of the vehicle, which means he had an escape and didn't take it, just as Alexander had a temporary escape and didn't take it - I say temporary because being confronted implies she was being followed/stalked and maybe felt that just running again would buy the stalker time to plan something worse.

Also, maybe you have to be a woman in Florida who's had some dude be violent against her to realize how "cracker" some of the "law enforcement" is, how, "now now little lady, you oughtn'ta made him angry like that," the "officers" get and use as an excuse to NOT protect her from the nasty "hims" who are set out to hurt her.

They didn't arrest the guy who strangled me in my home. It was before "stand your ground," and they told me if I'd shot him I'd be up for murder, and never mind the purple marks around my neck I wore for 6 months, and never mind the sprained wrists and bruises from being tossed over and into my furniture and my body being used to break my lamp after he broke back in. And never mind they wouldn't serve the restraining orders and he was coming by every night and calling, and they wanted ME to provide THEM with his current address even though the "victim advocate" offices kept telling me where NOT to go because that's where he was working.

And to be told it was my fault because I'd initially let this guy in...

...To be told I should sell my house and move to prevent him stalking me in my own home...

Pretty sad that a woman isn't allowed to do what she needs to make sure she's safe from violence when the cops won't, while a dude can fairly actively invite violence by stepping OUT of his vehicle when told NOT to by the cops.

If Zimmerman had died, and Martin lived, I imagine Martin's defense would sound like this: "Man, I was walking home from getting my munchies, minding my own business on a public street when this dude followed me and I was afraid for my life, and based on Florida's 'Stand your ground' law, I defended myself."

I don't think Zimmerman actively planned to shoot when he stepped out of the vehicle, so it wasn't homicide. He wasn't doing anything illegal or directly harmful, so it also wasn't manslaughter.

But if Alexander had planned to use that gun in advance, I highly doubt it would've been in the garage - unless it was there because the dude was harassing her elsewhere and she felt threatened enough to need protection.


Your first sentence includes a hypothetical with the word 'if', which you can't do when trying to show how two things are similar. "They would be similar if..." or "everything is the same but..."; those two things are admitting they are in fact different. The fact is, Zimmerman did follow him to keep an eye on where he was for when the police got there, who he called in advance.

If Alexander was really threatened by the stalker (again I'm not well versed on this case other than knowing the high level details, not the history behind her and the stalker), going in and firing a warning shot probably didn't carry much more weight then pointing it at his face and telling him to get the 'f' out. Maybe she did that and it didn't work, either way her mistake was leaving the scene and returning with more firepower. Zimmerman would be facing worse sentencing 'if' he had done this.

Sorry to hear about your situation, it's unfortunate that anyone has to go through those types of things; and not getting support from law enforcement is messed up.

And you are right about Trayvon; if he had taken Zimmerman's life after being followed, he would have also been in complete self defense. It was a complete bad situation that went to shit in a short time.

And as a side note, Zimmerman wasn't to "NOT to get out of the vehicle"; it was a "We don't need you to do that"; if it had been the first, I think he would be at some fault due to this shit situation.
taking a break from cc, will be back sometime in the future.
User avatar
Sergeant patrickaa317
 
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: Zimmerman Sues NBC

Postby Night Strike on Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:33 am

comic boy wrote:
Jdsizzleslice wrote:Let the riots begin. I hope everyone here realizes that this had NOTHING to do with white people. Someone from a Hispanic descent was defending himself against a Black kid roaming the streets.


I think what you meant to say was ;
' A hispanic coward stalked a black kid for no other reason than the colour of his skin , he then got his arse kicked so murdered the innocent teenager in order to escape. '


If there was proof to that, Zimmerman would have been convicted. But there has never been any real evidence saying race was involved (that was all the media forcing a false narrative), and there is evidence that there was no stalking involved (Zimmerman stopped following after being asked). Does anyone want to actually debate facts on this case?
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Zimmerman: Not Guilty

Postby Woodruff on Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:20 am

Phatscotty wrote:I was surprised to learn that the only one who used a racial slur turned out to be Trayvon Martin himself, in how he described Zimmerman to his girlfriend in a text.


Oh you were not. But don't let that stop you from taking an opportunity to further bash on Martin.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Zimmerman Sues NBC

Postby Woodruff on Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:21 am

patrickaa317 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
patrickaa317 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
patrickaa317 wrote:
Woodruff wrote:Well, now he's free to live in hiding. Sadly, I'm rather serious...how does one go about living their life after this sort of exposure?

For what it's worth, this seems to me like it was probably the right verdict. Despite the fact that I consider Zimmerman to be SIGNIFICANTLY responsible for the incident, the burden of proof for the charge simply wasn't there. I am glad that it seems to have not been a political decision.

Plus it looks like the prosecutors were doing things that were at the least unseemly, as far as providing information to the defense.

That being said, how is the following justice in comparison (I hate to mention the obvious difference):

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57434757-504083/fla-woman-marissa-alexander-gets-20-years-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/


I could be wrong as I haven't read all the fine details on either case but from my understanding there are two differences, Zimmerman's case was based on self-defense, Alexander's case was based on stand your ground. While these two have similar situations, the trials/cases are different. The real main difference is zimmerman was already carrying a gun when he was attacked whereas Alexander was confronted, then left the building to go to her garage, get a weapon, then fire a shot. Her life was not in immediate danger since she had access away from the proposed risk (evident by going outside to her car). Had Alexander had a weapon already on her when confronted, it may have resulted in a different conclusion for her case.


I do recognize the different aspect to it, and I don't disagree with what you said there.
And yet..."found not guilty" and "twenty fucking years" is pretty huge disparity for two reasonably similar situations. And EVEN ASIDE from the Zimmerman case and ignoring it completely...twenty years for firing a warning shot at a man with a history of spousal abuse? Justice?

See, the REAL problem here as I see it is that it would have been to her ADVANTAGE to have killed her ex-husband. That way, as with Zimmerman, there would have been only one side to the story. Unfortunately for her, she took the high road.


I agree that is a huge disparity in the situations, though I wouldn't say they are super similar. Had Zimmerman went back to his house to get his gun then went and shot Trayvon, then he would have definitely been guilty of 2nd degree.


You're right in that they're not super similar...Zimmerman killed someone and this black woman didn't. Yet if I didn't know any better, I would be almost forced to assume that the 20-year verdict went against Zimmerman rather than someone who intentionally didn't kill anyone.

patrickaa317 wrote:Though you do have a point where it would have been better off to have killed her ex-husband, maybe future people in her situation will learn from her mistake. I'm mostly joking about that but I don't have much time for dickhead people who beat their spouses or children.


I'm actually not joking about that. It's clear to me that if I have an intruder in my home, I will have to kill them, simply out of self-defense. And that makes me sick.


Zimmerman was being pummeled, already had a weapon on him and used it to defend himself. Alexander was confronted, had a moment to escape, retrieved a weapon, returned to the scene and fired the weapon. That is the key difference that you seem to refuse to recognize. Had zimmerman left the scene, returned, then shot Trayvon and if Alexander had a weapon on herself and was being pummeled when warning shot was fired; the rulings would have been reversed.

I still agree that Alexander's 20 years is ridiculous but recognize these two cases are apples and oranges; or red apples and green apples at the very least.


Zimmerman brought on his situation JUST AS MUCH as Alexander did. Zimmerman absolutely could have avoided the confrontation, so I'm going to have to disagree with you.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Zimmerman Sues NBC

Postby Woodruff on Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:23 am

Nobunaga wrote:After the verdict:

The President wrote:We should ask ourselves if we're doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that's a job for all of us. That's the way to honor Trayvon Martin.


The President of the United States is speaking of honoring a man who pinned another to the ground and beat him senseless.


If he was beaten senseless, it's unlikely he would have been able to use his weapon.

Nobunaga wrote:What the f*ck is Obama doing in the middle of this sh*t? This is madness.


Yeah, I don't care for his wording either. He definitely could have done a better job there by referring to preventing the situation and leaving it at that.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Zimmerman Sues NBC

Postby Army of GOD on Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:48 am

comic boy wrote:
Jdsizzleslice wrote:Let the riots begin. I hope everyone here realizes that this had NOTHING to do with white people. Someone from a Hispanic descent was defending himself against a Black kid roaming the streets.


I think what you meant to say was ;
' A hispanic coward stalked a black kid for no other reason than the colour of his skin , he then got his arse kicked so murdered the innocent teenager in order to escape. '


Yes, absolutely no reason other than the color of his skin. Absolutely no reason. Not a single reason. None, whatsoever.


None.
mrswdk is a ho
User avatar
Lieutenant Army of GOD
 
Posts: 7187
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:30 pm

Re: Zimmerman: Not Guilty

Postby oVo on Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:52 pm

phatscotty wrote:: I was surprised to learn that the only one who used a racial slur turned out to be Trayvon Martin himself, in how he described Zimmerman to his girlfriend in a text.

You don't know --with any certainty-- what words were exchanged between Zimmerman and Martin.

night strike wrote:there has never been any real evidence saying race was involved

Zimmerman "profiled" him as suspicious and IDed Martin to the police dispatcher as black. So race was involved. IF Zimmerman had "stopped following him" as you say, there would have been no confrontation/showdown OR any reason for this situation to escalate into a shooting death.

I do find fault with Zimmerman's actions because he initiated this, and I wonder if he would have waited for the police had he not been carrying a gun that night? I won't call it murder as there is no evidence to prove that intent, but manslaughter is definitely on the table to hold him accountable for the stupidity of his actions to create a tragic situation that shouldn't have even happened.

The only surviving witness to this event did not testify in court,
which means ALL the courtroom evidence is hearsay accepted
as truth. By not testifying Zimmerman protected himself from
committing perjury or incriminating himself with any vague
responses about what actually happened that night.

The precedent for Florida now: (1) Follow suspicious characters,
(2) confront & provoke a fight, then (3) shoot them dead. It will
become "The Zimmerman Defense" and possibly kick "The South"
back into the dark ages where Christian morality was ignored
when bigots got bored.
User avatar
Major oVo
 
Posts: 3864
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Antarctica

Re: Zimmerman: Not Guilty

Postby Phatscotty on Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:13 pm

oVo wrote:
phatscotty wrote:: I was surprised to learn that the only one who used a racial slur turned out to be Trayvon Martin himself, in how he described Zimmerman to his girlfriend in a text.


You don't know --with any certainty-- what words were exchanged between Zimmerman and Martin.


Yes there is certainty. Trayvon called Zimmerman the C word, and it's in a text message Trayvon sent to his girlfriend, and it is confirmed by the testimony of Trayvon's girlfriend.

Nobody said anything about conversation between Trayvon and Zimmerman.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Zimmerman: Not Guilty

Postby Phatscotty on Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:21 pm

oVo wrote:
phatscotty wrote:: I was surprised to learn that the only one who used a racial slur turned out to be Trayvon Martin himself, in how he described Zimmerman to his girlfriend in a text.

You don't know --with any certainty-- what words were exchanged between Zimmerman and Martin.

night strike wrote:there has never been any real evidence saying race was involved

Zimmerman "profiled" him as suspicious and IDed Martin to the police dispatcher as black. So race was involved. IF Zimmerman had "stopped following him" as you say, there would have been no confrontation/showdown OR any reason for this situation to escalate into a shooting death.


Wow, really? Still? After all this time and all the evidence????

The (all powerful and wise) dispatcher ask Zimmerman what race the suspicious person was, and Zimmerman answered "he looks black" It's the hieght of hypocrisy of fools to fault Zimmerman for not listening to the dispatcher telling him "we don't need you to do that (follow him) sir" but then you want to hold Zimmerman as a racist and a profiler when he was just listening to the dispatcher ask the question "what race is he"

Not to mention, you seem to state as a fact impossible that Trayvon ambushed Zimmerman. A resident chasing a stranger out of a crime ridden neighborhood is not escalation...it's common sense.

There is no excuse for continuing to push the lies of the media or the racial politics of president Obama, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton. Get with the f'ing program! The damage your bullshit has led to is immeasurable, and any future blood is on your ilk's hands.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Zimmerman Sues NBC

Postby thegreekdog on Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:33 pm

comic boy wrote:
Jdsizzleslice wrote:Let the riots begin. I hope everyone here realizes that this had NOTHING to do with white people. Someone from a Hispanic descent was defending himself against a Black kid roaming the streets.


I think what you meant to say was ;
' A hispanic coward stalked a black kid for no other reason than the colour of his skin , he then got his arse kicked so murdered the innocent teenager in order to escape. '


I think what you meant to say was:

"If you're being followed by someone, that is sufficient provocation to beat the shit out of that person."

Good to know that if someone is following me I can beat the shit out of them with no other provocation.

See how that works? Whee!!!

Seriously though, you guys are a hoot. One guy shoots another guy. I suspect that, or something like it, happens on a fairly regular basis in the United States. If Zimmerman's last name was Garcia, this wouldn't even be national news. It may make a short headline in the local paper.

President Obama (political panderer though he may be) is correct to point out that the issue is not one of race, it's one of guns and violence generally.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Zimmerman Sues NBC

Postby BigBallinStalin on Mon Jul 15, 2013 2:40 pm

comic boy wrote:
Jdsizzleslice wrote:Let the riots begin. I hope everyone here realizes that this had NOTHING to do with white people. Someone from a Hispanic descent was defending himself against a Black kid roaming the streets.


I think what you meant to say was ;
' A hispanic coward stalked a black kid for no other reason than the colour of his skin , he then got his arse kicked so murdered the innocent teenager in order to escape. '


Let's think about this.


There were reports of "african americans"/"darker skinned people" involved in the latest string of robberies.
Zimmerman sees someone who fits the description walking around the neighborhood at night.

There's your correlation, and the district has 5% black people, so obviously there's more to it than " no other reason than the colour of his skin"--assuming of course Zimmerman thought this way.

Self-defense. What else would you propose had you led yourself into that situation (being ambushed, IIRC)? According to the story, your head would be repeatedly bashed into the ground. Would you ask the kind gentlemen to stop doing so? Would you flee from a position where you can't?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

PreviousNext

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users