Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 257 comments are related to the topic:
Media reporting of Shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman
Media reporting of Shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 257
|
By:
What this case proves is how amazingly stupid the general public is and how easily lead they are, and even in a case which they apparently "care deeply about" they can't be bothered to shift their lazy dumb @rses to look up a single fact. Even when all the facts are widely available they will STILL continue to believe ridiculous politically driven fairy stories.
|
|
By:
It might be interesting to hear the hear the other chap's version of events.
Hopefully, the true facts and reasons for this death will will be resolved without doubt doubt or bias when George is filling in his entry details at the Pearly Gates. |
|
By:
Hmmm. Lotta doubt there!
 Old God doesn't like folk blaming everything on Him.  |
|
By:
Brgtwt the self defence law in Florida look very similar to that of both England and Scotland requiring 'reasonable force' or 'proportionality' in that there must a reasonable threat of serious bodily harm or death. The only difference seems to be that they don't have a duty to retreat in Florida and it's questionable whether he would have been able to retreat if he was being attacked or the jury felt he would have being capable of doing so.
|
|
By:
Obama will probably classify Zimmerman as a terrorist. Then he can get one of his drones to take him out.
|
|
By:
So, a man advised to not follow someone who he had decided was acting suspiciously decides to ignore that.
Follows him, ends up in a fight and fortunately happens to be in possesion of a gun and shoots the victim dead. for the people that accuse me of not seeing the facts... What exactly did the victim do wrong? Apart from appear suspicious to a man who was known to be violent? A man who had made multiple such calls about "suspicious behaviour" about black males. A man who it is debatable wether he should have been allowed to carry a concealed weapon given his police record? Come on FACT merchants, what did Trayvon Martin do that was wrong enough for Zimmerman to track him in the first place? |
|
By:
Well, he was young and he was black and he had one of those 'hoodie' things. S'pose that's about it, really.
But it was dark and George's ever-alert sixth sense told him that something wasn't right with this young fella. George had seen his type before...in lots of films.  |
|
By:
correct Naydam,anyone of the FACT crew seen the actual injuries to George after he had his head SMASHED!! off the floor?
The police photographs? I've had worse bumping my head on a kitchen cupboard. Not saying there wasn't a fight but..... |
|
By:
So?
Anyone of the racism/outrage crew at the trial? |
|
By:
Well, he was young and he was black and he had one of those 'hoodie' things. S'pose that's about it, really.
But it was dark and George's ever-alert sixth sense told him that something wasn't right with this young fella. George had seen his type before...in lots of films. Only racism in the trial seems to have been the racist bastard calling the acquitted white man a cracker. |
|
By:
Or the member of the jury that called the victim " a man of colour" ????
The same member of the jury that said Zimmermans heart was in the "right place" |
|
By:
Heart in the right place is racist is it? and while 'colour' is now non-pc it's hardly 'cracker'.
|
|
By:
So,obviously you are unclear on the fact that referring to a "man of colour" harks back to era of segregation.
Secondly how can someone dish out justice to someone on the grounds that they just assume he had his "heart in the right place" Was the juror aware of Zimmermans track record of violence when she assumed this? Come on Shrewd, you are supposed to like FACTS. Albeit the rest of the mocking FACT crew have gone a bit quiet. |
|
By:
Track record of violence? Zimmerman has never been convicted of any violent crimes?
brngtwt - if you had a 17yr old on top of you smashing your head against the pavement - as per the accounts that the witnesses gave at the trial. Would you have hsed that gun? |
|
By:
used that gun i mean
|
|
By:
brngtwt - we have been through many of your points above.
You seem to want to ignore them |
|
By:
Zimmermann called 911. The 911 dispatcher is not a police officer. She asked Zimmerman if he was following the teenager. HE said YES. She said we do not need you to do that.
Zimmermann said OK. They then chatted for a couple of min. Zimmerman then got out of his car. Dont let the facts get in the way of your bloodlust for Zimmermann! |
|
By:
What exactly did the victim do wrong?
Other than punching him and then smashing his head repeatedly against the pavement. Nothing. |
|
By:
I'll give you fact hunters a fact.
I don't give a fack who kills who in the U.S. of A. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Watched it a few times, didn't know he had killed anybody.
|
|
By:
This is my take on this thread and this case.
I thought that the OP started off with some reasonable points regarding media bias. I didn't necessarily agree with them, but they were reasonable. The thread then moved on to a lot of wild speculation about what may have happened that night, which is fair enough because this is Chit Chat. Personally, I don't really see how anyone, with the evidence presented in the press, could really be all that sure about what happened. Let's be honest: there is a fairly wide spectrum of possibilities, basically going from Martin giving Zimmerman no choice but to shoot him to Zimmerman getting off scot free for murder as a result of having killed the only other person who knew exactly what happened. Both extremes, and a lot of what lies in the middle, are possible though a bit strange. So I find it rather unpalatable and inappropriate that the OP is rejoicing to this extent. Unpalatable because it's tragic in either, or any case, and inappropriate because the jury's result, although it must be respected and certainly adds weight to Zimmerman's innocence, really only proves that they could not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I'm prepared to give him the benefit of that doubt, but I'm not going to be rejoicing. |
|
By:
^
very well summed up |
|
By:
It should also be noted that it is most likely that the jury would not be made aware of any previous history of violence on the part of the accused. That is how it should be. The jury should reach their verdict based solely on the evidence presented in court. Anything else would lead to prejudice.
|
|
By:
"This is my take on this thread and this case."
Here's my take on your take "I thought that the OP started off with some reasonable points regarding media bias." Since proven true, beyond a shadow of a doubt. For months the media lied and encouraged the fiction that zimmerman was unmarked. To quote tobermory 22/312 "I've read a lot about this, and hadn't heard Zimmerman was injured". This info was available on video and in report, the media presented edited grainy black and white video and reported otherwise. "I didn't necessarily agree with them" You were wrong then "but they were reasonable" Accurate would be a more reasonable description "The thread then moved on to a lot of wild speculation about what may have happened that night" Helissio got the heights wrong, but the media weren't reporting the heights, or the clear difference in strength, or actual appearance, or criminal record, or drug use, etc. Most of the wild speculation were anti-Zimmerman fantasies about Zimmerman being a mugger, or Martin being chased, or possessed by gods... The discussion of the facts vs lies however is pertinent to his original point, you could argue it is his original point. "Personally, I don't really see how anyone, with the evidence presented in the press, could really be all that sure about what happened." Bingo. However, if look beyond the mainstream liberal media, it becomes abundantly clear. "Let's be honest: there is a fairly wide spectrum of possibilities, basically going from Martin giving Zimmerman no choice but to shoot him to Zimmerman getting off scot free for murder as a result of having killed the only other person who knew exactly what happened. Both extremes, and a lot of what lies in the middle, are possible though a bit strange." As long as you're going by what is possible, and not what is rational, why leave out the possibility that it was aliens what done it? Why leave out the possibility that we all dreamed it? Why leave out the possibility that was god's plan? Why leave out the possibility you did it? Why leave out the possibility that in a parallel universe Zimmerman attacked Martin and was shot in self defence? Your possibility portfolio seems a little incomplete... "So I find it rather unpalatable and inappropriate that the OP is rejoicing to this extent." What, that a person innocent of any crime is eventually and fairly cleared in a court of law despite a ginned up media driven lynch mob campaigning to stir up racial division and hate purely for political points in an election year? No, I don't think so. What I believe you find unpalatable is that you were either part of that mob, or those who who looked on impassively, and those positions are becoming increasingly exposed. Just "my take" of course. "Unpalatable because it's tragic in either, or any case," No, an innocent person sentenced, lynched, or murdered (still might happen, because people love fairy stories, and many love to hate people of the wrong colour) would have been tragic, but this was averted, so possibly something to celebrate? No? "and inappropriate because the jury's result, although it must be respected and certainly adds weight to Zimmerman's innocence, really only proves that they could not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt." A begrudging and minimal concession here, after the wall of fairy stories have collapsed leaving little more than a "just cos we can't prove it don't mean he ain't done it". "I'm prepared to give him the benefit of that doubt" How gracious! "but I'm not going to be rejoicing." No, that would be raycist So what do think of my take? Too harsh? Unfair? You're one of the more moderate voices on the thread, so of all the posts to argue, why your one? |
|
By:
http://washingtoninformer.com/news/2013/jul/15/jackson-investigate-racial-context-martin-death/
Jesse Jackson: We need a national investigation of the racial context that led to Trayvon Martin’s slaying. Congress must act. And it’s time to call on the United Nations Human Rights Commission for an in-depth investigation of whether the U.S. is upholding its obligations under international human rights laws and treaties. Trayvon Martin’s death demands much more than a jury’s verdict on George Zimmerman. It calls for us to hear the evidence and render a verdict on the racial reality that never had its day in court at the trial. Now its getting really silly. Zimmerman wont even be able to flee abroad! |
|
By:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/353502/still-america-thomas-sowell
|
|
By:
In summary: it's ok to harass folk then shoot them when they give you a bit of hassle in return. Thanks guys.
God bless America! |
|
By:
polybot 18 Jul 13 10:34
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/353502/still-america-thomas-sowell Sad Why so sad? I thought you'd have enjoyed Uncle Tom Sowell's article. |
|
By:
Mikael, never mind the US, you could start your own campaign in the UK.
Tobermory: "If someone follows you for hundreds of yards when you are not doing anything wrong it is understandable that you would feel threatened and that the person is intending you harm, so he was entitled to defend himself*." Bizarrely, using the Tobermory Defence, the killers of Martin Laurence and tens of thousands of other killers would have a strong case to appeal, they would only have to prove the attacker (Laurence) was walking behind or near the victims (them) or had provoked (eg shouted out or similar). They would simply need to prove they felt threatened or offended and that there was there was no intention to stab or beat the victim to death. But any defence by Lawrence, either by hand, knife or gun, would be considered either assault or possibly murder. *attack someone |
|
By:
|
|
By:
WAC
|
|
By:
Which bit have I missed? Did he or did he not pursue the victim?
|
|
By:
Do you equate a bit of hassle with punching someone to the ground. Then slamming their head against the pavement?
|
|
By:
"Why so sad? I thought you'd have enjoyed Uncle Tom Sowell's article."
Woooaaaahh. Uncle Tom? The black man wandered off your plantation eh? Black man not behavin like black man oughta eh Mikeal? Do tell us what the black man oughta be thinkin and sayin if it so please Master D'Haguenet? We don'ts want to upset our grand and first class superiors. We is simple folks from the country and the ghettos you see, while you is edukated, from the chateaus and such, an you knows whats best fo us. |
|
By:
"Mikael D'Haguenet
...Uncle Tom Sowell's" You're racist scum. But let me guess, it's other people who are filthy racists? |
|
By:
Strange post. Are you suggesting I'm racist or is it merely an admission on your part?
|
|
By:
It's not a strange post, it's as clear as fooking day. You gonna answer it or are you hoping to back away with your bvllsh!t "no, you're a racist!" line?
|
|
By:
I was referring to your 11:09 post. Is there a real question in there?
|
|
By:
There's 4 explicit questions there. Makes a total of 6 explicit questions awaiting reply. The clue is the squiggly line with the dot underneath.
|