Part 1: Evidence? Who Cares?
I find it amusing when people who only watch right-wing news have the balls to proclaim they know what the left-wing news is talking about. How would they know? They never, under any circumstances, ever watch it. Oh, I get it. Limbaugh and Hannity tell them what liberals are saying. Of course that’s how they know! And Limbo and Hannity would never lie to push their agenda.
Here is a very long “discussion” about the Treyvon Martin case. One of I’m sure many going on in America where the gun-totin’ Constitution-loving Republicans unquestioningly support the stalker with the gun over the kid with the Skittles – regardless to all contrary facts.
I’m going to break this one up into two parts. There’s sort of a natural break point where my buddy Richard pushes his eject button and bails out of the conversation. Fear not, true believers. He has a worthy successor.
The names have been changed to protect the innocent and the guilty – and all the shady characters in between.
For those who are following the case...
If the man who attacked the neighborhood watch, Trayvon, had been white, would we even be talking about this? [Historical signs point to emphatically to ‘Yes.’]
This is why this case bothers me... the reaction [Not the murder itself?]. Thousands of people marching and protesting, cries of racism, etc... Yet none of these people get upset at the fact that on the same day that a white man killed a black man, that a couple hundred other black men were killed by black men. Or that many white men were killed by black men. Or that white men were killed by other white men. [The shooters in those hypothetical cases, if known, were probably arrested so a trial could take place and guilt or innocence had the opportunity of being proven. Unlike this case.]
The point is that it's only racism, and it is only worth protesting if a white man kills a black man [No, it’s about the shooter not being arrested, along with a blatant racist aspect. Rush Limbaugh is telling you how everyone else is portraying it, which they are not, but you wouldn’t know because you never listen to anyone else but Rush. Who is a lying drug-addict.], which is the rarest occurrence [Rare?]. It's like anything else is "almost expected" and nobody cares. Nobody cares about black on black crime [Really?], which is the majority of the crimes [Not the point in this particular case.], or black on white, which is the second most common [Also not the point of this case.].... No, the protesters only care about the exception to the norm. [Of course. That makes sense. Just not the kind based on knowledge.]
Why is that?
Mourn the loss of life. But to make it all about racism is insane. [No one is doing that. Conservatives are only telling you that’s what liberals are doing.] People killing other people is bad. It shouldn't matter what color skin they have. [Which is why it doesn’t.]
[That entire rant was pointless since none of the things Richard said was happening are actually happening. But at least he got to tell everyone what they know.]
Richard, perhaps that's true, but you need to remember that there is absolutely no evidence that Trayvon "attacked" Zimmerman. Yet there is abundant evidence that Zimmerman killed Trayvon in cold blood, without provocation. It's not a matter of "a black man was killed by a white man and that's racist in a socially unacceptable way", it's a matter of "An innocent child was killed by a man who was supposed to be protecting people for absolutely no reason other than because the man felt threatened by his presence." That's the issue here. The racism claim is only relevant in that what many people believe to be the cause of Zimmerman feeling 'threatened' is the fact that Trayvon was African American. There is evidence supporting this, such as the fact that Zimmerman was clearly heard using racial slurs (the 'N' word) on the 911 tapes. [Since all the incorrect things Richard said were corrected by the facts Jill just laid out, this is the spot where this discussion should have ended. But facts never stop Conservatives. Especially ones with an agenda to protect the guy with the gun.]
I agree that playing it as a "race issue" is wrong. The problem lies in the fact that a life was taken by another person without first identifying that there was a PROBLEM to begin with... First off, Zimmerman really had NO authority... and as far as I can see, was LOOKING for trouble, and if you look for trouble, eventually you will find it. It doesn't matter if Trayvon was wearing a hoodie or not; he could have been walking down the street with a baseball bat, or a Sawzall for that matter, and it would not mean that he was looking for trouble. I fully support the gun law as a right to self preservation, but was his life REALLY in jeopardy by a teenager who was packing nothing more than Skittles and a drink? It is not about race; it is about aggression... and it appears that Zimmerman was the aggressor... and if he took a knock to the head and a punch to the nose, that seems more like Trayvon was the one defending himself, not the other way around. You just don't go around shooting people because they look suspicious. Zimmerman was the aggressor in this case... and should be dealt with accordingly. [Sorry, Peter. Using even more facts and common sense still won’t stop them.]
Most of the uproar (whether justified or not, I'm not taking a stance) isn't that a white man killed a black man; it's outrage that a man was shot, and the shooter hasn't been arrested or charged with anything. [Bingo!] Those that are trying to make it solely a racial issue are the usual idiots that I don't devote any attention to, because they aren't worth it. [Only the right-wing is claiming the left-wing is trying to make it solely a racial issue – which actually makes it the right-wing that keeps trying to make it solely a racial issue. Funny how it works out, huh?]
I don't have all the info on what happened that night (and neither do the media outlets that are hyping this up right along with the public), so I'm not going to say that there should or should not be a criminal charge; we've been given just enough information to elicit a strong emotional response, and to make us pay attention – for ratings btw.
Was he "the aggressor" simply because he was armed and was the one that survived? [No. He was “the aggressor” because he was aggressive. Not because he had a gun and lived. When you’re minding your own business and someone attacks you, the attacker is the attacker, regardless of weaponry and survival status. Dipshit.]
And Trayvon wasn't African American. He was black. Unless he was born in Africa and came here to become a citizen, the term doesn't fit. [I am extremely upset that I agree with his assessment on the ‘African American’ title. I believe it of any person born and raised in America that has had nothing to do with the country origin of their ethnicity. It is a labeling system that further divides America. We are Americans. However, it has absolutely nothing to do with this case. Richard brought it up because he has no real point and just needs to muddy the waters. Some sort of tactic, I guess.]
And yes, Mike, this is more media hype than anything else. That's why "unarmed black man" is used in every sentence, to invoke an emotional response, outrage, and add the racial angle. [It might also have something to do with an unarmed kid. But you added ‘black’ and changed ‘kid’ into ‘man’ for your own biased purpose.]
Hey, CNN reports that 75% of Americans want this guy arrested!
That should mean something, right?? [Like what? That 75% of Americans aren’t idiots?]
Richard, in the community I live in, in Florida, we have a guy that appointed himself neighborhood watchman. Nobody asked him to fulfill this service, and the neighborhood is relatively quiet and mostly seniors. Now I do not fit the clean-cut white collar suit and tie look, or the over 65 persona, and every time I step outside, he is watching me (and others in the neighborhood). I have caught him looking into my garage several times. I have seen him peeking into my windows and doors when I have them open. He is a lonely, nosy person and wants to be in the middle of everyone's business. It is none of his business what I do or when I do it, but he tries to make it so. Now I really don't care if he watches me as long as he does not escalate the situation into trespassing. Nevertheless, he does this daily. Zimmerman crossed a line. If the wants to be the neighborhood watch, then so be it... but the term is WATCHman. It is not his responsibility to approach person of interest, confront the person of interest, or get into a conversation with the person of interest. If the person of interest is truly "up to no good" it is not his problem, period, unless it DIRECTLY affects his life, his property, or the lives of others. Other people's property is not HIS business. Watch; call the police; and take notes. That's it.
Mike, thousands called for a Crucifixion... and yet that does not make it right either. Something stinks about the whole thing... and it needs to be addressed. The problem is not in the law or in the gun; the problem is in the shooter. [But it is also with the ‘stand your ground’ law that protects murders who only need to claim self-defense to get off a murder rap if there are no witnesses.] He stuck his nose where it didn't belong, then put his foot into the situation, then threw himself down the barrel with the bullet. It wasn't his call. And Richard, what makes him the aggressor is that he was armed and that he FIRED. Even if Trayvon threw a punch first, and I am not saying that he DID, that does not justify killing. There are ALWAYS other options. Shooting is a last resort and is best left that way... because the by-product is permanent.
And the shooter did call 911 and they told him they don't need him to follow the kid! If he had followed instructions, no one would've gotten hurt.
I think race became an issue because of the comments Zimmerman was heard saying on the phone. [“Fucking coons” and “they always get away with it” do kind of point to some sort of prejudice, don’t they?] I read somewhere that Z had called police on 46 other occasions, so maybe he does this to all kids with hoodies or anyone he deems suspicious. To me, Z was just looking for trouble -- he got out of his car and followed the kid. I think he was just itching to use that gun.
That's the problem with being a "self appointed watchman"... you are ALWAYS looking for trouble.
As for black vs. African American, I think that's up to each individual to decide how they'd like to be referred to. Just like people w/autism, for ex., some say "I'm autistic" and some say, "Don't say I'm autistic, I have autism." No one means any offense, but we can't know what everyone's preference is.
And yet, you don't HAVE to look for trouble... trouble naturally occurs. The thing is to be READY when trouble strikes, not when you think trouble is ABOUT to strike... only when it strikes. And THEN- how you respond to it makes all the difference. Are you a contributor to trouble, or a contributor to healing? Do you bring positive or negative solutions to the trouble? Are you truly helping, or just muddying the water and exacerbating the issue?
Tia, I like that. It is like saying "I am not gay, I have a sexual preference toward (fill in the preference of your choice)"... ;)P
Though technically what Richard said DOES allude to dual citizenship, it is topic for another discussion and should be left out of this context.
The 911 operator told him he didn't need to follow the guy. But it isn't against the law to follow and keep an eye on him. The fact remains that Trayvon still attacked him. The media is hyping race, and also look at the articles. They are using a picture of Trayvon that is a few years old, trying to depict him as some "little tike"... Now they are all referring to Zimmerman as "a white Hispanic"... Why? Again, to make it more of a "black and white thing"...
Last, the New Black Panthers have put out a $10,000 bounty on Zimmerman and are trying to raise 1 million dollars and an army of 5,000 black men to hunt him down, saying on record, "he should be concerned for his life"... [The New Black Panthers consist of four guys who are a few cards short of a full deck. They have no relation to the Black Panthers, who denounce them. Only FOX “News” has been playing them up since their appearance during the 2008 election.]
Meanwhile, in the month since this shooting, there have been a couple hundred black men killed by other black men, dozens of white people killed by black men, thousands more assaulted, etc... [Not relevant to this case.]
But by all means, let's focus everything on the one black kid that was killed by a HISPANIC man, and try to create a racial issue, protests, and when the investigation concludes and they don't get the verdict that they want, the ensuing riots... [Richard assumes Zimmerman is innocent. Well, demands he’s innocent.]
Richard, looking beyond the media bias toward "coloring" the truth, the "fact" is still sketchy. If you thought I was a suspicious character based on my manner of dress, and if you followed me long enough, I may feel that your intention is life-threatening to me, in which by Florida law, I would have the right to shoot you down if I felt my life was in danger. Hell, the kid was a teenager being followed by an adult male. At the very least, an adult following a teenager can be construed as harassment and stalking. If Trayvon threw the first punch out of the "fact" that Zimmerman was following him, thereby creating a threatening atmosphere, it was Trayvon's very right by Florida law to protect himself. THAT is what matters here. WHO is responsible for WHAT action. What the Black Panthers do or do NOT do at this point is their business, and ultimately THEIR funeral. As for all the other people that have died since then, that is of no concern in THIS case. As for the COLOR of their skin and their ethnicities, we KNOW the media hypes things... since neither of us work FOR the media, I prefer that this post be about the issue of what is considered self defense and whether his argument fits into that description under Florida law, and not about the pigment of a man's skin. [Well said.]
I would point out that there isn't any evidence at all that Trayvon attacked Zimmermann. None. And it should be impossible to conclude that, considering that Zimmermann was safely tucked away in his vehicle, out of harm's way. Zimmermann exited his vehicle and initiated a confrontation with the victim. The outcome of the situation (in this case, the death of a teen armed with skittles and iced tea) is solely the responsibility of Zimmermann, who chose to create and escalate a situation that didn't exist (while he was tucked away, safely in his vehicle). This case has garnered interest not because we only care about crime when the victim's skin is darker, but because this was so clearly senseless and unnecessary. This wasn't a gang banger getting gunned down by a rival drug gang. This wasn't an innocent white man gunned down by gang bangers robbing a 7-Eleven. This was an asshole with a gun that provoked a situation with an innocent teenager to the point that he shot him and killed him. [Also well said.]
I gotta agree with Richard-on the list of unjustices in the Country, this is not top ten for the week-just the only one that fits into a political playbook. Living in Chicago the violence I know of against young black men should be protested daily but it never fits into a convenient political agenda. [What political playbook? I’m pretty sure Richard’s Brother clearly pointed out what the actual problem is and not the imaginary liberal agenda you’ve invented.] You are kidding yourself if you think the goal of the outrage is to improve the safety of brown and black people. When you realize how important it is to many people's careers to keep minorities as victims the clearer it all gets. [Whose careers and in what way are they keeping minorities victims? Details, not baseless innuendo.]
Bobby...maybe it's ok to care about this crime, in addition to other crimes? Maybe I don't need to personally care about every single crime committed in the country each day to care about one of them? And maybe it's ok to care about this one without a political agenda - and without the presumption that a political agenda is the only reason to care?
It wasn't a politician's career that made this minority a victim. It was the actions of Zimmerman that made this minority a victim.
All it takes is one to affect a change...
First of all Richard’s Brother, thank you for not pointing out my use of the near non-term "unjustice." Secondly, this is an interesting case legally and certainly fine to care about on a personal level. When a case colored with grey facts and legal reasoning completely overshadows the senseless slaughter on a day to day basis of the next generation of young black men, it seems also okay for me to question the intentions of all of those who pop up out of nowhere who are suddenly upset about violence against black kids. Just wondering where everyone was the day before he was killed. We've had 30+ murders in Chicago this month alone-and it's not over yet...and not even summer! 1.) When do the Black Panthers plan on marching here? 2.) When does the President (who lives here) plan on making a speech about the dead black children here? I'm gonna guess....1.) Never 2.) Only if it can get him some votes! [This illogical premise supposes that any time something happens, either 1.) Protests must always happen for every single event ever. 2.) No protests can ever happen ever if a previous protest wasn’t held every single previous time. I’m gonna guess this premise is… 1.) Not possible or practical. 2.) Stupid.]
Richard's right. It is a "fact" that Treyvon attacked Zimmerman. Thanks for pointing out the obvious truth that yet again only you can show us. Walking back to his dad's home from 7-11 and heavily armed with iced tea and Skittles and talking to his girlfriend on his cell phone, he suddenly felt the need to attack a man who was not stalking him but simply sitting in his car and minding his own business. A man who was not just told NOT to go after Treyvon by a 911 operator and did anyway. A man who didn't say on tape that 'fucking coons always get away with it.' A mentally stable man who did not call the police over 45 times in the last year with little cause. A man who didn't take it upon himself to be the neighborhood watchman. A man who didn't carry a gun and drive around looking for trouble and instigate the situation. A man who doesn't have a police-documented history of stalking people for what HE decides looks suspicious. A man who is not a failed, frustrated wannabe cop. A man who doesn't have a police record for battery of a law enforcement officer and obstructing justice. A man who was not previously involved in a domestic dispute with his ex-fiance after stalking her neighborhood and refused to leave her house, resulting in a physical altercation and ultimately, a restraining order against him. A man who didn't decide that the extremely common occurrence of a kid walking on the sidewalk where he was supposed to be walking looked suspicious for no other reason than he saw him walking on the sidewalk. A man who, regardless of all media hype, was certainly not found standing over a dead, unarmed body and actually sent home with the murder weapon and never even arrested as would be standard police procedure, over a month later.
And this incident did not occur in a police precinct with documented previous racist actions. And the officers certainly did not tell any of the ear witnesses that it was not the boy they heard screaming for help as they all claimed, but the man with the gun who weighs 100 lbs more than the boy - because the police who were not there actually know what the witnesses really heard. And the police didn't lie that Zimmerman's record was "squeaky clean." And it wasn't a narcotics officer, instead of a homicide detective, who didn't let Zimmerman tell him his story, but instead asked him leading questions to get the conclusion to the incident he was looking for, that the dead, unarmed, black kid was the attacker.
And this incident was obviously drummed up by Al Sharpton for some political motive that I can't quite discern, because it has nothing to do with straight-up justice for a victim.
No, but it is an undisputed "fact" that Treyvon Martin, the child whose entire record includes suspension for having a bag that may have contained marijuana, which has nothing to do with anything, attacked George Zimmerman.
Wait, what does 'fact' mean, again?
The thing is, Bobby, I don't think that cases like this are overshadowing anything. I think that tends to be a crutch defense that people use when they have a reason to try and minimize the importance or impact of something.
Me caring about this case (for the reasons mentioned), doesn't mean that I don't care about the 30 murders (and counting) this month. This is a large country of 320+ million people. Not every crime committed can be elevated to a national story. In much the same way that not every three year old murdered by her mother is a national story, but Casey Anthony was. [Fair comparison.]
Certain stories have resonance because they violate one or more normal expectations that we share. Its not that I don't care about 30 people being murdered in Chicago, it's that I expect about 30 people to be murdered in Chicago. I'm desensitized to it because it has become my expected norm.
The human mind is conditioned through long years of evolution to pay more attention to the violations of our expectations. Religious leaders in first century Judea were a dime a dozen. Ones that turned water into wine, and rose from the dead? That one will get talked about at the water cooler.
It's what we are as a species. It's not about someone's political career. It's about the way that most individuals react to a teen getting gunned down by some over zealous a-hole.
I understand that for some, this doesn't rise to the non-political national importance of defending Rush Limbaugh or calling a private citizen a whore for something that she never even said. I get that I should clearly care and have more outrage over that. [He just took a shot at Richard and Bobby. The drug-addict, Rush called Sandra Fluke a slut and a prostitute for three days straight for fighting for women's health care. As a result of his enthusiastic misogyny, almost all of his sponsors fled. Richard and Bobby were very mad at ‘the liberal mainstream media.’ Somehow, it wasn’t Rush’s fault for his being an unmitigated fucking asshole, it was ‘the liberal mainstream media’s’ fault.]
Unfortunately, I don't. I'm left caring more about this kid and the jack-hole that shot him without cause or reason.
What we have, and we barely have that as the investigation is not yet concluded and so none of us really know exactly what happened, is perhaps an overzealous neighborhood watchman [“The self-appointed neighborhood watch commander, he wanted to protect his neighborhood – he just got a little overzealous.” – Rush Limbaugh …I wonder just how many unarmed innocent people have to be murdered by someone before Rush considers it ‘regular’ overzealous instead of just ‘a little’ overzealous.] who got into a tussle with a 17 year old(whom I read was recently suspended for 10 days for beating up a bus driver), and it escalated and Trayvon ended up getting shot. [You read wrong.]
So far, that is all that we know, that the neighborhood watch man, who is himself a minority, made a bad judgement call. Can we all agree on that? [No. Murdering someone for no reason is not ever to be considered “a bad judgment call.”]
That said, it is now one of the top news stories, grabbing national attention, activist groups are mobilizing, bounties being offered, armies being raised, and the President himself had to make a comment in a press conference about it.
Why is the media calling Zimmerman "white"? [Why are you calling him a minority?] Why are the pictures of Trayvon from when he was 12 or 13? Why is color in every headline? Why are people marching? [Might have something to do with the ‘minority’ calling Trayvon a fucking coon and stalking and murdering him for no reason and never being arrested.]
That's what I am talking about. Not about some knucklehead not using his head and making a bad choice that ended with a life lost. [Again, the words ‘knucklehead,’ ‘bad choice’ and ‘life lost’ will not be used to soften a case of ‘senseless murder.’ No matter how much you try.]
The issue for me is how the media is handling this, deliberately skewing the news and trying to CREATE a racial issue, [You don’t have to create an issue if it actually exists.] going so far as to call the hispanic man a "white hispanic" [A term always used for white Hispanics.] in an effort to get people all whipped up, and the end result will be violence and more lives lost... [Well, that might be jumping to a wild conclusion based on nothing.] The media is being horrendously irresponsible IMHO, bordering on criminal [According to people defending the gun-wielding murderer.]. If it is illegal to yell fire in a crowded movie theater because it could cause a panic and get people hurt, why would it be ok for the media to lie and create a story that may ultimately create riots, looting and other violence over an issue or situation that they fabricated for ratings and to advance a political agenda? [Well, Mr. Pointless Analogy, maybe because nothing you just said is even remotely true.]
Why would I get time in jail for yelling fire, and they get rewarded financially for doing the same thing but on a much larger scale??? [Yelling fire when there is none, which results in injuries is slightly different than stalking and murdering someone for no reason and it being reported in the media.]
I have a different list of what we know:
1) The victim wasn't doing anything, and was minding his own business.
2) George Zimmerman was not in any danger, tucked safely away in his vehicle.
3) The 911 operator advised George Zimmerman to stay in his vehicle and not pursue the teenager that hadn't done anything wrong.
4) George Zimmerman exited his vehicle to initiate a confrontation with the victim.
5) As a result of that confrontation, George Zimmerman shot and killed the victim.
6) The local police department didn't initiate an investigation, until the story became a national news story.
That's what we know. What the victim was suspended for is irrelevant. It has no bearing on the situation, since the victim didn't drag Zimmerman from his vehicle and attack him. Because of what we know - this story has received national news attention. Because we should all be more outraged over this than you were over Rush Limbaugh losing some sponsors, no?
7) The police didn't arrest the shooter, and then sent the shooter home with the murder weapon.
1) You don't know that, you guess that and you may or may not be right but have to say it in order to take the opposing side to whatever I say. [According to Zimmerman himself on the 911 tape, he saw Martin walking and decided to go after him.]
2) He was, and he stepped out, so he did initiate contact. [Again, according to Zimmerman himself on the 911 tape, he saw Martin walking and decided to go after him. That is not Zimmerman in trouble. It is Zimmerman CAUSING trouble.]
3) Yes, they did, and as was previously stated, an operator is not an authority and it isn't against the law to ignore one. [Wow. There’s Zimmerman’s defense. “Mr. Zimmerman, why did you pursue Mr. Martin after being told not to?” “A 911 operator is not an authority and it isn't against the law to ignore one.” “My apologies, Mr. Zimmerman. Your Honor, I’d like to drop all charges. It is clear Mr. Zimmerman was in his right to stalk and murder Mr. Martin for no reason since a 911 operator is not an authority.”]
4) Agreed [You see initiating conflict as being innocent?]
5) As a result, yes, but you don't know what happened in between. It's like the underpants gnomes from South Park. Step 1 is steal underpants, step 3 is profit. But they forgot what step 2 was. [Whatthefuck?]
6) The incident happened a month ago, and there is an investigation ongoing. [No, there wasn’t until the news went nationwide over two weeks later.] He was not arrested because it isn't illegal to follow someone. [Shooting someone results in an arrest 100% of the time during normal circumstances. But that’s only police procedure. Why follow it?] And the evidence at the scene was that the Trayvon attacked him, and while he was on the ground being beaten he then drew his weapon and shot. That was what one of the witnesses said on the police report anyway. [There were no witnesses. That’s how Zimmerman was able to claim self-defense after stalking an unarmed kid and murdering him for no reason.] The cops at the scene assessed what happened and ruled it a self defense shooting. The Grand Jury that commences next week will review the data and determine a course of action. [There is no Grand Jury commencing next week. Someone would have to be arrested for that to happen. No one was arrested.] But everything at the scene said that while he could have stayed in his car and all that, the facts were that the guy did attack him and he did defend himself. [“But everything at the scene said that… he could have stayed in his car,” would be a statement that would convict Zimmerman in court. Were he ever to be arrested. And you keep on using the word “facts.” I do not think it means what you think it means.]
BTW, Rush didn't lose many sponsors and in fact other sponsors tripled doubled and tripled their ad dollars to the show. [According to Rush, the only source of this information that you listen to. But not according to facts. And speaking of which, you really should stop using “fact” in your sentences until you learn its definition.] Once again, the same media at work, skewing things, creating scenarios that don't exist, clouding the issue to advance their own ratings and political agenda. [Oh, boy. Project much?]
That's why they are using 5-7 year old pictures, that is why they are using race, etc... The same people lying and fabricating things here, are the same clowns that fed you BS about "rush's situation". [I agree. That clown, Rush IS lying to you.]
And they do so, because you and your ilk eat it up without question. [Do you and your ilk eat Rush’s shit without question?]
This wasn't a race issue. It was a shooting that perhaps could have been avoided. Nothing more, nothing less. I admitted that the guy probably used poor judgement. [Calling black people “fucking coons” does not equal a race issue and murder is poor judgment. I’m learning a lot today.]
It doesn't justify the media doctoring pictures [Nobody has doctored photos.], calling a hispanic man white to try to create a racial issue [Some White Hispanics: Rita Hayworth, Martin Sheen, Raquel Welch, Andy Garcia, Salma Hayek, Christy Turlington, Ricky Martin, Cameron Diaz, Christina Aguilera], it doesn't explain racial marches [Yeah, “Fucking coons” kinda does.], the Black Panthers [The New Black Panthers – not affiliated with the Black Panthers.] raising an army [Four guys.] and offering a bounty to hunt him down and kill him [They don’t have any money], etc... [Etc? Stamping an 'etc' on the end of all your fabricated lists sure does convince me there are a lot more things than you listed.]
You are not dispelling or disproving my "outrage", you are exemplifying it by not being astute enough to see that you are part of the problem. [I know you are, but what am I?]
What exactly was Zimmerman in danger of before he initiated the confrontation with Martin? The 'sharpened' Skittles, the '9mm' iced tea, the 'explosive' hoodie, the 'threatening' manner in which Martin was walking home from 7-11 or how he was 'intimidatingly' minding his own business while talking to his girlfriend on the phone?
In light of the base facts presented so far (not the delusional ones distorted by Richard, but the actual ones), it seems Martin was the one 'standing his ground' when confronted by a strange man with a gun who was stalking him.
1) We do know that. I am saying it because it is what we know. When I say things that disagree with or contradict you, it's not because of my need to oppose you. It's because you have an alarming tendency to say things that aren't true. And I have a debilitating need to point it out when you do. [I know that feeling.]
3) No one is demanding that he be arrested for ignoring a non-binding suggestion from the 911 operator. I am pointing out that at no point was Zimmerman in any danger, and further, he was specifically given correct instructions on how to continue to avoid being in any danger.
5) What happened between "Zimmerman initiated a confrontation" and "The confrontation ended violently with Zimmerman shooting the victim" doesn't matter. As Bill points out, once Zimmerman left his vehicle to initiate the confrontation, it seems to me that FL's "Stand Your Ground" law should be applied to the victim, and not Zimmerman. I would think that you'd jump at the chance to use this as an example for why everyone should be armed. Maybe if the victim was armed, he could have stood his ground more successfully?
6) The incident happened a month ago, and there was no investigation at all until the public outcry over the lack of any investigation.
I am astounded that you are such an expert on what the evidence at the scene were, and what all the facts are - given that your only exposure to the evidence and facts is filtered through the same media that is somehow simultaneously informing you personally, but misleading everyone else. [I love this analysis.]
I would love to have access to the pure stream of information that you have access to that is provided without any bias whatsoever. Do they call you directly to provide all of the unfiltered facts? Do they fax you the police reports that they are withholding from everyone else? Is this available online somewhere? Do I need a password? The "clowns" that fed me BS about "rush's situation" was the Congressional Record of what the woman actually said during her testimony and the handbook that Georgetown provides all of its students that covers their health insurance policy. I'm not sure what you have that is more pure than that, but if you can help us enlighten ourselves by getting access to your information sources, I'm sure we'd all be better off for it. [Yes. I love this analysis.]
Bill and my brother, no matter how much you try to make this about the shooting itself, it won't work. This is not nor has it ever been about whether Zimmerman should have gotten out of the car. [Yep, it is.]
So stop trying to reduce it all down to that. [(Stop trying to reduce it to what it’s about. I want it to be about liberal media bias.)]
It is and always has been about how the media is covering it, skewing it, and trying to make this a race issue when it clearly wasn't. [Clearly.] Maybe after this powder keg blows up and we have a few more Reginald Denny's on our hands, maybe then you and others will wake up and see this for what it is. A blatant attempt to create a race issue and rile people up when race was never a part of it. [It’s difficult to comment on his every stupid declaration. It’s almost all of them and I’m not clever enough to keep inventing new smart-ass things to say.]
It's a shooting that the cops said was self defense [No. The NRA-backed ‘stand your ground’ law forced the police to let him go because the only witness was dead, so they only had Zimmerman’s word about what happened.], that probably involved a poor decision on the part of Zimmerman. [Murder is not a poor decision.]
And yet, it is now international news, everyone is up in arms, bounties being raised, search parties, marches, etc...
Stop the insanity, and stop falling prey to it. [Picture me making a fart noise.]
Shouldn't we ALL be trying to make this about the shooting itself? I understand why you don't want it to be about that, but isn't that what this SHOULD be about? This is entirely about whether Zimmerman should have gotten out of the car. Because if he didn't, there would have been no incident that the media would have to allegedly distort for whatever nefarious purpose you feel they are about. You are the one getting lost in the weeds. Not me. But still - if you can please provide the source of your complete and unbiased knowledge on all topics, I would love to have access to it as well. It really could save us a lot of time in the future.
So, Richard, are you saying the media killed Martin? Because this is 100% about Zimmerman getting out of his car and stalking and murdering an unarmed person for no apparent reason. A reason that no one, even you, Richard, has been able to express. What exactly did he stalk Martin for?
Wait. I think I figured it out. Richard is unquestioningly defending the guy with the gun. Because he had a gun. Because guys with guns are always right. Because guns. And also guns. Guns guns guns. Constitution rights freedom guns.
No, I don't care about it, not at this level. [As in every case in the past, Richard expresses his disdain toward caring about reasons for events when they completely contradict his opinion.] We have shootings every day. I am questioning why THIS one is so important, and why the media is so desperate to pump this up, even going so far as calling the hispanic man, white. [Why are you insisting this White Hispanic is only White? To support your fact-free theory? It doesn't matter what color the murderer is to me.]
And Bill, give it a rest. If it was murder, the cops would have arrested the hispanic and this never would have even made the news. It isn't like murders in Miami are rare, you know? [They never arrested the shooter, as is common police procedure. No investigation was launched until the media shined a big, bright light on it. THAT might be why THIS one is so important.]
I am talking about the media and how they are handling this, and try as you might, you simply cannot argue that so you have to keep trying to get it back to why he got out of the car. Not gonna play that game. If you want to discuss that topic, start your own thread. [Not gonna play the game where facts contradict your wishes, so you will invent alternate realities and present them as fact? OK. I’m used to you doing that.]
You don't care about the actual point of this case? Yes, of course we have to keep trying to get it back to the actual point and off the meaningless one you invented to try and support your nonsensical view.
And Richard’s Brother already explained clearly why this one in particular has been deemed important. But you ignored that and keep spewing nonsense.
And of all of us in this thread, Richard, YOU seem to be the one talking about race all the time. We keep talking about the simple fact of someone murdering a defenseless person for no reason and the only action that has been taken is the dead kid was drug tested - not the murderer who got to keep his gun and go home. YOU keep pumping up the race angle.
Why did Zimmerman stalk and murder Martin? And yes, when you shoot your gun into someone for no reason and they die, that is murder.
Shootings happen every day. Like the Mississippi State student that was just shot multiple times and murdered in his dorm room by 3 black men. Didn't hear about that one? Why would you? It has black men as the killers, and there is no way to play the race card, advance a political agenda, milk it for ratings, etc... [The other murders are irrelevant to this case. And anything that ever gets on the news is for ratings. Has been since the 60’s when the News and Entertainment divisions in TV broadcasting merged. So, that’s an irrelevant point as well. However, no one seems to be able to tell me what is the political advantage to defending a murder victim.]
To the Left, and the majority of the media, racism is a one way street. Only whites can be racist. [No. Right-wing media tells you what left-wing media says. And since you never watch left-wing media, you only know what lies Rush tells you.] Black on black crime, black on white crime, white on white crime... none of that gets ratings. [Except for all the times it’s in the news that you are ignoring just to perpetuate your bullshit.] None of that can be exploited. [Except for all the times it is.] None of that can get protests going, talk show guest appearances, contributions, etc... [Except when it does.]
So the media only focuses on the white on black crime, [In your deluded mind. O.J. Simpson.] even though that is the MINORITY of the crimes committed. And even if the one side isn't white, they will call the hispanic person white just so that it fits the template. [Or because that’s what he is.]
This isn't about a questionable shooting, it never has been. [Yes it is. And that the shooter was never arrested.] It's about how the media is trying to twist it into something that it isn't, when there are DEFINITE racial issues, or UNQUESTIONABLE murders going on that are swept under the rug and ignored because they cannot make ratings from them or advance an agenda. [Bla bla bla. The same thing over and over.]
Yeah, maybe the guy should have stayed in his car. [Maybe?] So what? That justifies international media attention? That justifies bounties, armies of thugs looking for him, protests, marches, etc? [Shooting someone and never getting arrested qualifies for a protest or two. It is not about race. Right-wing media is massively playing up the “Liberal media is making it about race!” angle when they aren’t. But you wouldn’t know that. Liberal media wants an arrest and an investigation.]
please... The media is taking a story that would normally be buried on page 7, and creating a racial issue where none exists. [What I just said.]
And no Bill, it isn't murder.
Under your definition, if a woman is being beaten and raped and she kills her attacker then she is guilty of murder... But I guess that in your world, she probably is a murderer... [That would not be my definition. But I do so love your completely off the mark analogies.]
Can I ask why you are so insistent on calling him Hispanic? That isn't any more accurate than calling him "white". His father is white, and his mother is Hispanic. Maybe in your eyes, that's enough to consider him "Hispanic", but it's not very accurate. Also, under Bill's definition, if I start a fight with someone, get my ass kicked, and then shoot him, at the very least it doesn't qualify as self-defense. Because I started the fight. Lastly, maybe I missed it in your post, but I am still waiting for you to enlighten us to your source of all pure facts without bias or deceit. I think you're dodging the question because you have ulterior motives for selecting only certain parts of the story to care about that fulfill your desire to make this not racial - despite his call to 911 sort-of contradicting the notion that this wasn't racially motivated, at least in part. [Like the part where Zimmerman called Martin a ‘fucking coon’?]
I guess for the same reason that we call Obama a black President? Isn't he half white?
But if we called him white, than we wouldn't be able to play the race card whenever people disagree with him. I forgot myself, I forgot the double standard... My bad. [No one plays the race card for simply disagreeing with him. It’s when Republicans disagree with their own proposals that Obama likes and when Republicans hold up ‘Nigger’ signs and ‘Homie, go back to Kenya’ signs and Photoshopped African Witch Doctor pictures of Obama – that’s when Republicans are being racist. Then, when Democrats point out that blatant racism, Republicans claim the ‘race card’ is being played. Because to Republicans, exposing their racism is only asshole Democrats playing the race card. And that's the actual double standard. Like the current Republican war on women. All the anti-woman laws Republicans are passing are not the issue to them. It’s that the asshole Democrats are pointing it out. Because Republicans are double standard kings.]
As to the rest, let the grand jury do its job. If they decide that he instigated it, he will be arrested and charged. [When was Zimmerman arrested for this grand jury to take place? I must have missed it.]
But the race card and the media circus has no place in this, IMHO. [Then stop bringing up the race issue.]
No, Richard, only people on the right claim people on the left think racism is a one-way street that applies only to whites. See, that lie makes you feel justified in lying all the time. Who started spouting "reverse racism?" The right did. There is no such thing as reverse racism - that implies only white people can be racist. Anyone who hates anyone because of their race is a racist.
Anyway, this is about a man murdering an unarmed person for no reason. Not for some racist thing YOU keep bringing up.
I forgot to mention that "reverse racism" actually means "not racist."
I would love to let the grand jury do its job. There was no grand jury until this story got blown up though. Which was sort of the whole point. I don't understand how you can on the one hand whine and complain about the race card being played - and in the same breath whine that we are trying to reduce this to something that has nothing to do with race.
I'd have to go back and check, but as far as I know, I didn't mention race once in this thread (or anywhere on the intertubes). Peter and the ABC blurb didn't mention race. It mentioned a 17-year old Florida high school student, and it mentioned the name of the guy that shot and killed him. Maybe it went into further detail if you clicked the link, but I didn't. But neither Peter nor the blurb were sensationally setting this up as the racial war you are accusing them of.
You started whining about race immediately. In fact, now that I read your first post again, I thought it worth looking at. You are bitching and moaning like a baby about media bias - meanwhile, let's all see how Richard presented it:
"If the man who attacked the neighborhood watch, Trayvon, had been white, would we even be talking about this?"
A) Trayvon isn't a man. He's a 17-year old kid. Why did you attempt to portray him as a man?
B) Who attacked who isn't a fact in this case, yet. The only eyewitness to the start of the altercation is the guy that shot and killed the other guy.
C) George Zimmerman isn't a member of any neighborhood watch. I assume that you are referring to him this way in order to lend more of an air of credibility to Zimmerman. Why?
Everyone here has either ignored the racism angle (aside from noting the evidence in his initial 911 call that suggests it might have been partially an element in either his profiling, or in his insistence on following him and confronting him), or agreed with you that it shouldn't have been played. OF COURSE the new Black Panther Party is wrong to put out a bounty. OF COURSE it would be wrong to riot and pillage over it. OF COURSE Al Sharpton is being an ass about this. All of those things being wrong doesn't have anything to do with this case though. [True.]
You've since relayed that you read that he was suspended for 10 days for beating up a bus driver. The police leaked the information (illegally) that he was suspended for 10 days because the school caught him with a baggy with trace amounts of weed in it, and they have a zero tolerance policy. Why did the police leak that? Why did you bother to talk about what he was suspended for? [And why was Richard’s infallible source of information wrong about what he was suspended for?]
Because he wasn't the adorable little innocent 12 year old kid that the pictures in all the news stories that were trying to depict him as some "helpless little tike that was murdered for eating skittles"....
All of the news accounts have reported that Zimmerman was the head of the neighborhood watch. [Self-appointed. You forgot ‘self-appointed’.]
And the Black Panthers, Sharpton and all the things that you claim are crazy and wrong, are part of it because of how the media is portraying this. Why can't you understand that the media has taken one issue, a man perhaps using poor judgement and confronting someone, which then escalates and he has to defend himself and shoots the guy, and created an entirely different monster out of it? [‘Confronting’ and ‘instigating’ are not under any circumstance ‘defending.’ And ‘murder’ will never simply be considered ‘poor judgment.’]
Is admitting that I am right so hard for you? Is it more important to "try and prove Richard wrong on the internets" really worth setting aside common sense and your own credibility on things?
The shooting was in part caused by Zimmerman, the head of the neighborhood watch program, following and confronting him. Nobody, myself included, has denied that or said that he is without blame.
That is not nor has it ever been in debate or the argument.
I am talking about how it is being handled, mis-represented intentionally, and used for ratings and all sorts of other nonsense that has no relevance here. But by all means, continue trying to win an argument that nobody has made and that everyone agreed with you on in post #1. LOL
The shooting was in part caused by Zimmerman in that it was completely caused by Zimmerman when he stalked and murdered an unarmed person for no reason. Zimmerman, the self-appointed head of his own neighborhood watch not affiliated with the real Neighborhood Watch Program.
The only ones intentionally misrepresenting this case are the police department that did nothing until the media got a hold of the story and are now scrambling to cover their asses by leaking confidential, false and irrelevant information to smear the dead victim's name and Zimmerman's lawyer who has so far changed the story four times.
And so far as I can tell, the only ones trying pathetically to benefit politically off this case are Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum by attacking Obama. Other than those two, there's no political bent I can see.
Unless your secret source of unbiased information knows something that nobody else does.
And the New Black Panthers are literally four guys that have nothing to do with the actual Black Panthers, who disavow them.
And regardless of all this, the media didn't shoot and murder an unarmed kid for no reason. Zimmerman did. And the media didn't sweep the whole event under the rug for two weeks (hoping to forever). The police department did.
So, because he wasn't a cute 12 year old kid, your response was to simply lie about him? You couldn't take the same angle that the ABC blurb did, and call him a 17-year old high school student? Which would be...I don't know...accurate?
Is the news that reported he was the head of the neighborhood watch the same news that is lying to everyone about everything else? That's the lone factoid you choose to believe?
It isn't hard for me to admit that you are right. If it ever happens (you being correct about something), I'll be happy to point it out.
Bill, you are an ass, just stop posting. He didn't stalk him and murder him for no reason, else he would have been arrested on the spot. [Except for the facts?]
And Bill, what in your post in any way addresses the abysmal way the media is handling this by trying to turn it into a race issue and "mobilizing the troops"? [Only the right-wing media is turning it into a race issue by continually demanding to its viewers that the left-wing media is turning it into a race issue – which they are not. I know this because I watch both. Unlike you.]
And Brother, can you explain why the media is covering it from the angle that it is? If not, then STFU.
[I am an ass and Richard’s Brother should shut the fuck up. Is this a man who is getting frustrated with repeating the same lies over and over, to no avail?]
It's sad that 30 black kids unambiguously murdered a month doesn't bother you, but you can get really upset about a case where the facts are unclear simply because it makes a good political angle for a media focused on the goal of liberalism-keeping brown and black people in their place. One thing I can say for all this outrage-it is either disingenuous or based upon some extreme intellectual laziness. [This bullshit will be expanded upon and dealt with in Part 2.]
I'll get to that, right after you offer a better explanation for why you outright lied about this kid, when the correct description of him was less than an inch away from your eyeballs.
You didn't refer to this 17-year old kid as a man by accident. I just want you to admit why you intentionally altered the facts.
I'd also like to know how you know that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. Since only two people were present, and one of them sort of has a reason to lie about it (since he shot and killed the other witness). And I wouldn't mind knowing how you know that he was suspended for 10 days for beating up his bus driver.
I wouldn't know what the media is up to because I seem to be able to avoid them. I'm not sure why you can't.
That's how I am able to stay focused on facts and details I stead of just making shit up or intentionally lying about it like you are doing above.
This is Peter's page so I will stop polluting it, but if you seriously explain why you lied about him and referred to him a 17-year old kid walking down the street with skittles and ice tea a man, I would appreciate it. I know several 17-year-olds. None of them are men.
This ass would like to know what Martin was stalked and murdered for, then, Richard. You certainly have not provided an answer from your secret source of infallible information and the Zimmerman team hasn't either.
Since YOU keep pressing the 'race' aspect - here are the facts all of which are on tape - It wasn't the media who called Martin a "fucking coon" and expressed his dismay that "they always get away with it." Never expressing just what it was that the "fucking coon" was trying to get away with - other than being black - which was the ONLY reason Zimmerman gave why a kid doing the 100% normal, everyday activity that billions of people across the globe do every day - walking on a sidewalk - was suspicious. Then stalked and murdered him. For no reason.
I'll stop posting when you stop completely making things up. Everyone else is presenting simple, basic facts of the case. You are trying to blame the media. And the Black Panther party. And Al Sharpton. And activist groups. And an unarmed dead kid. And President Obama. And other cases not relevant to this one. Everyone but the actual shooter. Who stalked and murdered someone for no reason.
My last post is a reply to the one starting with, "Bill, you are an ass..." It seems more nonsense is being introduced that Richard’s Brother is dealing with.
Liberals are keeping brown and black people in their place?
Yes, Liberals are, for the same reason that drug companies would rather not cure cancer. If you develop a vaccine that you can give at birth and it takes away the chance of getting cancer, you make some money now and then that's it. There is far more money to be made in treating cancer than in curing it.
And that applies here. Far more money and power to be had from dealing in racism than in ending it.
Specific examples, please.
And what exactly is the cure for racism that liberals are suppressing in order to keep it alive so they make more money off of it? [He never answers. I was so curious to know the cure for racism.]
Oh, and good job completely ignoring the entirety of my last post except the mention of liberals suppressing blacks.
If you don't live or work in a poor black neighborhood, it might be hard to see. The way to stop discrimination based on race is to stop discriminating based on race! (not my quote...I think John Roberts). Most every Democrat program to help the poor minorities results in more poor minorities dependant on government. This results in more poor minorities dependant on government. It can be viewed in 3 generations of adults living in public housing, none of which have ever been employed. There are black neighborhoods where the unemployment rate is well over 50%...not because they are all being discriminated against...but because well meaning Democrats have elected people promising to change things. It's just those elected never seem to be good students of history or care about RESULTS. When the results are a society where young black men are murdered liberals then find someone else to blame...like claiming an epidemic of racism is killing black children in Florida. The Travon case is terrible and sad. Even more sad is how likely you are to get murdered if you are a young black man not due to the (possible) racism of a latino man in a Florida subdivision, but of the laziness of millions of Democrat voters to realize while they are patting each other on the back for being racially sensitive, they are responsible for the greatest racial crime today. [Yeah. Um. I’m not going to comment on this farkakte paragraph because it’s pretty much the entirety of our Part 2 argument. Patience.]
Actually, LOVE. That is SO true. You said it so well. [A paragraph only a mother could love.]
Okay that's checkmate fellas...my Mom agrees with me. ;)
Bobby, I didn't say it didn't bother me. [And so begins the meme of explaining to Bobby that you didn’t say what he just claimed you said. Happens a lot in Part 2.] I said that its not national news because it has become normal. Which is in itself something that bothers me. But what makes national news is what violates expectations, not what meets them.
Richard - you understand that there is a reason why the NIH researches a cure for cancer too, and that the company that develops the vaccine will be richer than God, right?
Bobby - it's pretty easy to point out that the answer to racism is !racism. And I assume it's equally easy to just blame it all on those sneaky liberals, but you didn't actually answer the question. Prior to all of this government intervention, this country wasn't exactly a utopia for minorities. It kind of sucked.
So instead of blaming it all on liberals, and the instant abolishment of all government social programs, what's the answer?
For my money, there's only one viable solution. All of the racists have to finally die out, and be replaced by !racists.
You are arguing with a straw man...I never blamed "all liberals," nor did I argue for the abolishment of all government programs. The liberals to blame are the ones who vote for politicians who impliment racist policies. (ie replacing the black father with government) And who is arguing for the abolishment of all social programs...not me. The government has a moral obligation to take care of those in real need-just not what we have now-which is social programs the effect of which are to keep minorities poor and dependant on the Government forever. [Based on what?] What other racism do you think is responsible for the state of minorities? The roaming bands of neighborhood watch people? The point is this whole thing is about distracting from the real problem and trying to resurect a mostly dead old demon while using a death as a political tool. [To what gain?] Do not allow discrimination. End government sponsorship of low expectations. It's offensive and racist no matter what the good intentions of Democrats. [I can’t wait till you read Part 2.]
So we end government sponsorship of low expectations and that's that? Racism solved? If not, what else is in your prescription?
Also, at least I appear to be in good company on this case. On the night of the incident, the lead homicide investigator wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter, and subsequently filed an affidavit that he found Zimmerman's account not compelling.
He appears to lack Richard's sources as well.
The lead investigator by definition would make that determination and (s)he would be the person I would trust most. [So, you trust that Zimmerman's account is crap, like the lead investigator does?] If he didn't have the authority to place the charge I think that police department should consider calling the position something other than lead homicide investigator. [?] Your question about racism is problematic because you can not control the minds of people-what you can and should do is stop supporting a political system with racist results. [??] When millions of Americans admit that the policies are destroying the black family, hope for black children, and all too often the lives of black children - that would be a good start. [???] When thousands and thousands more lives are at stake, where are Jacksons, Sharpton, and the many people who are so polarized about this case? That's what people are upset about who think the attention on this case is misplaced-hypocrisy. [I don’t know if I understood any of that. Especially all of his own statements that he contradicts in Part 2.]
So let me get this straight... the media only focuses on white on black crime... oh, wait... and so does Richard...
LMFAO!!!! Richard and Richard’s Brother, the two of you crack me up!!! It is amazing how polar opposite you both are...
TO BE CONTINUED…
As I’m sure you’ve figured out by now, this went on so long that I needed to split it up. This seemed to be a natural point for the break since Richard and his Brother don't post anymore. It’s pretty much just me and Bobby McGee from here on in. Peter comments as well, but the head-to-head is between me and Bobby. The topic makes a hard right turn away from the actual case and how it’s presented in the media and heads toward how this is all the fault of Liberals and their racist policies.