George Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

O maestre:

AgedGrunt:

O maestre:
gun laws should have serious review untrained and unprofessional should not carry firearms especially as vigilantes, if Zimmerman was unarmed he would have had to stay put, just like the 911 operator told him to. The case verdict was correct, but the laws are fucked. I think this is the reason most people are upset, as they cannot believe how dumb and destructive self defence laws are in comparison to their own personal morality.

This has nothing to do with gun control, nor does following someone with intent to confront them about suspicious behavior qualify you as a vigilante. In fact, nothing you've said makes sense given what we've learned from the trial.

I sincerely do not believe Zimmerman would have gotten out of the car to follow/confront Martin without his weapon. as far as I know neighbourhood watch members are solely supposed to report crimes in progress and not involve themselves in apprehension or questioning of suspects/criminals, even if pre-emptive crime prevention. They do not receive any kind of training in fire arms or how to confront targets, there are at least no specified standard education, the only doctrine is what I mentioned above in regards to reporting crime. Zimmerman did not as far as I know have any kind of private training at all, not in fire arms, apprehension tactics or gauging intent. He should not have had a weapon.
I will reiterate that I agree with the verdict I think it was correct in accordance with the law, but I do not condone the act or agree with the law, in accordance to my own personal morality... Does it make any sense now? I do not think I can make my opinion any clearer.

Ultratwinkie:

Vegosiux:

I think he tried to point out how a gun doesn't even need to be fired to be a contributing factor to escalation. You're armed, you're more confident. Less cautious. More likely to not take a step back if it looks like it could turn ugly.

But, I'm with you on the notion that this case and gun control don't really have much in common to draw comparisons and all, yes.

Since trayvon didn't know about the gun until after Zimmerman was jumped and his jacket exposed it, guns make no difference. No amount of confidence will make someone stay away, especially if they might be under the influence of purple drank like Martin was.

In fact, zimmerman said to have stopped following, its Martin that doubled back to fight.

Martin had nothing to do with Zimmerman stepping out of the vehicle to pursue him, my point was merely that I doubt Zimmerman would have confronted a dangerous individual without some kind of protection, like the gun he was wielding and utilized to defend himself. It is all speculation of course, but I believe that without the gun Zimmerman would have either stayed put, or minded his own business.

Him chasing martin was a falsehood. He had to get out of his car to ensure his own location, he had lost sight of Martin at that point. He stopped when the police told him to, he was just checking the street signs because it was very dark and rainy on that day.

Martin then came back to fight Zimmerman, even when zimmerman explained he had no issue with Martin. Zimmerman was walking back to his car, and didn't even know Martin was in the area.

Gun ownership changed nothing here. In fact, Martin was looking to illegal gun. That makes any gun control argument completely meaningless.

Ultratwinkie:

Him chasing martin was a falsehood. He had to get out of his car to ensure his own location, he had lost sight of Martin at that point. He stopped when the police told him to, he was just checking the street signs because it was very dark and rainy on that day.

Martin then came back to fight Zimmerman, even when zimmerman explained he had no issue with Martin. Zimmerman was walking back to his car, and didn't even know Martin was in the area.

Gun ownership changed nothing here. In fact, Martin was looking to illegal gun. That makes any gun control argument completely meaningless.

Then why was his breath so laboured during his conversation with the 911 operator? it is clear from that recording that he got out of the car began running but stopped only when told to.

O maestre:

Ultratwinkie:

Him chasing martin was a falsehood. He had to get out of his car to ensure his own location, he had lost sight of Martin at that point. He stopped when the police told him to, he was just checking the street signs because it was very dark and rainy on that day.

Martin then came back to fight Zimmerman, even when zimmerman explained he had no issue with Martin. Zimmerman was walking back to his car, and didn't even know Martin was in the area.

Gun ownership changed nothing here. In fact, Martin was looking to illegal gun. That makes any gun control argument completely meaningless.

Then why was his breath so laboured during his conversation with the 911 operator? it is clear from that recording that he got out of the car began running but stopped only when told to.

pausing does not mean laboured. There is no evidence to say he ran like the predator. Too many people think Zimmerman is some pro hitman with athleticism to beat olympians. he isn't.

I mean really, anyone that is defending martin at this point didn't even bother to check facts.

Ultratwinkie:

O maestre:

Ultratwinkie:

Him chasing martin was a falsehood. He had to get out of his car to ensure his own location, he had lost sight of Martin at that point. He stopped when the police told him to, he was just checking the street signs because it was very dark and rainy on that day.

Martin then came back to fight Zimmerman, even when zimmerman explained he had no issue with Martin. Zimmerman was walking back to his car, and didn't even know Martin was in the area.

Gun ownership changed nothing here. In fact, Martin was looking to illegal gun. That makes any gun control argument completely meaningless.

Then why was his breath so laboured during his conversation with the 911 operator? it is clear from that recording that he got out of the car began running but stopped only when told to.

pausing does not mean laboured. There is no evidence to say he ran like the predator. Too many people think Zimmerman is some pro hitman with athleticism to beat olympians. he isn't.

I mean really, anyone that is defending martin at this point didn't even bother to check facts.

pausing? really? sure sounded like panting. Where exactly did I state I was defending Martin!? read my post again, and please stop with the video already 20% of you posts include that youtube clip in some form, we get it you are a fan.

He should have stayed in his vehicle, that was my point. He probably would have stayed if he could not protect himself. This is the third time I am posting my point, to you specifically.
He saw Marting runaway after Marting had circled Zimmermans car in a threatening manner, after Marting ran Zimmerman followed, he even stated so himself. he should not have gotten out of his car.

Here is a article on The Police at Trayvon's school

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/05/01/m-dspd-cover-up-the-curious-case-of-trayvon-martins-backpack-with-stolen-jewelry-and-burglary-tool/

Ironically were it not for Frances Robles writing a Miami Herald article on March 26th 2012 an entire chain of events would not have taken place.

It was that Robles article, and the outlining of the Miami-Dade School Police Department's report on a Trayvon Martin incident from October 2011, that kicked off an internal investigation by M-DSPD Police Chief Hurley against his own officers to find out who leaked the police report.

(Note: The Miami-Dade Public School System has its own Police force, and Chief, who report to the School Board and Superintendent - Not the Police Dept. The Police Chief is appointed by the School Superintendent, in this example, Alberto Carvalho)

It was that M-DSPD internal affairs investigation which revealed in October 2011 Trayvon Martin was searched by School Resource Officer, Darryl Dunn. The search of Trayvon Martin's backpack turned up at least 12 pcs of ladies jewelry, and a man's watch, in addition to a flat head screwdriver described as "a burglary tool".

When Trayvon was questioned about who owned the jewelry and where it came from, he claimed he was just holding it for a "friend". A "friend" he would not name.

Later, after the police report was outlined in the Robles article, and despite Trayvon being suspended for the second time in a new school year, Martin family attorney, Benjamin Crump, said Trayvon's dad, Tracy Martin, and Trayvon's mom, Sybrina Fulton, did not know anything about the jewelry case.

It was only as a consequence of the M-DSPD internal affairs investigation that "why" they may not have known came to light.

On October 21st 2011 a burglary took place a few blocks from Krop Senior High School where Trayvon Martin attended. The stolen property outlined in the Miami-Dade Police Report (PD111021-422483) matches the descriptive presented by SRO Dunn in his School Police report 2011-11477.

However, there was ONE big issue. SRO Dunn never filed a criminal report, nor opened a criminal investigation, surrounding the stolen jewelry. Instead, and as a result of pressure from M-DSPD Chief Hurley to avoid criminal reports for black male students, Dunn wrote up the jewelry as "found items", and transferred them, along with the burglary tool, to the Miami-Dade Police property room where they sat on a shelf unassigned to anyone for investigation.

A separate report of "criminal Mischief" (T-08809) was filed for the additional issue of writing "WTF" on a school locker. [It was the search for the marker used to write the graffiti that led to the backpack search].

The school discipline, "suspension", was attached to the graffiti and not the stolen jewelry.

image

The connections between the Police Burglary report and the School Report of "found items" were never made because the regular police detective in charge of the Burglary case had no idea the School Police Dept. had filed a "found items" report.

Two differing police departments, and the School Officer, Dunn, intentionally took the criminal element out of the equation - instead preferring "school discipline" and not "criminal adjudication".

It was only when the M-DSPD Internal Affairs investigation kicked in, and six officers gave sworn affidavits, the manipulative scheme to improve criminal statistics within the School System were identified openly.

School Superintendent Alberto Carvalho gave his hire, Police Chief Hurley, instructions to reduce the criminal behavior of young black males. The chosen strategy between them, to insure optical success, was to stop using the Criminal Justice System to punish black student behavior. Instead they instructed the School Resource Officers to use school discipline in place of criminal justice.

image
Former M-DSPD Police Chief Hurley with son and wife

Another approach was the use of The Baker Act, to quantify behaviors under health HIPPA law secrecy by assigning the students with psychological problems. This allowed them to again use school discipline and work around criminal reports.

Without the reports, the statistics would improve immensely; And improve they did.

image

The final approach, to insure no-one would find out about the manipulation, was to change the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for inter-agency information sharing.

This new SOP was outlined by a communications directive in 2010 forbidding the sharing of Miami-Dade School Police reports to outside agencies without redaction. Officers had to send any and all requests through the public information officer.

Hence, the furor of Chief Hurley when the Robles article hit the press and cited police reports - Hurley smelled a leaker and launched an investigation.

Ultimately the internal affairs investigation initiated by Hurley led to his own firing, because the officers questioned told the internal affairs investigators the truth of what was going on and outed the scheme.

One of the examples of this in action was the jewelry incident and Trayvon Martin - as accidentally outlined in the Herald report. But the Herald never knew their reporting had launched an internal affairs investigation which led to the collapse of the scheme.

Meanwhile the stolen jewelry from the burglary (PD111021-422483) was sitting on a shelf in the Property Room listed as (2011-11477 "found items) gathering dust.

Until we started digging, and the FOIA requests revealed not only the scheme, but the fact a victim was never made whole with the return of their items.

That is, until now.

Yesterday we contacted Detective Manresa, assigned to the burglary case, of the Miami-Dade Police Department to notify him some of his victims' stolen items were actually in the Miami-Dade property room:

Subject: Attn: Detective Omar Manresa [RE: PD111021-422483 Burglary at XXXX XX XXXXX]

Dear Detective Manresa,

Per phone conversation of 4/30/13 @ 10:20am regarding burglary incident #PD111021-422483

During the course of research surrounding an internal affairs M-DSPD investigation in March/April of 2012 it coincidentally came to our attention that School Resource Officer Darryl Dunn (Dr. Krop Senior High School) filled out a report of items from a student's backpack without criminal attachment.

The internal documentation used by SRO Dunn only listed the contents of the backpack as "found items" and a burglary tool. He was trying to avoid subjecting the student [Trayvon Martin] to a criminal investigation, therefore no criminal report, nor investigation was initiated.

This action by SRO Dunn was taken at the direction and request of former M-DSPD Police Chief Hurley who had advised his officers to avoid writing criminal reports on student offenders; Apparently in an attempt to artificially improve the recorded criminal student statistics.

The internal report #2011-11477 never attached the stolen property to the student who was carrying it when searched. The property was taken to the custody of Carmen Gonzalez, Property Specialist, where it was held, and still should be located.

The details surrounding this event are outlined in the following sworn affidavits completed by members of the Miami-Dade School Police Department. (they are extensive)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/135564937/Sergeant-William-Tagle-Internal-Affairs-Investigative-Report

http://www.scribd.com/doc/135684004/Steven-N-Hadley-Sr-affidavit-and-investigation

http://www.scribd.com/doc/135692728/Affidavit-From-Commander-Deanna-Fox-Williams

http://www.scribd.com/doc/136164820/sergeant-Lourdes-Hodges-Sworn-Statement-Affidavit

http://www.scribd.com/doc/136392330/Sworn-affidavit-of-Detective-Gylamar-Ochoa-MDSPD

http://www.scribd.com/doc/136642019/Sergeant-Bradley-Rosh-MDSPD-Sworn-Affidavit

As mentioned, if you contact the victim of Miami-Dade burglary #PD111021-422483, and review with them the property confiscated by M-DSPD SRO Dunn listed under #2011-11477, we believe you will be able to return at least a portion of the stolen merchandise.

Perhaps some of the items returned may have sentimental, as well as obvious financial, value.

Right is Right Even If Nobody Does it; and Wrong is Wrong, even if Everybody Does it...

scotth266:

The problem is that whenever white-on-black crimes happen, black advocacy groups latch onto them as possible hate crimes, blowing them up in importance to push their agendas. This has the side-effect of minimalizing their coverage of black-on-black crime.
...
When white-on-black murders are such a small part of black murders at large, then why do they recieve such disproportionate coverage?

As far as I can work out from statistics, some 10% of US black homicide victims are due to whites, which equates to several hundred per year. Whether this includes justifiable homicides, I don't know. Therefore very few white-on-black murders are heavily publicised at all - well under 1%.

Nor would this case have attracted anything more than local attention either, but for the fact that many people felt the police's initial investigation into it lacked diligence. Advocacy groups can stomach routine murders to a large extent, but apparent negligence on the part of the authorities is intolerable to them. It was that perception of police disinterest or incompetence that is the real source of all the media/public hoo-hah.

IMO, when it comes to public advocacy, this generation has DECADES of civil rights precedents to help it start shifting the public mindset - it just fails to do so because of two factors - a complete determination to alienate anyone perceived to be "on the other side" (see Occupy Wallstreet) or attempts to stir shit up for no reason (see the modern NAACP.)

As an example of said shit-stirring...

One-sided examples: alienation is a two-way process. Take this little gem from one of Rand Paul's aides I read recently: "[a] non-white majority America would simply cease to be America for reasons that are as numerous as they are obvious - whether we are supposed to mention them or not." When Sarah Palin pitches up at a rally and celebrates them as the "real" America, what's the implication for everyone else? And I've read enough race/crime debates to see a fair proportion of people on the wrong side of the line between pointing out the fact that blacks cause more crime and presenting American blacks as some degenerate "other".

O maestre:

Ultratwinkie:

O maestre:

Then why was his breath so laboured during his conversation with the 911 operator? it is clear from that recording that he got out of the car began running but stopped only when told to.

pausing does not mean laboured. There is no evidence to say he ran like the predator. Too many people think Zimmerman is some pro hitman with athleticism to beat olympians. he isn't.

I mean really, anyone that is defending martin at this point didn't even bother to check facts.

pausing? really? sure sounded like panting. Where exactly did I state I was defending Martin!? read my post again, and please stop with the video already 20% of you posts include that youtube clip in some form, we get it you are a fan.

He should have stayed in his vehicle, that was my point. He probably would have stayed if he could not protect himself. This is the third time I am posting my point, to you specifically.
He saw Marting runaway after Marting had circled Zimmermans car in a threatening manner, after Marting ran Zimmerman followed, he even stated so himself. he should not have gotten out of his car.

First off I am not a fan, I am sick and tired of going through the same old arguments that were dragged out and beaten to death a year ago before the trial even happened. The same arguments that people use just because they saw it on TV or the same cliche slogans that make people think they are smart.

You can't be that blind to not see the same 3 threads with the same crap from a year ago. They blew this case out of proportion to what it actually was. There is a thread of a person that is somehow scared to leave the house or get shot now. I think this has gone way too far over something so simple.

A mistake in identity and a mentally unstable addict. As boring as that sounds to people that somehow must talk about race issues but can't actually talk about issues that minorities actually face. So they invent a strawman safe enough for people to beat up and feel in the right without actually doing anything.

Just like Kony 2012 was.

and say what you want in hindsight, since its 20/20, but how do you know Martin wouldn't actually get that gun from the seller and shoot up a school? With the money he got from dealing with drugs? He was unstable from heavy use of drugs, had a gun, and goes to a school.

You can plug anything into what could have happened. So now you must either have a dead kid or a school full of dead kids from a drug addict rampage from purple drank. Two can play the "what might have happened" game.

"what could have happened" is a fallacious argument when Martin was that bad in his drug use and has access to guns. It goes both ways.

Ultratwinkie:
Bullshit

Look,

There is no point whatsoever telling people about the "facts" whilst at the same time passing off a load of the worst sort of polarised internet conjecture about Martin being a brain damaged, drug-addled addict and dealer. Is there any solid evidence this was the case? No. You're also accepting versions of events from Zimmerman's testimony which has no independent corroboration at all, and we can't be sure he's telling the clear truth. After all, humans are inclined to sweeten their side of the story more than a little.

Now, I don't mind you doing so much per se as a counterpoint to the crap made up about Zimmerman. But please do not pretend you're some even-handed analyst and crusader for truth when you're rejecting the bullshit for one whilst happy to lay it on thick for the other.

Wait...so like I looked up the purple drank thing and you're supposed to use soda(sprite specifically) and jolly ranchers. I suppose skittles could stand in for jolly ranchers but why wouldn't Martin have gotten an actual soda instead of an Arizona brand beverage? They claim that he has had it before, so why wouldn't he get the recipe right if he were to have some again?

Agema:

Ultratwinkie:
Bullshit

Look,

There is no point whatsoever telling people about the "facts" whilst at the same time passing off a load of the worst sort of polarised internet conjecture about Martin being a brain damaged, drug-addled addict and dealer. Is there any solid evidence this was the case? No. You're also accepting versions of events from Zimmerman's testimony which has no independent corroboration at all, and we can't be sure he's telling the clear truth. After all, humans are inclined to sweeten their side of the story more than a little.

Now, I don't mind you doing so much per se as a counterpoint to the crap made up about Zimmerman. But please do not pretend you're some even-handed analyst and crusader for truth when you're rejecting the bullshit for one whilst happy to lay it on thick for the other.

Martin's autopsy showed compromised brain matter as well as liver. We call that brain damage no matter what stage, and that would be consistent to the lean Trayvon had been using. His behavior leading up to the shooting all pointed to that being most likely the case, even the paranoia.

And yes, the paranoia is fact because even Jeantel noticed it. Especially over the "gay rapists" Martin was worried about.

And no independent corroboration? The witnesses agreed with Zimmerman's ass in court. His story held up in trial, and the prosecution failed to do a single thing if it was all bullshit.

Unless it was all a conspiracy, in which case you are beyond insane.

Sometimes things really are as boring as they appear. No conspiracies, no grand plots from shadow racists, nothing. Sometimes reality as as unglamorous as that.

And if we say "we can't trust zimmerman for being human and possibly lying" than every witness is also suspect for also being human. How do we know Jeantel isn't lying through her teeth for money and fame? How do we know his parents aren't scum trying to make money off their dead kid? It happened before. How do we know any of these people have ulterior motives and plan on making money after all this is over?

So how can we trust anyone? The prosecution has a lot to gain financially, more than what is comfortable. A lot of the arguments people throw around here can go both ways.

And if suddenly "we can't know for sure what happened" then why is this thread still here? If its all conjecture and flame baiting?

Ultratwinkie:

O maestre:

Ultratwinkie:

pausing does not mean laboured. There is no evidence to say he ran like the predator. Too many people think Zimmerman is some pro hitman with athleticism to beat olympians. he isn't.

I mean really, anyone that is defending martin at this point didn't even bother to check facts.

pausing? really? sure sounded like panting. Where exactly did I state I was defending Martin!? read my post again, and please stop with the video already 20% of you posts include that youtube clip in some form, we get it you are a fan.

He should have stayed in his vehicle, that was my point. He probably would have stayed if he could not protect himself. This is the third time I am posting my point, to you specifically.
He saw Marting runaway after Marting had circled Zimmermans car in a threatening manner, after Marting ran Zimmerman followed, he even stated so himself. he should not have gotten out of his car.

First off I am not a fan, I am sick and tired of going through the same old arguments that were dragged out and beaten to death a year ago before the trial even happened. The same arguments that people use just because they saw it on TV or the same cliche slogans that make people think they are smart.

You can't be that blind to not see the same 3 threads with the same crap from a year ago. They blew this case out of proportion to what it actually was. There is a thread of a person that is somehow scared to leave the house or get shot now. I think this has gone way too far over something so simple.

A mistake in identity and a mentally unstable addict. As boring as that sounds to people that somehow must talk about race issues but can't actually talk about issues that minorities actually face. So they invent a strawman safe enough for people to beat up and feel in the right without actually doing anything.

Just like Kony 2012 was.

and say what you want in hindsight, since its 20/20, but how do you know Martin wouldn't actually get that gun from the seller and shoot up a school? With the money he got from dealing with drugs? He was unstable from heavy use of drugs, had a gun, and goes to a school.

You can plug anything into what could have happened. So now you must either have a dead kid or a school full of dead kids from a drug addict rampage from purple drank. Two can play the "what might have happened" game.

"what could have happened" is a fallacious argument when Martin was that bad in his drug use and has access to guns. It goes both ways.

I think we are going to have to stop for now, or even cease discussing completely because you are now rambling about completely different subjects. I am not talking about media so why are you? I am not talking about Kony so why are you? I am not talking about drugs, race or even Martin. You keep referring to other "people" but you are not talking to "people" you are talking to me, or at least I think so. I am not going to state my issue again, as it seems futile and i would only be quoting myself all over again. I am just going to assume that we are beyond mutual comprehension due to communication difficulties and as such it is impossible to debate with you any further.

O maestre:

Ultratwinkie:

O maestre:

pausing? really? sure sounded like panting. Where exactly did I state I was defending Martin!? read my post again, and please stop with the video already 20% of you posts include that youtube clip in some form, we get it you are a fan.

He should have stayed in his vehicle, that was my point. He probably would have stayed if he could not protect himself. This is the third time I am posting my point, to you specifically.
He saw Marting runaway after Marting had circled Zimmermans car in a threatening manner, after Marting ran Zimmerman followed, he even stated so himself. he should not have gotten out of his car.

First off I am not a fan, I am sick and tired of going through the same old arguments that were dragged out and beaten to death a year ago before the trial even happened. The same arguments that people use just because they saw it on TV or the same cliche slogans that make people think they are smart.

You can't be that blind to not see the same 3 threads with the same crap from a year ago. They blew this case out of proportion to what it actually was. There is a thread of a person that is somehow scared to leave the house or get shot now. I think this has gone way too far over something so simple.

A mistake in identity and a mentally unstable addict. As boring as that sounds to people that somehow must talk about race issues but can't actually talk about issues that minorities actually face. So they invent a strawman safe enough for people to beat up and feel in the right without actually doing anything.

Just like Kony 2012 was.

and say what you want in hindsight, since its 20/20, but how do you know Martin wouldn't actually get that gun from the seller and shoot up a school? With the money he got from dealing with drugs? He was unstable from heavy use of drugs, had a gun, and goes to a school.

You can plug anything into what could have happened. So now you must either have a dead kid or a school full of dead kids from a drug addict rampage from purple drank. Two can play the "what might have happened" game.

"what could have happened" is a fallacious argument when Martin was that bad in his drug use and has access to guns. It goes both ways.

I think we are going to have to stop for now, or even cease discussing completely because you are now rambling about completely different subjects. I am not talking about media so why are you? I am not talking about Kony so why are you? I am not talking about drugs, race or even Martin. You keep referring to other "people" but you are not talking to "people" you are talking to me, or at least I think so. I am not going to state my issue again, as it seems futile and i would only be quoting myself all over again. I am just going to assume that we are beyond mutual comprehension due to communication difficulties and as such it is impossible to debate with you any further.

I said that your entire point of Zimmerman staying in the car was just more bullshit that people only use because hindsight is 20/20. Bullshit that goes both ways.

Which is why I said you can't predict shit without also allowing the possibility that Trayvon could kill people with the gun he wanted to get. Which means someone still dies if Zimmerman stayed in the car.

See what I mean? It goes both ways. Hindsight is not exactly the best way to approach situations, because anything that it provides is useless by the time its brought up.

I also explained how this mess got to be a huge cluster fuck and why I needed to use the video. Its the same overly emotional manufactured hysteria that Kony 2012 rode on. Its the same arguments from a year ago when Zimmerman was arrested, the same rebuttals. I might as well post a video than to explain the same rebuttal to the same tired ass argument from 12 months ago.

Can you honestly not comprehend that? I thought I was being perfectly clear.

Ultratwinkie:
Martin's autopsy showed compromised brain matter as well as liver. We call that brain damage no matter what stage, and that would be consistent to the lean Trayvon had been using. His behavior leading up to the shooting all pointed to that being most likely the case, even the paranoia.

You can read the autopsy here:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/05/17/trayvon.martin.autopsy.pdf

There is no significant evidence of (pre-death) brain damage in that. Congested leptomeninges? Could be anything. Global oedema? That sort of thing happens in traumatic injury and death. There is some evidence of some "mild" and "patchy" fatty metamorphosis on the liver, which can be an indication of alcohol use. It can also occur from a shitty diet. One way or another, it is an absurd - I would go further and suggest malevolently dishonest - exaggeration to take the autopsy as evidence he was a massively drug-abusing wreck. I am sure some conservative sites would push this agenda.

And yes, the paranoia is fact because even Jeantel noticed it. Especially over the "gay rapists" Martin was worried about.

Paranoia is irrational fear. It is rational to be fearful when unknown men follow you round in their cars for several minutes.

And no independent corroboration? The witnesses agreed with Zimmerman's ass in court. His story held up in trial, and the prosecution failed to do a single thing if it was all bullshit.

There's corroboration of the fight. Not of much of the lead-up: why, whether and how far Zimmerman tailed Martin, what words were exchanged between Zimmerman and Martin prior to and during the fight, and so on. I think it very reasonable Zimmerman might have gently massaged a few things to diminish his own blame and expand Martin's. Just because there's no-one to contradict Zimmerman doesn't mean he was necessarily entirely truthful either.

He might for instance have downplayed that he was looking around for Martin (if not exactly pursuing) under the pretext of finding his location even after told not to. He might have downplayed his own aggression when Martin confronted him, or exaggerated Martin's verbal threats. This is all reasonable and understandable behaviour. These are the sorts of easy small lies humans can tell to make themselves feel better and seem better to others, placed around a core of truth.

And if we say "we can't trust zimmerman for being human and possibly lying" than every witness is also suspect for also being human.

Of course they are! Witnesses routinely give different accounts of events they've equally seen, potentially contradictory. Some of it is genuine error - memories are far from certain. Some people will subconsciously write in details and events as they think they should be or imagined rather than what they truly saw. It's been shown you can implant false memories in people. And then, some people will quite deliberately make small or large lies.

Ultratwinkie:

O maestre:

Ultratwinkie:

First off I am not a fan, I am sick and tired of going through the same old arguments that were dragged out and beaten to death a year ago before the trial even happened. The same arguments that people use just because they saw it on TV or the same cliche slogans that make people think they are smart.

You can't be that blind to not see the same 3 threads with the same crap from a year ago. They blew this case out of proportion to what it actually was. There is a thread of a person that is somehow scared to leave the house or get shot now. I think this has gone way too far over something so simple.

A mistake in identity and a mentally unstable addict. As boring as that sounds to people that somehow must talk about race issues but can't actually talk about issues that minorities actually face. So they invent a strawman safe enough for people to beat up and feel in the right without actually doing anything.

Just like Kony 2012 was.

and say what you want in hindsight, since its 20/20, but how do you know Martin wouldn't actually get that gun from the seller and shoot up a school? With the money he got from dealing with drugs? He was unstable from heavy use of drugs, had a gun, and goes to a school.

You can plug anything into what could have happened. So now you must either have a dead kid or a school full of dead kids from a drug addict rampage from purple drank. Two can play the "what might have happened" game.

"what could have happened" is a fallacious argument when Martin was that bad in his drug use and has access to guns. It goes both ways.

I think we are going to have to stop for now, or even cease discussing completely because you are now rambling about completely different subjects. I am not talking about media so why are you? I am not talking about Kony so why are you? I am not talking about drugs, race or even Martin. You keep referring to other "people" but you are not talking to "people" you are talking to me, or at least I think so. I am not going to state my issue again, as it seems futile and i would only be quoting myself all over again. I am just going to assume that we are beyond mutual comprehension due to communication difficulties and as such it is impossible to debate with you any further.

I said that your entire point of Zimmerman staying in the car was just more bullshit that people only use because hindsight is 20/20. Bullshit that goes both ways.

Which is why I said you can't predict shit without also allowing the possibility that Trayvon could kill people with the gun he wanted to get. Which means someone still dies if Zimmerman stayed in the car.

See what I mean? It goes both ways. Hindsight is not exactly the best way to approach situations, because anything that it provides is useless by the time its brought up.

I also explained how this mess got to be a huge cluster fuck and why I needed to use the video. Its the same overly emotional manufactured hysteria that Kony 2012 rode on. Its the same arguments from a year ago when Zimmerman was arrested, the same rebuttals. I might as well post a video than to explain the same rebuttal to the same tired ass argument from 12 months ago.

Can you honestly not comprehend that? I thought I was being perfectly clear.

Dammit man in my very second post I stated myself, that while speculative, and untrained unprofessional should not be toting a gun especially in the capacity of a neighbourhood watch. A citizens group in cooperation with the police, that has no official regulations in place, but has a doctrine of non interference. If said untrained and unarmed individual had no means of protection said individual probably would have stayed not intervened or interacted in any way. I still dont care about the "media cluster fuck" as it is irrelevant to my issue. untrained individuals should not get involved in stopping suspects. I understand what you have said, but it has been largely irrelevant.

I will state again I AGREE WITH THE FUCKING VERDICT! I am not talking about the verdict, or evidence, I am talking solely about the laws surrounding the case, solely that one single aspect and nothing else. Read my posts again.

If you are going to continue referring to the same irrelevant subjects in your next post I will not respond, because neither of us will get anything out of it but frustration. Seriously the arguments you have put up seem almost addressed to someone else entirely.

Ultratwinkie:

O maestre:

Ultratwinkie:

Him chasing martin was a falsehood. He had to get out of his car to ensure his own location, he had lost sight of Martin at that point. He stopped when the police told him to, he was just checking the street signs because it was very dark and rainy on that day.

Martin then came back to fight Zimmerman, even when zimmerman explained he had no issue with Martin. Zimmerman was walking back to his car, and didn't even know Martin was in the area.

Gun ownership changed nothing here. In fact, Martin was looking to illegal gun. That makes any gun control argument completely meaningless.

Then why was his breath so laboured during his conversation with the 911 operator? it is clear from that recording that he got out of the car began running but stopped only when told to.

pausing does not mean laboured. There is no evidence to say he ran like the predator. Too many people think Zimmerman is some pro hitman with athleticism to beat olympians. he isn't.

I mean really, anyone that is defending martin at this point didn't even bother to check facts.

I couldnt possibly agree with you more. I also dont see anyone mentioning "Purple Drank", which is where you mix.. wait for it... tea, skittles, and robutussin cough syrup. Trayvon was NOT an innocent little kid. He was a thug, that jumped the wrong person. And everyone that is trying to pull the race card into this, is simply drinking the cool-aid that the media is feeding you.

Agema:

Of course they are! Witnesses routinely give different accounts of events they've equally seen, potentially contradictory. Some of it is genuine error - memories are far from certain. Some people will subconsciously write in details and events as they think they should be or imagined rather than what they truly saw. It's been shown you can implant false memories in people. And then, some people will quite deliberately make small or large lies.

Few more things: there are re-created memories you have to deal with (people that remember a memory). It would be easy to put something in there through suggestion. Also, someone can look un-trustworthy, adding things the more they talk about and think about a past number of events.

For instance, while I have a lot of problems with Anita Hill, (don't tell anyone... but) I think she was, over time, remembering new things she hadn't originally spoken about.

Riff Moonraker:

I couldnt possibly agree with you more. I also dont see anyone mentioning "Purple Drank", which is where you mix.. wait for it... tea, skittles, and robutussin cough syrup. Trayvon was NOT an innocent little kid. He was a thug, that jumped the wrong person. And everyone that is trying to pull the race card into this, is simply drinking the cool-aid that the media is feeding you.

No..seriously. Purple Drank or Lean is Sprite or Mountain dew, prescription strength cough syrup, and jolly ranchers. You have to have a prescription strength cough syrup to make it because it is the codine that delivers the effect. Run of the mill Robitussin will not work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWMscYiAR-c

mecegirl:
Wait...so like I looked up the purple drank thing and you're supposed to use soda(sprite specifically) and jolly ranchers. I suppose skittles could stand in for jolly ranchers but why wouldn't Martin have gotten an actual soda instead of an Arizona brand beverage? They claim that he has had it before, so why wouldn't he get the recipe right if he were to have some again?

Thing is as far as the drug effect is concerned, neither the candy nor the soda is an active ingredient. They just serve to make recreational use of DXM or promethazine & codeine through chugging cough syrup more palatable. I suppose using an Arizona tea of some variety and skittles for purple drank would be like me using green tea and strawberry lemonade to make an Arnold Palmer (assuming of course that he was going to make some variation on purple drank with the tea and skittles, which is a big assumption -- even the most serious meth cooker sometimes needs Drano because his sink is actually clogged, let alone some teenager with a drug problem of unknown severity).

Schadrach:
Thing is as far as the drug effect is concerned, neither the candy nor the soda is an active ingredient. They just serve to make recreational use of DXM or promethazine & codeine through chugging cough syrup more palatable. I suppose using an Arizona tea of some variety and skittles for purple drank would be like me using green tea and strawberry lemonade to make an Arnold Palmer (assuming of course that he was going to make some variation on purple drank with the tea and skittles, which is a big assumption -- even the most serious meth cooker sometimes needs Drano because his sink is actually clogged, let alone some teenager with a drug problem of unknown severity).

Wasn't he buying them for his younger brother or someone anyway?

The story is that he was buying them for his younger brother. And yeah I guess people would want to believe that is a lie if it suits their image of the kid...I can't imagine his parents knowing about some hypothetical "purple drank" addiction and thus lying about why he went to the store. But if the kid was really interested in making "purple drank" I see no reason for him not to use sprite and jolly ranchers. The only reason for him to make the drink would be to emulate rappers that drink the stuff. He's supposed to be a wanna be thug after all, why wouldn't he emulate such thuggish role modles (I'm laughing every time I type either purple drank or thug...this is ridiculous) It's not like sprite and jolly ranchers are rare, only the medicine is rare.

image

Owyn_Merrilin:
Well shoot, let me go buy a gun and go around murdering people, then. As long as there's no witnesses, I'll legally be fine.

I guess getting out of your car in your own neighborhood is now considered a provocation that justifies a beat down.

Dragonbums:
That's cool

Nice to know that all I have to do to get a hole in my chest is wear a hoodie and walk around at night.
Doesn't matter what I was doing.

Doesn't matter what I was doing.? Hmm... something missing there. You forget to sucker punch some guy, jump on top on him, and beat the crap out of him. If you get shot then, I would say that's on you. Seriously read it again: Doesn't matter what I was doing.

Dragonbums:
This is one of those days where I'm reminded the my skin color does have meaning in society.

Yeah, it means that if you defend yourself from a beat down the media and feds will bring their full weight to bear against you. Heck, as long as you have a passing complexion you don't really need to be white, white-ish will do (as demostrated by Zimmerman). You just need to be white enough to call you white in the bleeding headlines. The important thing is that it can used to drum up an opportunity for white yuppies to morally preen in front of the entire country or at least their social circle by denouncing white proles.

Agema:

Ultratwinkie:
Martin's autopsy showed compromised brain matter as well as liver. We call that brain damage no matter what stage, and that would be consistent to the lean Trayvon had been using. His behavior leading up to the shooting all pointed to that being most likely the case, even the paranoia.

You can read the autopsy here:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/05/17/trayvon.martin.autopsy.pdf

There is no significant evidence of (pre-death) brain damage in that. Congested leptomeninges? Could be anything. Global oedema? That sort of thing happens in traumatic injury and death. There is some evidence of some "mild" and "patchy" fatty metamorphosis on the liver, which can be an indication of alcohol use. It can also occur from a shitty diet. One way or another, it is an absurd - I would go further and suggest malevolently dishonest - exaggeration to take the autopsy as evidence he was a massively drug-abusing wreck. I am sure some conservative sites would push this agenda.

And yes, the paranoia is fact because even Jeantel noticed it. Especially over the "gay rapists" Martin was worried about.

Paranoia is irrational fear. It is rational to be fearful when unknown men follow you round in their cars for several minutes.

And no independent corroboration? The witnesses agreed with Zimmerman's ass in court. His story held up in trial, and the prosecution failed to do a single thing if it was all bullshit.

There's corroboration of the fight. Not of much of the lead-up: why, whether and how far Zimmerman tailed Martin, what words were exchanged between Zimmerman and Martin prior to and during the fight, and so on. I think it very reasonable Zimmerman might have gently massaged a few things to diminish his own blame and expand Martin's. Just because there's no-one to contradict Zimmerman doesn't mean he was necessarily entirely truthful either.

He might for instance have downplayed that he was looking around for Martin (if not exactly pursuing) under the pretext of finding his location even after told not to. He might have downplayed his own aggression when Martin confronted him, or exaggerated Martin's verbal threats. This is all reasonable and understandable behaviour. These are the sorts of easy small lies humans can tell to make themselves feel better and seem better to others, placed around a core of truth.

And if we say "we can't trust zimmerman for being human and possibly lying" than every witness is also suspect for also being human.

Of course they are! Witnesses routinely give different accounts of events they've equally seen, potentially contradictory. Some of it is genuine error - memories are far from certain. Some people will subconsciously write in details and events as they think they should be or imagined rather than what they truly saw. It's been shown you can implant false memories in people. And then, some people will quite deliberately make small or large lies.

The key word here, however, is "might."

Only Zimmerman really saw everything. There was not enough evidence to contradict his story. Some questionable bits, but law isn't just a house of cards, were finding one tiny flaw brings the whole house down. It is possible that the events happened in such a way that George Zimmerman would not be legally defending himself (under the Stand Your Ground laws, it was very likely he wouldn't be protected, that is why Zimmerman's lawyers waved the SYG defense, and just argued standard self defense), or maybe not. There was not enough evidence to disproved Zimmerman's story beyond a reasonable doubt, so the jury had to let him go.

SOCIALCONSTRUCT:

Owyn_Merrilin:
Well shoot, let me go buy a gun and go around murdering people, then. As long as there's no witnesses, I'll legally be fine.

I guess getting out of your car in your own neighborhood is now considered a provocation that justifies a beat down.

No, but stalking someone in their own neighborhood because you don't happen to recognize them is, if not legal justification, at least stupid and asking for a beatdown. And don't give me that crap about the legal definition of stalking, I'm going by the dictionary definition. Unless you think the phrase "the hunter stalked the deer" means he followed the deer around for several years, getting creepier and creepier as time went on.

It's also irrelevant whether Zimmerman or Martin attacked first, /because we don't know for sure who did it./ That is why Zimmerman was declared not guilty, and why someone under the same circumstances who attacked first would get off.

Owyn_Merrilin:

SOCIALCONSTRUCT:

Owyn_Merrilin:
Well shoot, let me go buy a gun and go around murdering people, then. As long as there's no witnesses, I'll legally be fine.

I guess getting out of your car in your own neighborhood is now considered a provocation that justifies a beat down.

No, but stalking someone in their own neighborhood because you don't happen to recognize them is, if not legal justification, at least stupid and asking for a beatdown. And don't give me that crap about the legal definition of stalking, I'm going by the dictionary definition. Unless you think the phrase "the hunter stalked the deer" means he followed the deer around for several years, getting creepier and creepier as time went on.

As you pointed out, mere provocation is not a legal justification. There are plenty of people I think are "asking for a beatdown" (birthers, 9/11 truthers, the WBC, various Republican, etc.) but I would be breaking the law if I actually attacked them.

If Martin actually hit Zimmerman first then he had no legal justification for this merely because Zimmerman's actions made him angry. If you think that Martin hit Zimmerman because he thought that Zimmerman was "asking for a beatdown" then you are only validating Zimmerman's self defense claim.

Agema:

Nor would this case have attracted anything more than local attention either, but for the fact that many people felt the police's initial investigation into it lacked diligence. Advocacy groups can stomach routine murders to a large extent, but apparent negligence on the part of the authorities is intolerable to them. It was that perception of police disinterest or incompetence that is the real source of all the media/public hoo-hah.

Still, you'd think that with the coverage advocacy groups were getting with this case that they would use it to push for changes on other positions. Instead all I could see was the Emmett Till comparisons and the race-baiting.

And considering how poor the prosecution was during the trial, it seems to me that the accusations of incompetence were completely overblown by advocacy groups - unless you believe in the conspiracy that the prosecution was deliberately putting forth a poor case to let Zimmerman off (a conspiracy with practically no merit.)

To me, advocacy groups serve an important social purpose - but black advocacy groups have been doing a remarkably terrible job by trying to make cases like this one more than what they really are, while simultaneously avoiding discussions of their other, far larger issues even while they have all this coverage.

One-sided examples: alienation is a two-way process.

I don't get what you're getting at here. Yes, there are bad elements in our culture: political and racial opposition to the positive forces of moderation and equality. But what I'm getting at is, if you're going to fight for equality and justice and all that, you can't go around using hyperbolic propaganda - all you do is turn a large number of otherwise reasonable people against you and make them suspicious of your motives. These same people are extremely unlikely to listen to Sarah Palin or Ron Paul.

A lot of people have been turned off by the way black advocacy groups and the media have handled this case - the editing of the phone call by that MSNBC station, the invention of the term "white Hispanic", the Emmett Till comparisons and so on. These same people are now more interested in the "other side" of the story - the side Zimmerman's defenders have taken - just because they feel that either their character or intelligence has been insulted.

So I looked up SYG, and the only thing that is difference that I found compared to self-defense, is that it removes that you couldn't retreat. Instead you don't have to retreat and can fight back. If claimed self-defense that you'll still be investigated, and if found suspect based on the evidence found, you can still be charged and arrest and sent to trial. Not really seeing why SYG is such a big thing? Am I missing something here?

Seriously I am considering watching Fox News now. They manage to get this case with out the BS and lies that what seem like the rest of the MSM was creating. Not all civil rights guys are happy about the response to the trial or the way the media handle this. I think this hammer's the point about the case, the media, the response from the verdict, and the supporters of Trayvon Martin.

Nielas:

Owyn_Merrilin:

SOCIALCONSTRUCT:

I guess getting out of your car in your own neighborhood is now considered a provocation that justifies a beat down.

No, but stalking someone in their own neighborhood because you don't happen to recognize them is, if not legal justification, at least stupid and asking for a beatdown. And don't give me that crap about the legal definition of stalking, I'm going by the dictionary definition. Unless you think the phrase "the hunter stalked the deer" means he followed the deer around for several years, getting creepier and creepier as time went on.

As you pointed out, mere provocation is not a legal justification. There are plenty of people I think are "asking for a beatdown" (birthers, 9/11 truthers, the WBC, various Republican, etc.) but I would be breaking the law if I actually attacked them.

If Martin actually hit Zimmerman first then he had no legal justification for this merely because Zimmerman's actions made him angry. If you think that Martin hit Zimmerman because he thought that Zimmerman was "asking for a beatdown" then you are only validating Zimmerman's self defense claim.

Or is it validating Martin's hypothetical stand your ground claim?

Besides, I don't think Martin actually did start the fight, at least not unprovoked. I think zimmerman confronted him in an aggressive manner, and either threw the first punch, or was aggressive enough that Martin felt like he didn't have a choice. And even if he didn't start the fight, he still did wrong, and he still created the situation. Zimmerman started it, and they both escalated it until one of them was dead.

And all of this is still irrelevant to my point, which is that yes, hypothetically you /could/ pick a fight and get off. Zimmerman was not declared innocent, the jury just decided that there was a reasonable doubt that he might possibly have been telling the truth. The reason for that reasonable doubt was the lack of witnesses at the crucial moment.

Magenera:
So I looked up SYG, and the only thing that is difference that I found compared to self-defense, is that it removes that you couldn't retreat. Instead you don't have to retreat and can fight back. If claimed self-defense that you'll still be investigated, and if found suspect based on the evidence found, you can still be charged and arrest and sent to trial. Not really seeing why SYG is such a big thing? Am I missing something here?

From what I understand, you have the gist of it, yes.

A lot of the people complaining about SYG seem to think that because the option to retreat has been made an option, that people will suddenly have "shoot-first" ideas all the time. It's rather ridiculous considering that many people's first reaction is to run away, not to fight back - unless of course they feel there's nowhere to run. SYG (again, from what I know) is meant to simply cover that loophole. If you don't see a way out, you're allowed to defend yourself - as it should be.

SYG was a red herring anyway in this whole Zimmerman case - just something that the anti-gun lobby brought up as their typical boogeyman. Zimmerman's legal defense was bog-standard self-defense.

Thought this CNN article might peek one's interest about what went wrong with the case.

KingWein22:
Thought this CNN article might peek one's interest about what went wrong with the case.

Yeah that is a understatement of what happen. Partly because watching the case, damn near every witness that was brought to the stand, and what ever forensics that could be gathered, collaborated with Zimmerman story.

mecegirl:
The story is that he was buying them for his younger brother. And yeah I guess people would want to believe that is a lie if it suits their image of the kid...I can't imagine his parents knowing about some hypothetical "purple drank" addiction and thus lying about why he went to the store. But if the kid was really interested in making "purple drank" I see no reason for him not to use sprite and jolly ranchers. The only reason for him to make the drink would be to emulate rappers that drink the stuff. He's supposed to be a wanna be thug after all, why wouldn't he emulate such thuggish role modles (I'm laughing every time I type either purple drank or thug...this is ridiculous) It's not like sprite and jolly ranchers are rare, only the medicine is rare.

image

The recipes I seen say use candy and soda. Doesn't matter which, so you could be able to create your own flavoring if you wanted to. Nothing says you can't experiment.

Hell, I seen people claim that crushed (not cubed) ice is integral to Purple Drank but not every recipe mentions that.

The medicine may be rare, but Martin was looking for a supplier. We know this from his texts, in fact he was looking for a lot of stuff.

scotth266:

Magenera:
So I looked up SYG, and the only thing that is difference that I found compared to self-defense, is that it removes that you couldn't retreat. Instead you don't have to retreat and can fight back. If claimed self-defense that you'll still be investigated, and if found suspect based on the evidence found, you can still be charged and arrest and sent to trial. Not really seeing why SYG is such a big thing? Am I missing something here?

From what I understand, you have the gist of it, yes.

A lot of the people complaining about SYG seem to think that because the option to retreat has been made an option, that people will suddenly have "shoot-first" ideas all the time. It's rather ridiculous considering that many people's first reaction is to run away, not to fight back - unless of course they feel there's nowhere to run. SYG (again, from what I know) is meant to simply cover that loophole. If you don't see a way out, you're allowed to defend yourself - as it should be.

SYG was a red herring anyway in this whole Zimmerman case - just something that the anti-gun lobby brought up as their typical boogeyman. Zimmerman's legal defense was bog-standard self-defense.

Here's another fun fact regarding Stand Your Ground and Florida. Blacks are not only claiming it at a higher rate when compared with their overall population than white Floridians but they are also claiming it successfully at a higher rate than white people in Florida. Contrary to what the media would have you believe Stand Your Ground is actually benefitting black citizens of Florida more than whites and is not this law that makes it open season on the black people of this country.

Super Not Cosmo:
Here's another fun fact regarding Stand Your Ground and Florida. Blacks are not only claiming it at a higher rate when compared with their overall population than white Floridians but they are also claiming it successfully at a higher rate than white people in Florida. Contrary to what the media would have you believe Stand Your Ground is actually benefitting black citizens of Florida more than whites and is not this law that makes it open season on the black people of this country.

Do you have a source for this? Because I've read that it was the other way around, but there wasn't really enough evidence to draw a firm conclusion.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/is-there-racial-bias-in-stand-your-ground-laws/

Not G. Ivingname:

The key word here, however, is "might."

Only Zimmerman really saw everything. There was not enough evidence to contradict his story. Some questionable bits, but law isn't just a house of cards, were finding one tiny flaw brings the whole house down. It is possible that the events happened in such a way that George Zimmerman would not be legally defending himself (under the Stand Your Ground laws, it was very likely he wouldn't be protected, that is why Zimmerman's lawyers waved the SYG defense, and just argued standard self defense), or maybe not. There was not enough evidence to disproved Zimmerman's story beyond a reasonable doubt, so the jury had to let him go.

I have no problem with the verdict, nor have I ever in any thread (anyone is free to go back and check, although given the slog I don't blame anyone for not checking) declared Zimmerman guilty and deserving of jail time. It seems to me perfectly reasonable to invoke self-defence when someone's initiated conflict, broken your nose, knocked you to the ground and continued assaulting you.

I wish to illustrate two things: firstly that there is a gap between what you might call the "legal facts" and the "real facts". Something may be a "legal fact" because there is nothing to contradict it, without it being what really happened. Secondarily, that just because a lot of people ran an ugly hatchet-job on Zimmerman does not readily justify an equivalent hatchet job on Trayvon Martin - particularly not in conjunction with claims of adherence to the facts.

Getting a little tangential, I find these things frustrating because it becomes not so much a matter of ordinary humans with their inevitable flaws, it becomes positioning people as good guys and bad guys. An accidental death because an overzealous neighbourhood watchman intimidated a volatile adolescent into a violent response is amazingly simple to comprehend, and easy to empathise with either party. It's just not enough for some.

scotth266:
To me, advocacy groups serve an important social purpose - but black advocacy groups have been doing a remarkably terrible job by trying to make cases like this one more than what they really are, while simultaneously avoiding discussions of their other, far larger issues even while they have all this coverage.

They're advocacy groups. As explained, due the flags this incident raised, they cannot realistically not respond to this sort of thing. Publicity is oxygen: to remain inactive is to lose their membership and public profile, at which point they cannot usefully advocate anything at all.

I am more critical of your one-sided selection of other examples, all of which are left-wing. But it's not just the left wing, is it? In fact, the entire political spectrum is filled with advocacy groups who make huge, grandstanding displays over ultimately petty instances; who contribute to alienation; who cheaply denigrate and smear their opponents in lieu of useful policy.

We tend not to think "our" side is making a mountain of a molehill because we agree with their cause, a luxury we are not inclined to extend to our opponents. Thus I might suggest your particular disdain for black advocacy and other left-wing groups is a lot more to do with the differences in your and their political positions, rather than them being objectively worse.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked