Mock - walking while black

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185

(03-08-2013, 12:07 AM)Cracker Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-07-2013, 11:45 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]That was quite the rant. You and Sharpton would get along famously; you both scream about race.

I'm not looking at this case with some racial glasses on. Apparently you think that Trayvon deserved to die because a lot of black people commit crimes? Is that it?

There is a fucking mathematical problem here. Numbers don't lie.

Trayvon hit an armed man. The man was patrolling and armed because blacks are fucking violent and steal things. Is that my fault? Should I lie about it? Will that help? Why did this happen?

Nothing changes until people can start admitting the truth.

You KNOW why people have to patrol neighborhoods and question the presence of hoodie-wearing young black men. It didn't come out of thin air, it came from repeated experience that turned into a stereotype. Pretending you don't isn't helping your case. Anybody with any sense KNOWS why this happened. It is part of a larger problem, a symptom of the disease.

For people with great criminal minds, you sure don't like the facts very much.

(03-08-2013, 12:01 AM)username Wrote: [ -> ]I'm a-okay with holding people accountable. Not sure what the fuck that has to do with this case though.

Seriously?

Just because I KNOW that young black youths often commit crimes doesn't mean that I can act all vigilante. Right? Are you saying because black males often commit crimes, all of them deserve what they get?

I don't really care, just think this is a win for the liberal media. I feel like they got away with twisting the shit out of it. Not sure why people really care if they don't know the families involved personally. Part of the Facebook For A Cause society we live in now.

What did people do before social media? Probably mind their own business more...

(03-07-2013, 01:13 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-07-2013, 12:02 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]

It's my understanding that George was following covertly, enough so that he was reduced to whispering. Is that incorrect?

The police version of events and Zimmerman's versions of events are different.

In the police affidavit, Zimmerman confronts Trayvon after profiling him and following him in his vehicle (and despite being advised by 911 dispatch to stop following him). A struggle ensues as Trayvon tries to defend himself, and Zimmerman ends up shooting and killing Trayvon. Thus, the manslaughter charge.

Police Affidavit:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/...ument.html

In Zimmerman's written statement, Trayvon disappears from sight when he calls 911 and the dispatcher advises him to stop following Trayvon and asks for his exact location. Zimmerman claims that he got out of the truck to find the street sign when Travyon re-emerged, confronted and attacked Zimmerman. A struggle ensues as Zimmerman tries to defend himself, and Zimmerman ends up shooting and killing Trayvon. Thus, the self-defense claim.

Zimmerman's Statement:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images...t_0226.pdf

That is total bullshit. If you are looking for the street sign, you don't get out of the car. He was looking for a confrontation because he was big bad George, a neighborhood watch hero. Unfortunately, George got way more than the confrontation he was looking for. Now a boy who was walking to his father's girlfriend's house is dead. I don't care how much of a punk Trayvon may have been - in this instance, he was doing nothing wrong and is now dead because of George's romanticized fantasy that he was some kind of cop.

(03-08-2013, 08:58 AM)DMP Wrote: [ -> ]That is total bullshit. If you are looking for the street sign, you don't get out of the car. He was looking for a confrontation because he was big bad George, a neighborhood watch hero. Unfortunately, George got way more than the confrontation he was looking for. Now a boy who was walking to his father's girlfriend's house is dead. I don't care how much of a punk Trayvon may have been - in this instance, he was doing nothing wrong and is now dead because of George's romanticized fantasy that he was some kind of cop.

Yup, bullshit.

A self proclaimed neighborhood watch guy. I'm certain I read that he wasn't any kind of elected "watcher", he gave that title to himself. A true Neighborhood Watch person would never have been carrying a gun, that's not allowed with legitimate Neighborhood Watch people, they aren't allowed to confront people either because the risk of something serious happening is too great.

I pretty much don't give a fuck if the kid was a little bastard, smoked pot or gave people lip, my only interest is in the events of that night and what led to him being shot and killed. I'm only interested in the relevant bs.

(03-07-2013, 11:45 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]That was quite the rant. You and Sharpton would get along famously; you both scream about race.

I'm not looking at this case with some racial glasses on. Apparently you think that Trayvon deserved to die because a lot of black people commit crimes? Is that it?

Who the hell has ever insinuated that Trayvon deserved to die for simply walking through the neighborhood?

Just remember, he isn't the innocent, sweet little boy with braces that people apparently think he is.

If you aren't a thug wannabe or have nothing to hide you don't lurk in the bushes and jump somebody. It WILL emerge that Trayvon was the aggressor in this case. Was George profiling and trying to keep an eye on him? Sure.

Should we go through the reasons again as to why this neighborhood felt it needed a Watch representative? A ton of crime and days before, a woman's house had been robbed in broad daylight. Guess what? Two black guys. Said she feared for her life as she watched them breaking in.

Is that neighborhood supposed to sit back and take it?

I don't believe for a minute that Z was every really 'close' to T. Just enough to keep an eye on him. So, in my opinion, T would not have ever felt threatened, which is what people keep bringing up.

Then, Z loses him. On his way back to truck, bam, bumrushed.

I think that's what's got most of the women here pissed off.

"He intiated the confrontation, he's the aggressor..."

Now when the altercation begins, you're pissed that he didn't try to fight, that he pulled out a gun and didn't just 'take' his beating.

What Trayvon supporters fail to admit is this:

If you think you're a big, bad, tough guy and are gonna kick the shit out of somebody to teach them a lesson, make sure they're unarmed first.

George was not the Neighborhood Watch representative.

...and it's dumb to think that those who are interested in nothing more than the truth are a fan of the dead black kid, unless you're using George Bush logic, you're either with us or against us.

Zimmerman is a liar.

(03-08-2013, 10:24 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]Then, Z loses him. On his way back to truck, bam, bumrushed.

Zimmerman was about 30' from his vehicle when the NE911 call ended. I'd say he could have walked that in less than 30 seconds. But, the first witness to call 911 was 4 minutes later? So where was Zimmerman during the lost 4 minutes? Why didn't he make it back to his truck?

(03-08-2013, 09:12 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
I'm only interested in the relevant bs.

I love that line and will give you credit when using: "As has been smartly stated by a casual acquaintance . . .".

I can't wait to slip it into a conversation when idiots are droning on and on about "deep" philosophical, emotional and ideological issues.

Or long-winded stories!

This case IS about race and politics.

Armed man follows unarmed man, shoots and kills unarmed man and claims immunity due to statute.

The statute is the litmus test.

If the statute failed to consider variables and prohibit certain activities . . .

(03-08-2013, 11:37 AM)Adub Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-08-2013, 10:24 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]Then, Z loses him. On his way back to truck, bam, bumrushed.

Zimmerman was about 30' from his vehicle when the NE911 call ended. I'd say he could have walked that in less than 30 seconds. But, the first witness to call 911 was 4 minutes later? So where was Zimmerman during the lost 4 minutes? Why didn't he make it back to his truck?

My interpretation, and what I personally believe to be the story would be:

During those 4 minutes he's watching/followng T from a distance, then loses him in the darkness and rain.

At some point he turns to go back to the truck, at which point Trayvon attacks him.

I don't believe that he ever confronted T in a threatening way. Again, my own personal belief.

Again, much of my belief regarding T has come from a still unconfirmed report that he attacked a bus driver shortly before this incident with Z.
I may end up with egg on my face, but, if a person has attacked someone without provacation once (bus driver) then it becomes that much easier the next time: Zimmerman.

(03-08-2013, 12:02 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-08-2013, 09:12 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
I'm only interested in the relevant bs.

Thanks for getting that (I think). I shouldn't even be in this thread or forum for that matter when my only real interest is stirring shit. I'm leaving now. Hibye

Honest to God . . . I DO love it!

(03-08-2013, 10:24 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]If you think you're a big, bad, tough guy and are gonna kick the shit out of somebody to teach them a lesson, make sure they're unarmed first.

I just don't agree with the reasoning, no matter who states it or how it's stated, that Trayvon MUST HAVE acted like a thug that night and MUST HAVE been the physical aggressor when there's nothing to back that up except the shooter's statement (which might be true, remains to be seen); a statement which is contradicted by the police affidavit.

According to Zimmerman's statement, after he stopped following Trayvon and called 911, Travyon confronted him and asked him if he had a problem. George says that he told Trayvon "no" and Trayvon said, "well, you do now". At which time George claims that he searched for his phone to call 911 again and that's when Travyon punched him.

So, according to Zimmerman, Trayvon didn't jump him. In his own version of events, George would have had the opportunity to tell Trayvon that he was neighborhood watch. Or, if he thought Trayvon looked physically threatening, he could have said, "I don't have a problem, but I do have a gun and I've called 911 already", or something to that effect.

The fact that George did neither in his version of events, leads me to believe it's possible that George wanted to stop Trayvon from getting away no matter what it took, even though George had witnessed no crime committed by Trayvon. It's also possible to me that Zimmerman pulled out his gun to try to keep Trayvon from "getting away, like they always do", even though Trayvon isn't one of "those" who was suspected of crime in the area, with whom George expressed frustration during his 911 call to report Trayvon.

George elected not to testify at a scheduled immunity hearing. If he'd testified and shown that he acted in self-defense, charges would have been dropped (which happens 70% of the time according to the Olando Sentinnel).

So, there are reasonable questions regarding George's version of events and it would be scary if an armed person could shoot an unarmed stranger (regardless of the age, race, or gender of the parties) with no witnesses and people weren't asking questions. George (or his attorney) will have the opportunity to address those questions in court in order to prove their claim, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he acted in self defense. Until then, I'm personally not assuming that anything unproven MUST HAVE happened.

(03-08-2013, 08:58 AM)DMP Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-07-2013, 01:13 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-07-2013, 12:02 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]

It's my understanding that George was following covertly, enough so that he was reduced to whispering. Is that incorrect?

The police version of events and Zimmerman's versions of events are different.

In the police affidavit, Zimmerman confronts Trayvon after profiling him and following him in his vehicle (and despite being advised by 911 dispatch to stop following him). A struggle ensues as Trayvon tries to defend himself, and Zimmerman ends utjp shooting and killing Trayvon. Thus, the manslaughter charge.

Police Affidavit:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/...ument.html

In Zimmerman's written statement, Trayvon disappears from sight when he calls 911 and the dispatcher advises him to stop following Trayvon and asks for his exact location. Zimmerman claims that he got out of the truck to find the street sign when Travyon re-emerged, confronted and attacked Zimmerman. A struggle ensues as Zimmerman tries to defend himself, and Zimmerman ends up shooting and killing Trayvon. Thus, the self-defense claim.

Zimmerman's Statement:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images...t_0226.pdf

That is total bullshit. If you are looking for the street sign, you don't get out of the car. He was looking for a confrontation because he was big bad George, a neighborhood watch hero. Unfortunately, George got way more than the confrontation he was looking for. Now a boy who was walking to his father's girlfriend's house is dead. I don't care how much of a punk Trayvon may have been - in this instance, he was doing nothing wrong and is now dead because of George's romanticized fantasy that he was some kind of cop.

If George was on the phone with 911 and got out of his truck to see the street sign, what happened to the call? What happened to his phone? Did he tell the operator when T re-emerged? Here he is. Got go?

(03-08-2013, 04:16 PM)ramseycat Wrote: [ -> ]If George was on the phone with 911 and got out of his truck to see the street sign, what happened to the call? What happened to his phone? Did he tell the operator when T re-emerged? Here he is. Got go?

He had hung up the phone after giving 911 his location, he just didn't have one of the street names, is my understanding. 911 confirmed they were sending police and he should stop following.

According to George, he got out of the truck to go look for a street sign after the 911 call ended. If that's true, maybe he planned to call them back thinking it could speed things up if he gave them the exact location?

Others believe that George got out of the truck to follow Trayvon on foot after being advised against that by 911 dispatch.

Weird thing about the 911 calls in this case. George says he was reaching for his phone (some believe it was probably his gun) to call 911 again when Trayvon punched him. After he shot Trayvon, a man rushed to the scene and told George that he was going to call 911. George told him it wasn't necessary because he had already called 911, so it seems George was confident that the location he'd given 911 initially was specific enough after all. I didn't see anything in his statement to indicate that he called 911 a second time.

This is all to the best of my understanding.

From a website of color:

OP said

"I'm biased, I live in Sanford, Fl and I know how terrible this place really is. Of course the news doesn't report on what happens, most people don't report shit to the police in the first place. There have been instances where the police have been responsible of the same shit as George Zimmerman and nothing has happened...maybe i'm desensitized because this is the norm here, shootings and violent robberies, deaths, it's everyday, sometimes multiple times a day. There was a drive by 2 days ago that left 3 injured, happened in broad day light, no news report and somehow no witnesses. This has been going on for years, not saying in no way that George Zimmerman was right, he did this in my small ass community...but I was just thinking that maybe he was just as afraid as the rest of us and that caused his paranoia...but of course you guys can't relate because you are not and never will be a part of us. You are just onlookers who go by what you read on Google."

A few responses

"FUCK YOU! OP

What does this have to do with TRAYVON?"

"Apples and oranges!"

"Just shut the fuck up"

"Fuck him!"

"White mofo,you can claim to be black all you want! Your words say otherwise!"

Cracks me up that you white people feel like you have to twist things to defend them because they are black. They really don't like you or need you to do that for them. Most of the ones who do like you won't take your side in a street fight. Best to avoid black violence unless you are armed and paid to be there.

I agree with her post, I believe George was scared, I believe that neighborhood is probably my idea of the ghetto and they do see drive bys & violence daily. Were the people she was posting with disagreeing with her opinion?