Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (4 Viewers)

[TobiasFunke]

Per ABC news, in the 10 year period from 2000 to 2009, black-on-white killings grew from 8,503 to 8,530 while white-on-black slayings dropped from 4,745 to 4,380. Even though whites account for approximately 64% of the population and Blacks account for less than 13% of the

population, 8% of all homicides are black-on-white murders while only 4% are white-on-black murders.

This would be a great separate thread.

Poverty and violence seems to go hand in hand, much more than race.

About half of those living in poverty are non-Hispanic white (19.6 million in 2010), but poverty rates are much higher for blacks and Hispanics.

Do the drug laws in this country that put many people behind bars who would otherwise not be incarcerated have anything to do with this?

Does the availability of drugs and weapons in poorer neighborhoods have anything to do with it?

The are 164 million white people aged 15 and over. The poverty rate for whites is 13%. Given that, there's about 21.3 million white people aged 15 and over in poverty.

There are 30 million black people aged 15 and over. The poverty rate for blacks is 35%. There's about 10.5 million black people aged 15 and over in poverty.

If poverty were the primary factor in murders then whites should be committing twice as many murders as blacks.

Link

Link

Nobody has ever said it was the "primary," but even if they had there's a difference between "primary" and "only."

Here's a partial list of reasons I think contribute the differences between white and black violent crime rates:

Family status (single parent vs. dual parent or large family)

Poverty

Education

Urban vs. suburban or rural setting

Racial bias in law enforcement

Do you think these contribute to crime rates? If so, why not talk about them? Why do you just jump to "race" as if skin color and culture are the cause of violent crime as opposed to something that happens to correlate with these factors?

 

[kentric]

Because culture does make a difference, and it's sad that many AAs refuse to look at it as a factor. Is it the top factor? Maybe not, but it is there and deserves recognition.

Really? You think the role of culture in the violent crime rate among African-Americans has gone unrecognized?

Read the last few pages of this thread again. I'd say this "culture" thing is getting FAR more attention than any of the other factors that play a much bigger role. And every time someone like you posts about the role of culture without acknowledging those more important factors, you make the problem worse IMO. When you blame a secondary factor for a problem, you're shoving the more important factors into the background, and you're legitimatizing the views of racists who refuse to acknowledge those more important factors.

Being poor doesn't mean that you have to become a thug. There are poor people all over the world whose culture doesn't embrace violence.

And there are black people all over the world who don't become thugs.

Being part of a "culture that embraces violence" isn't primarily a race thing. It's an urban poverty thing, along with a "children with too little or no adult supervision" thing. Anyone who comes from that kind of background is going to be predisposed to that culture- blacks, Hispanics, Asians, anyone. The race-based statistics are mostly a reflection of the fact that a disproportionate # of blacks come from a background of urban poverty with too little or no adult supervision. And anyone who cites the race disparity without acknowledging the disparity in circumstance is making the problem worse.

Best post in the whole thread.

 

[[icon]]

So after a year and 466 pages we are still arguing the same points from Day 1.

I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you.

Carolina Hustler 2183 timschochet 1791 Christo 1749 BustedKnuckles 1397 jon_mx 1355 Jojo the circus boy 1107

 

[Billy Bats]

So after a year and 466 pages we are still arguing the same points from Day 1.

I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you.

Carolina Hustler 2183 timschochet 1791 Christo 1749 BustedKnuckles 1397 jon_mx 1355 Jojo the circus boy 1107

I always wondered how you find the post counts. Where is it?

 

[kentric]

Because culture does make a difference, and it's sad that many AAs refuse to look at it as a factor. Is it the top factor? Maybe not, but it is there and deserves recognition.

Really? You think the role of culture in the violent crime rate among African-Americans has gone unrecognized?

Read the last few pages of this thread again. I'd say this "culture" thing is getting FAR more attention than any of the other factors that play a much bigger role. And every time someone like you posts about the role of culture without acknowledging those more important factors, you make the problem worse IMO. When you blame a secondary factor for a problem, you're shoving the more important factors into the background, and you're legitimatizing the views of racists who refuse to acknowledge those more important factors.

Being poor doesn't mean that you have to become a thug. There are poor people all over the world whose culture doesn't embrace violence.

And there are black people all over the world who don't become thugs.

Being part of a "culture that embraces violence" isn't primarily a race thing. It's an urban poverty thing, along with a "children with too little or no adult supervision" thing. Anyone who comes from that kind of background is going to be predisposed to that culture- blacks, Hispanics, Asians, anyone. The race-based statistics are mostly a reflection of the fact that a disproportionate # of blacks come from a background of urban poverty with too little or no adult supervision. And anyone who cites the race disparity without acknowledging the disparity in circumstance is making the problem worse.

This is simply not true. As I posted above there are twice as many white kids as black kids in poverty yet they don't get commit as nearly many violent acts. I know it's popular to blame it all on poverty but the facts do not back it up. I've also spend almost half a year in Africa and have seen people who make our poorest look like Bill Gates and they are not nearly violent. We have an American culture problem as well as a AA culture problem.

So you're saying that African American's are more pre-disposed toward violence for genetic reasons?

 

[tdoss]

I'll tell you what the problem is coming from the white side of things...most conservatives have the mindset of, "regardless of your upbringing, environment, etc...you are responsible for yourself. You have no one else to blame or depend upon but yourself. If you fail, it's on you."

Why is this a "problem"?

Arent you ultimately responsible for yourself? Wouldnt the world be a better place if everyone had this attitude? I dont see the problem here. You got dealt a bad hand, tough break...life is full of tough breaks.

What am I missing?

Mistaken use of the word...how about "issue"?

You've got terrible leadership, role models and broken homes rampant throughout the black community.

You've got callous, self centered mindset in the white community.

It's going to be tough to "fix" race relations and find equality as long as those exist.

 

[jon_mx]

Jojo, I hate that you keep bringing up Trayvon Martin's history according to internet sources. Not only do we not know how much of it (or any of it) is true, we don't know the context, we have no idea how it affects what happened the night in question (I would argue not at all.) Worst of all, it perpetuates certain ugly racial stereotypes that make attitudes in this discussion worse, not better. I wish you would stop.

So it is ok for you to take a wild stab that martin was profiled because of race, but we are not allowed to discuss the text messages that were on martin's phone?There is a very high probability that Martin had a history of getting in fights. The fact that he was in a fight that was likely structured into rounds would definitely show a scary pattern. The evidence is certainly not 100%, but it is 10 times more reliable than what you are basing your opinions on.

These text messages exist. The odds that they were forged or impersonated is what maybe 1 in 5000?

Tim has showed little honesty in seeking the truth in this case. He knows how he wanted the events to have been and will twist facts to make them fit. He has completely different standards for evidence depending upon who the evidence supports. Way too much emotion and way too little brain in his reasoning.

You are full of crap. I started off think Zimmerman was guilty. I changed as the truth came out.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Because culture does make a difference, and it's sad that many AAs refuse to look at it as a factor. Is it the top factor? Maybe not, but it is there and deserves recognition.

Really? You think the role of culture in the violent crime rate among African-Americans has gone unrecognized?

Read the last few pages of this thread again. I'd say this "culture" thing is getting FAR more attention than any of the other factors that play a much bigger role. And every time someone like you posts about the role of culture without acknowledging those more important factors, you make the problem worse IMO. When you blame a secondary factor for a problem, you're shoving the more important factors into the background, and you're legitimatizing the views of racists who refuse to acknowledge those more important factors.

Being poor doesn't mean that you have to become a thug. There are poor people all over the world whose culture doesn't embrace violence.

And there are black people all over the world who don't become thugs.

Being part of a "culture that embraces violence" isn't primarily a race thing. It's an urban poverty thing, along with a "children with too little or no adult supervision" thing. Anyone who comes from that kind of background is going to be predisposed to that culture- blacks, Hispanics, Asians, anyone. The race-based statistics are mostly a reflection of the fact that a disproportionate # of blacks come from a background of urban poverty with too little or no adult supervision. And anyone who cites the race disparity without acknowledging the disparity in circumstance is making the problem worse.

This is simply not true. As I posted above there are twice as many white kids as black kids in poverty yet they don't get commit as nearly many violent acts. I know it's popular to blame it all on poverty but the facts do not back it up. I've also spend almost half a year in Africa and have seen people who make our poorest look like Bill Gates and they are not nearly violent. We have an American culture problem as well as a AA culture problem.

The 20 year old unattributed data with no background that used a small enough sample size to conclude that the rate among a certain subgroup if whites had dropped over 90% from one decade to the next, right?

You seem not to understand the argument I made at all.. It's not simply about poverty. It's about lots of factors. Poverty is one of them. Read what you bolded in my post again. Does the sentence only mention poverty? No, it also talks about family status and differences between rural and urban settings and so on. And yet you don't mention either of those in your reply. How did you bold those things, declare the bolded sentence to be "simply not true" ... and then not even mention them again?

 

[tdoss]

I didn't watch the trial. I've only read accounts of it. Because I didn't watch it, I'm asking you, specifically, what is the evidence that Zimmerman started the fight? That seems to go against everything I've read.

He got out of his car.

I have a dream...a dream that white folks, even white Hispanics can walk freely without being jumped, mounted and pounded by black youth.

But until that day comes...white folks...stay in your homes...stay in your cars...otherwise, it's on you. Black youth cannot be held responsible for busting you up...it's like throwing a steak in front of a lion. You gonna blame the lion for eating?

 

[renesauz]

Per ABC news, in the 10 year period from 2000 to 2009, black-on-white killings grew from 8,503 to 8,530 while white-on-black slayings dropped from 4,745 to 4,380. Even though whites account for approximately 64% of the population and Blacks account for less than 13% of the

population, 8% of all homicides are black-on-white murders while only 4% are white-on-black murders.

This would be a great separate thread.

Poverty and violence seems to go hand in hand, much more than race.

About half of those living in poverty are non-Hispanic white (19.6 million in 2010), but poverty rates are much higher for blacks and Hispanics.

Do the drug laws in this country that put many people behind bars who would otherwise not be incarcerated have anything to do with this?

Does the availability of drugs and weapons in poorer neighborhoods have anything to do with it?

The are 164 million white people aged 15 and over. The poverty rate for whites is 13%. Given that, there's about 21.3 million white people aged 15 and over in poverty.

There are 30 million black people aged 15 and over. The poverty rate for blacks is 35%. There's about 10.5 million black people aged 15 and over in poverty.

If poverty were the primary factor in murders then whites should be committing twice as many murders as blacks.

Link

Link

Nobody has ever said it was the "primary," but even if they had there's a difference between "primary" and "only."

Here's a partial list of reasons I think contribute the differences between white and black violent crime rates:

Family status (single parent vs. dual parent or large family)

Poverty

Education

Urban vs. suburban or rural setting

Racial bias in law enforcement

Do you think these contribute to crime rates? If so, why not talk about them? Why do you just jump to "race" as if skin color and culture are the cause of violent crime as opposed to something that happens to correlate with these factors?

Look at the music, the gangs....those are CULTURAL ELEMENTS.

 

[Henry Ford]

Per ABC news, in the 10 year period from 2000 to 2009, black-on-white killings grew from 8,503 to 8,530 while white-on-black slayings dropped from 4,745 to 4,380. Even though whites account for approximately 64% of the population and Blacks account for less than 13% of the

population, 8% of all homicides are black-on-white murders while only 4% are white-on-black murders.

Or, to put it another way, If you're black, you're approximately three times as likely to be killed by a white person as a particular white person is to be killed by a black person.

What are the odds to get killed by another black person? What are the odds of a particular white person to get killed by a particular white person?

By a particular white person? Probably pretty low. Like, the chances of me getting killed by Tom Cruise are astronomically low.

Why did you use particular in your response?

Because "the odds of a white person being killed by a black person" is a phrase with a different meaning than "the odds of a particular white person being killed by a black person." Another phrase with a completely different meaning would be "a particular white person being killed by a particular black person."

My phrase was used to show that if you're born black in this country, you're more likely to be killed by a white person than you are likely to be killed by a black person if you're born white. By a lot.

You are greatly distorting facts and statistics here and you know it.If you are born black:

What are the odds that you are killed by another person?

What are the odds that you are killed by another black person?

What are the odds that you are killed by a white person?

What are the odds that you are killed by a Hispanic person?

What are the odds that you are killed by a person of a race other than the three mentioned above?

Now normalize these statistics based on racial rarity in the United States.

Once you fairly treat the statistics above and normalize, the bold should stand out by leaps and bounds.

Feel free to go through the same steps for a white victim. The picture you are trying to paint is using very broad strokes to mask the details of the facts.

I'm not distorting anything. I pretty clearly just stated a probability based on the statistic Joe used. I didn't make any statements whatsoever about black on black crime, or white on white crime, I extrapolated the interesting statistic from that data set that - funny story - while white people are scared of being killed by a black person, it turns out black people have much more to fear from white people than vice-versa in the "slaying" category if we're relying solely on those statistics.

I'm not masking anything.

 

[renesauz]

Per ABC news, in the 10 year period from 2000 to 2009, black-on-white killings grew from 8,503 to 8,530 while white-on-black slayings dropped from 4,745 to 4,380. Even though whites account for approximately 64% of the population and Blacks account for less than 13% of the

population, 8% of all homicides are black-on-white murders while only 4% are white-on-black murders.

Or, to put it another way, If you're black, you're approximately three times as likely to be killed by a white person as a particular white person is to be killed by a black person.

What are the odds to get killed by another black person? What are the odds of a particular white person to get killed by a particular white person?

By a particular white person? Probably pretty low. Like, the chances of me getting killed by Tom Cruise are astronomically low.

Why did you use particular in your response?

Because "the odds of a white person being killed by a black person" is a phrase with a different meaning than "the odds of a particular white person being killed by a black person." Another phrase with a completely different meaning would be "a particular white person being killed by a particular black person."

My phrase was used to show that if you're born black in this country, you're more likely to be killed by a white person than you are likely to be killed by a black person if you're born white. By a lot.

Not even close to true. I think you've badly misread the facts.

 

[Wrigley]

MSNBC reporting that black people around the country are outraged- they feel as if a black life is not worth as much as a white life. This is, of course, based on tweets and it's all anecdotal, but I believe it. I think this is really how most black Americans feel tonight.

That's always the crux of these things; the feeling that America doesn't value the life if young black men.

Dude, young black men don't value the lives of young black men. They need to do that before everyone else will.

Sick, disgusting comment.

You're a POS.

Why. I think it's an accurate statement. There should be more focus on black on black crime but we as a country are too scared to address it.

I was listening to "Oprah Live" on the radio Sunday morning and they were talking about the trial and someone said you can't talk about black-on-black crime until you first address white-on-black crime. A radio announcer backed this up saying something to the effect that the memory of racial slavery requires them to address white-on-black crime first.

So, they're still blaming the slave owners? Cool, we'll have this all figured out never.

How about Hispanic on Black crime?

Pretty sure Zims ancestors were not slave owners.

 

[cstu]

Because culture does make a difference, and it's sad that many AAs refuse to look at it as a factor. Is it the top factor? Maybe not, but it is there and deserves recognition.

Really? You think the role of culture in the violent crime rate among African-Americans has gone unrecognized?

Read the last few pages of this thread again. I'd say this "culture" thing is getting FAR more attention than any of the other factors that play a much bigger role. And every time someone like you posts about the role of culture without acknowledging those more important factors, you make the problem worse IMO. When you blame a secondary factor for a problem, you're shoving the more important factors into the background, and you're legitimatizing the views of racists who refuse to acknowledge those more important factors.

Being poor doesn't mean that you have to become a thug. There are poor people all over the world whose culture doesn't embrace violence.

And there are black people all over the world who don't become thugs.

Being part of a "culture that embraces violence" isn't primarily a race thing. It's an urban poverty thing, along with a "children with too little or no adult supervision" thing. Anyone who comes from that kind of background is going to be predisposed to that culture- blacks, Hispanics, Asians, anyone. The race-based statistics are mostly a reflection of the fact that a disproportionate # of blacks come from a background of urban poverty with too little or no adult supervision. And anyone who cites the race disparity without acknowledging the disparity in circumstance is making the problem worse.

This is simply not true. As I posted above there are twice as many white kids as black kids in poverty yet they don't get commit as nearly many violent acts. I know it's popular to blame it all on poverty but the facts do not back it up. I've also spend almost half a year in Africa and have seen people who make our poorest look like Bill Gates and they are not nearly violent. We have an American culture problem as well as a AA culture problem.

So you're saying that African American's are more pre-disposed toward violence for genetic reasons?

Did you miss the part I wrote about having lived in Africa?

FWIW, my wife's family is part black so don't judge my indictment of AA culture as racist anymore than when Bill Cosby does the same thing.

 

[lod01]

So after a year and 466 pages we are still arguing the same points from Day 1.

I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you.

Carolina Hustler 2183 timschochet 1791 Christo 1749 BustedKnuckles 1397 jon_mx 1355 Jojo the circus boy 1107

Keep up the good work.

What a bunch of post padding whores.

 

[timschochet]

Jojo, I hate that you keep bringing up Trayvon Martin's history according to internet sources. Not only do we not know how much of it (or any of it) is true, we don't know the context, we have no idea how it affects what happened the night in question (I would argue not at all.) Worst of all, it perpetuates certain ugly racial stereotypes that make attitudes in this discussion worse, not better. I wish you would stop.

So it is ok for you to take a wild stab that martin was profiled because of race, but we are not allowed to discuss the text messages that were on martin's phone?

There is a very high probability that Martin had a history of getting in fights. The fact that he was in a fight that was likely structured into rounds would definitely show a scary pattern. The evidence is certainly not 100%, but it is 10 times more reliable than what you are basing your opinions on.

These text messages exist. The odds that they were forged or impersonated is what maybe 1 in 5000?

Tim has showed little honesty in seeking the truth in this case. He knows how he wanted the events to have been and will twist facts to make them fit. He has completely different standards for evidence depending upon who the evidence supports. Way too much emotion and way too little brain in his reasoning.

This is crap. No offense.

 

[RUSF18]

So after a year and 466 pages we are still arguing the same points from Day 1.

I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you.

Carolina Hustler 2183 timschochet 1791 Christo 1749 BustedKnuckles 1397 jon_mx 1355 Jojo the circus boy 1107

Keep up the good work.

What a bunch of post padding whores.

Someone is solely responsible for more than 43 PAGES of this thread. Holy crap.

 

[tdoss]

What do people that want "Justice for trayvon" actually think is justice in this case?

Young black men no longer being considered "suspicious" in our society simply because they are young black men.

When you loiter or act suspiciously then you draw attention to yourself regardless of your race. I am involved in a youth sports organization. I am suspicious of single men that I dont recognize loitering around our facility. I am not a cop but I am responsible for almost 300 children and their safety on a daily basis. If I follow a middle aged man, regardless or race, who doesnt look like he belongs in my park am I doing something wrong? I am trained by the county to profile such individuals. Is that wrong? I will often ask what they are doing at our facility. If they can explain why they are there my level of suspicion doesnt disappear but it is reduced. If they can't then they are asked to leave.

You've got hate in your heart, my friend. Pure, unadulterated hate.

 

[Henry Ford]

Per ABC news, in the 10 year period from 2000 to 2009, black-on-white killings grew from 8,503 to 8,530 while white-on-black slayings dropped from 4,745 to 4,380. Even though whites account for approximately 64% of the population and Blacks account for less than 13% of the

population, 8% of all homicides are black-on-white murders while only 4% are white-on-black murders.

Or, to put it another way, If you're black, you're approximately three times as likely to be killed by a white person as a particular white person is to be killed by a black person.

What are the odds to get killed by another black person? What are the odds of a particular white person to get killed by a particular white person?

By a particular white person? Probably pretty low. Like, the chances of me getting killed by Tom Cruise are astronomically low.

Why did you use particular in your response?

Because "the odds of a white person being killed by a black person" is a phrase with a different meaning than "the odds of a particular white person being killed by a black person." Another phrase with a completely different meaning would be "a particular white person being killed by a particular black person."

My phrase was used to show that if you're born black in this country, you're more likely to be killed by a white person than you are likely to be killed by a black person if you're born white. By a lot.

Not even close to true. I think you've badly misread the facts.

Let's say there are only two races - one makes up 80% of the population and the other makes up 20% of the population (roughly the same statistically as the difference between 64% and 13% of the population.)

Now let's say there are 100 inter-racial crimes in this made-up country, and 2/3 are perpetrated by the 20% group and 1/3 are perpetrated by the 80% group.

Both of these statements are true:

The 20% group perpetrates more than their statistical share of these crimes.

If you're a member of the 20% group, you're more likely to be a victim of one of these crimes than if you're a member of the 80% group.

The 20% group is perpetrating more of them per capita, but there are so many more people in the 80% group that it's spread out over a much, much larger group of people. Therefore, a 20% group member is more likely to be a victim or a perpetrator than any individual in the 80% group.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Per ABC news, in the 10 year period from 2000 to 2009, black-on-white killings grew from 8,503 to 8,530 while white-on-black slayings dropped from 4,745 to 4,380. Even though whites account for approximately 64% of the population and Blacks account for less than 13% of the

population, 8% of all homicides are black-on-white murders while only 4% are white-on-black murders.

Or, to put it another way, If you're black, you're approximately three times as likely to be killed by a white person as a particular white person is to be killed by a black person.

What are the odds to get killed by another black person? What are the odds of a particular white person to get killed by a particular white person?

By a particular white person? Probably pretty low. Like, the chances of me getting killed by Tom Cruise are astronomically low.

Why did you use particular in your response?

Because "the odds of a white person being killed by a black person" is a phrase with a different meaning than "the odds of a particular white person being killed by a black person." Another phrase with a completely different meaning would be "a particular white person being killed by a particular black person."

My phrase was used to show that if you're born black in this country, you're more likely to be killed by a white person than you are likely to be killed by a black person if you're born white. By a lot.

You are greatly distorting facts and statistics here and you know it.If you are born black:

What are the odds that you are killed by another person?

What are the odds that you are killed by another black person?

What are the odds that you are killed by a white person?

What are the odds that you are killed by a Hispanic person?

What are the odds that you are killed by a person of a race other than the three mentioned above?

Now normalize these statistics based on racial rarity in the United States.

Once you fairly treat the statistics above and normalize, the bold should stand out by leaps and bounds.

Feel free to go through the same steps for a white victim. The picture you are trying to paint is using very broad strokes to mask the details of the facts.

I'm not distorting anything. I pretty clearly just stated a probability based on the statistic Joe used. I didn't make any statements whatsoever about black on black crime, or white on white crime, I extrapolated the interesting statistic from that data set that - funny story - while white people are scared of being killed by a black person, it turns out black people have much more to fear from white people than vice-versa in the "slaying" category if we're relying solely on those statistics.

I'm not masking anything.

You are masking the fact that there are 6x (5.74x to be exact) as many White or European American people in the United states than there are Black or African American people. By leaving this important piece of information out you are magnifying your implication. When you leave out important details like this and do not adjust your implication appropriately you are in fact distorting the facts.

 

[timschochet]

Too bad Zimmerman didnt waste this kid, too.

I didn't think anyone could approach Tim in this thread. We have a winner. This is a new low for this thread.

Todd Andrews is a troll who would rather incite people than engage them in discussion. That's not me.I certainly have my opinion about what happened with Zimmerman, and about the larger issue of race relations. I certainly take issue with many of the arguments made in this thread. But I try not to incite people, and to me the discussion is more valuable than proving myself right.

You are a liar and you make me sick. This adds more value to this discussion than the 1,765,432 vapid squishy flippity floppity nonsense words you have posted in this thread in the last 2 days.

1. Where did I lie?2. Based on your posts, I'm kind of glad I make you sick.

4. Even if one believes, as I do, that George Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, I can still find that cartoon disgusting, and I do. Your posting of it only proves what I have already asserted- you are a troll with no purpose other than to incite people.

Tim, do you believe GZ shot TM in self defense? Do you believe without reasonable doubt that he did not fear for death or great bodily harm?

No and no. I don't believe it was self defense, but I do think there is enough reasonable doubt about this to acquit him. The jury acted correctly, IMO.

Seems like the main person you dislike in this is the lead investigator. By him telling the jury he believes GZ's story to be true we do not see GZ take the stand. Would have been interesting if he had too. That is for sure.

No, my main problem is with the prosecution.

The lead investigator believed certain aspects of Zimmerman's story. But he also recommended, well before this was a big news story, that Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. This fact was never brought up at trial. Why was it never brought up? Because at the time the lead investigator was testifying, manslaughter was not on the table. Murder 2 was the main charge, and even though manslaughter was included later on, the prosecution stuck with Murder 2- "He had hate in his heart"- what nonsense!

The prosecution overcharged, and IMO it's a big reason why they lost this case. Had they gone with manslaughter in the first place, they then could have asked the lead investigator: "Give us your reasons for recommending manslaughter," and his answer might have had a real effect on the jury.

 

[tdoss]

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Martin was the aggressor on starting the fight. You can argue that Zimmerman provolked it by watching/following. But there is zero percent chance Zimmerman initiated the fight.

This is simply not true. What evidence do we have as regards who started the fight? (Rich, this is in response to you too.)Here's what we KNOW:

1. Zimmerman reported Martin as suspicious, and complained that these guys "always get away."

Here's what we THINK we know:

1. Zimmerman was following Martin, and stepped out of his car to do so.

2. Martin was heading home, but refused to run home, despite the urging of Rachel.

Based on this evidence, (which admittedly is pretty slight) it is more likely that Zimmerman was the initiator. EVERYTHING else is complete conjecture, or based on Zimmerman's self-serving narrative of events.

WOW...head in the sand ignoring more compelling info.

That is another reason why tim is LHUCKS Jr.

I wished he'd just let the grown folks talk...his useless chatter clogs up every thread he visits.

 

[timschochet]

OK, several of you have responded to my point that there is no evidence that Trayvon Martin doubled back by pointing to the timeline, to the statement by Martin on the phone to Rachel that he was "outside his house", to the statement by Jenna as to where the confrontation took place- all of this, you argue, would cause someone to reasonably conclude that Martin must have doubled back, which would therefore indicate that it's more likely that Trayvon Martin was the actual person who initiated the confrontation.

I am not convinced of that, but you guys make persuasive enough arguments so that I will amend my original contention that there is NO evidence to suggest that Trayvon initiated the fight. Rather, I will now say that there is no conclusive evidence as to who initiated the fight. I will no longer contend that it is more likely that Zimmerman initiated the fight. We just don't know. It does not change my original point this morning that it is wrong for people to simply accept Zimmerman's narrative without question. For the purposes of reaching a verdict in the trial, fine- his narrative which can't be disproved provides reasonable doubt. But for the purposes of discussion we can certainly question it.

wasn't everything they said to you just now said in the trial early last week or earlier already?

Were you not paying attention?

Please read what I wrote again. I don't believe any of it. I didn't during the trial, and I don't know.

But I was wrong when I stated there was NO evidence. I should have written there was no compelling evidence, IMO.

 

[Henry Ford]

Per ABC news, in the 10 year period from 2000 to 2009, black-on-white killings grew from 8,503 to 8,530 while white-on-black slayings dropped from 4,745 to 4,380. Even though whites account for approximately 64% of the population and Blacks account for less than 13% of the

population, 8% of all homicides are black-on-white murders while only 4% are white-on-black murders.

Or, to put it another way, If you're black, you're approximately three times as likely to be killed by a white person as a particular white person is to be killed by a black person.

What are the odds to get killed by another black person? What are the odds of a particular white person to get killed by a particular white person?

By a particular white person? Probably pretty low. Like, the chances of me getting killed by Tom Cruise are astronomically low.

Why did you use particular in your response?

Because "the odds of a white person being killed by a black person" is a phrase with a different meaning than "the odds of a particular white person being killed by a black person." Another phrase with a completely different meaning would be "a particular white person being killed by a particular black person."

My phrase was used to show that if you're born black in this country, you're more likely to be killed by a white person than you are likely to be killed by a black person if you're born white. By a lot.

You are greatly distorting facts and statistics here and you know it.If you are born black:

What are the odds that you are killed by another person?

What are the odds that you are killed by another black person?

What are the odds that you are killed by a white person?

What are the odds that you are killed by a Hispanic person?

What are the odds that you are killed by a person of a race other than the three mentioned above?

Now normalize these statistics based on racial rarity in the United States.

Once you fairly treat the statistics above and normalize, the bold should stand out by leaps and bounds.

Feel free to go through the same steps for a white victim. The picture you are trying to paint is using very broad strokes to mask the details of the facts.

I'm not distorting anything. I pretty clearly just stated a probability based on the statistic Joe used. I didn't make any statements whatsoever about black on black crime, or white on white crime, I extrapolated the interesting statistic from that data set that - funny story - while white people are scared of being killed by a black person, it turns out black people have much more to fear from white people than vice-versa in the "slaying" category if we're relying solely on those statistics.

I'm not masking anything.

You are masking the fact that there are 6x (5.74x to be exact) as many White or European American people in the United states than there are Black or African American people. By leaving this important piece of information out you are magnifying your implication. When you leave out important details like this and do not adjust your implication appropriately you are in fact distorting the facts.

Why would I have to re-state that there are lots more white people when it's the actual statistic that I'm quoting in the post directly above mine? And it's the basis for my statement?

 

[cstu]

Per ABC news, in the 10 year period from 2000 to 2009, black-on-white killings grew from 8,503 to 8,530 while white-on-black slayings dropped from 4,745 to 4,380. Even though whites account for approximately 64% of the population and Blacks account for less than 13% of the

population, 8% of all homicides are black-on-white murders while only 4% are white-on-black murders.

This would be a great separate thread.

Poverty and violence seems to go hand in hand, much more than race.

About half of those living in poverty are non-Hispanic white (19.6 million in 2010), but poverty rates are much higher for blacks and Hispanics.

Do the drug laws in this country that put many people behind bars who would otherwise not be incarcerated have anything to do with this?

Does the availability of drugs and weapons in poorer neighborhoods have anything to do with it?

The are 164 million white people aged 15 and over. The poverty rate for whites is 13%. Given that, there's about 21.3 million white people aged 15 and over in poverty.

There are 30 million black people aged 15 and over. The poverty rate for blacks is 35%. There's about 10.5 million black people aged 15 and over in poverty.

If poverty were the primary factor in murders then whites should be committing twice as many murders as blacks.

Link

Link

Nobody has ever said it was the "primary," but even if they had there's a difference between "primary" and "only."

Here's a partial list of reasons I think contribute the differences between white and black violent crime rates:

Family status (single parent vs. dual parent or large family)

Poverty

Education

Urban vs. suburban or rural setting

Racial bias in law enforcement

Do you think these contribute to crime rates? If so, why not talk about them? Why do you just jump to "race" as if skin color and culture are the cause of violent crime as opposed to something that happens to correlate with these factors?

Of course there are a lot of factors, but many of them are related to culture independent of poverty. I do have a problem with a culture that produces 7 out of 10 kids out of wedlock, doesn't put a priority on education and glorifies violence/misogeny/etc. in its music. While I do like rap music I do think it has a negative impact on kids.

 

[timschochet]

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Martin was the aggressor on starting the fight. You can argue that Zimmerman provolked it by watching/following. But there is zero percent chance Zimmerman initiated the fight.

This is simply not true. What evidence do we have as regards who started the fight? (Rich, this is in response to you too.)Here's what we KNOW:

1. Zimmerman reported Martin as suspicious, and complained that these guys "always get away."

Here's what we THINK we know:

1. Zimmerman was following Martin, and stepped out of his car to do so.

2. Martin was heading home, but refused to run home, despite the urging of Rachel.

Based on this evidence, (which admittedly is pretty slight) it is more likely that Zimmerman was the initiator. EVERYTHING else is complete conjecture, or based on Zimmerman's self-serving narrative of events.

WOW...head in the sand ignoring more compelling info.

That is another reason why tim is LHUCKS Jr.

I wished he'd just let the grown folks talk...his useless chatter clogs up every thread he visits.

Yada yada yada.

 

[lod01]

No, my main problem is with the prosecution.


The lead investigator believed certain aspects of Zimmerman's story. But he also recommended, well before this was a big news story, that Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. This fact was never brought up at trial. Why was it never brought up? Because at the time the lead investigator was testifying, manslaughter was not on the table. Murder 2 was the main charge, and even though manslaughter was included later on, the prosecution stuck with Murder 2- "He had hate in his heart"- what nonsense!

The prosecution overcharged, and IMO it's a big reason why they lost this case. Had they gone with manslaughter in the first place, they then could have asked the lead investigator: "Give us your reasons for recommending manslaughter," and his answer might have had a real effect on the jury.

They could have used Juan Martinez but he was too busy 3 holeing Jodi Arias.

 

[jon_mx]

Jojo, I hate that you keep bringing up Trayvon Martin's history according to internet sources. Not only do we not know how much of it (or any of it) is true, we don't know the context, we have no idea how it affects what happened the night in question (I would argue not at all.) Worst of all, it perpetuates certain ugly racial stereotypes that make attitudes in this discussion worse, not better. I wish you would stop.

So it is ok for you to take a wild stab that martin was profiled because of race, but we are not allowed to discuss the text messages that were on martin's phone?

There is a very high probability that Martin had a history of getting in fights. The fact that he was in a fight that was likely structured into rounds would definitely show a scary pattern. The evidence is certainly not 100%, but it is 10 times more reliable than what you are basing your opinions on.

These text messages exist. The odds that they were forged or impersonated is what maybe 1 in 5000?

Tim has showed little honesty in seeking the truth in this case. He knows how he wanted the events to have been and will twist facts to make them fit. He has completely different standards for evidence depending upon who the evidence supports. Way too much emotion and way too little brain in his reasoning.

This is crap. No offense.

Not at all. You did not trust one word out of Zimmerman's mouth, but believed certain aspects of DeeDee's testimony when it supported your position. She was a proven liar. You had no respect for Zimmerman's 5th Amendment rights, but somehow protecting Martin's cellphone and background is sacred and cannot even be considered when arriving at the truth. Your anti-Zimmerman filter you apply to the facts was rather enormous.

 

[tdoss]

What do people that want "Justice for trayvon" actually think is justice in this case?

Young black men no longer being considered "suspicious" in our society simply because they are young black men.

When you loiter or act suspiciously then you draw attention to yourself regardless of your race. I am involved in a youth sports organization. I am suspicious of single men that I dont recognize loitering around our facility. I am not a cop but I am responsible for almost 300 children and their safety on a daily basis. If I follow a middle aged man, regardless or race, who doesnt look like he belongs in my park am I doing something wrong? I am trained by the county to profile such individuals. Is that wrong? I will often ask what they are doing at our facility. If they can explain why they are there my level of suspicion doesnt disappear but it is reduced. If they can't then they are asked to leave.

Sorry, but you just don't seem to get it, and neither do many people here. Yes it's true that white kids dressed like gangbangers who act suspiciously or loiter are going to get treated suspiciously by police. But it's not on the same level. Black kids get treated suspiciously pretty much no matter what they do. They are subjected to a level of scrutiny by the police which white kids have never have to endure. It is simply not the same thing, and it is wrong for you to pretend that it is.

Ever think that in a lot of instances that it goes beyond race? You mentioned that white kids dressed as gangbangers will get harassed. That was your distinction...so, what happens to the white kids that don't dress like gangbangers?Now, take it further...what's the usual attire of inner city youth? Be honest...it's attire that is glorified by a thug persona...

Do you think if a young black male were dressed like Carlton from the Fresh Prince...he's gonna get hassled as much as a kid that looks like he's "keepin' it real"?

I don't know how your mind works...you state one thing about attire and then disregard it like it has no bearing...all in one post.

Honestly, Tim...you need to get your head checked.

 

[Billy Bats]

MSNBC reporting that black people around the country are outraged- they feel as if a black life is not worth as much as a white life. This is, of course, based on tweets and it's all anecdotal, but I believe it. I think this is really how most black Americans feel tonight.

That's always the crux of these things; the feeling that America doesn't value the life if young black men.

Dude, young black men don't value the lives of young black men. They need to do that before everyone else will.

Sick, disgusting comment.

You're a POS.

Why. I think it's an accurate statement. There should be more focus on black on black crime but we as a country are too scared to address it.

I was listening to "Oprah Live" on the radio Sunday morning and they were talking about the trial and someone said you can't talk about black-on-black crime until you first address white-on-black crime. A radio announcer backed this up saying something to the effect that the memory of racial slavery requires them to address white-on-black crime first.

So, they're still blaming the slave owners? Cool, we'll have this all figured out never.

How about Hispanic on Black crime?

Pretty sure Zims ancestors were not slave owners.

I wasn't referring to the GZ case specifically. But I would guess that most of American white people's ancestors weren't slave owners either. But it's still being held against everyone. Once the AA community decides to put that piece of history in the rear view mirror, and not let it effect their current day beliefs and motivations, then nothing will improve in regards to race relations. That's all IMO of course.

 

[tdoss]

If GZ was actually white instead of "more or less white" would media coverage have been different?

No, because it was his attitude to assume a young black man in his neighborhood was suspicious that kicked this case into the realm of "how race matters in America in 2013". It is his reason for noticing Martin in the first place, not his skin color/heritage that made this into such a controversial case.

So let me get this straight.....We are more worried about how a Hispanic man wrongly profiled a young black man...than we are about how that young black man doubled back and started a fight.

The first step in stopping "improper profiling" is to NOT do things wrong which tend to reinforce the profiling. IE: TMs actions legitimized GZs suspicion...the kid WAS a problem. TM would have ended up in jail or dead based on the path he was on. The difference here is that an older Hispanic man killed him instead of another young black man in a gang related fight.

AAs need to stop whining about profiling and get their kids off drugs, out of gangs, and into school. Teach them how to talk to people with respect, and to avoid violence instead of resorting to it at the drop of a hat. Until these kids commit murders and other violence at a rate consistent with other races, there is no grounds for complaining about racial profiling, no matter how unethical it is. 15% of the population is committing over half the murders, and something like 80% of those are against other AAs. Wrap your head around that for a second...how can we as a society avoid racial profiling with statistics so warped? Better yet...WHY WOULD WE? (we being society at large...including AAs, who racially profile just as quickly)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. In order to bolster your overall argument, you take a part of Zimmerman's narrative and simply assume that it's true. But it's completely unproven, without any evidence to support it.

The girlfriend testified:

Jeantel said she advised him to run, but that Martin said he was not going to run and that he was "right outside" his house.

The altercation did not occur right outside his house but much farther away. That is why folks refer to Martin as doubling back.

Doubled back or lied in waiting.

I think it is more plausible that it was the latter.

 

[timschochet]

Jojo, I hate that you keep bringing up Trayvon Martin's history according to internet sources. Not only do we not know how much of it (or any of it) is true, we don't know the context, we have no idea how it affects what happened the night in question (I would argue not at all.) Worst of all, it perpetuates certain ugly racial stereotypes that make attitudes in this discussion worse, not better. I wish you would stop.

So it is ok for you to take a wild stab that martin was profiled because of race, but we are not allowed to discuss the text messages that were on martin's phone?

There is a very high probability that Martin had a history of getting in fights. The fact that he was in a fight that was likely structured into rounds would definitely show a scary pattern. The evidence is certainly not 100%, but it is 10 times more reliable than what you are basing your opinions on.

These text messages exist. The odds that they were forged or impersonated is what maybe 1 in 5000?

Tim has showed little honesty in seeking the truth in this case. He knows how he wanted the events to have been and will twist facts to make them fit. He has completely different standards for evidence depending upon who the evidence supports. Way too much emotion and way too little brain in his reasoning.

This is crap. No offense.

Not at all. You did not trust one word out of Zimmerman's mouth, but believed certain aspects of DeeDee's testimony when it supported your position. She was a proven liar. You had no respect for Zimmerman's 5th Amendment rights, but somehow protecting Martin's cellphone and background is sacred and cannot even be considered when arriving at the truth. Your anti-Zimmerman filter you apply to the facts was rather enormous.

Nothing that you just wrote is accurate. I'm not going to get into it again; we've been over it all before, and I'm sure it bore the hell out everyone reading this for me to point out exactly where my comments differ from your interpretation of them. But they certainly do.

 

[larry_boy_44]

So after a year and 466 pages we are still arguing the same points from Day 1.

I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you.

Carolina Hustler 2183 timschochet 1791 Christo 1749 BustedKnuckles 1397 jon_mx 1355 Jojo the circus boy 1107

50 posts/page...

those 6 have posted a total of 191 pages and 32 posts worth of this thread...

 

[TobiasFunke]

Per ABC news, in the 10 year period from 2000 to 2009, black-on-white killings grew from 8,503 to 8,530 while white-on-black slayings dropped from 4,745 to 4,380. Even though whites account for approximately 64% of the population and Blacks account for less than 13% of the

population, 8% of all homicides are black-on-white murders while only 4% are white-on-black murders.

This would be a great separate thread.

Poverty and violence seems to go hand in hand, much more than race.

About half of those living in poverty are non-Hispanic white (19.6 million in 2010), but poverty rates are much higher for blacks and Hispanics.

Do the drug laws in this country that put many people behind bars who would otherwise not be incarcerated have anything to do with this?

Does the availability of drugs and weapons in poorer neighborhoods have anything to do with it?

The are 164 million white people aged 15 and over. The poverty rate for whites is 13%. Given that, there's about 21.3 million white people aged 15 and over in poverty.

There are 30 million black people aged 15 and over. The poverty rate for blacks is 35%. There's about 10.5 million black people aged 15 and over in poverty.

If poverty were the primary factor in murders then whites should be committing twice as many murders as blacks.

Link

Link

Nobody has ever said it was the "primary," but even if they had there's a difference between "primary" and "only."

Here's a partial list of reasons I think contribute the differences between white and black violent crime rates:

Family status (single parent vs. dual parent or large family)

Poverty

Education

Urban vs. suburban or rural setting

Racial bias in law enforcement

Do you think these contribute to crime rates? If so, why not talk about them? Why do you just jump to "race" as if skin color and culture are the cause of violent crime as opposed to something that happens to correlate with these factors?

Of course there are a lot of factors, but many of them are related to culture independent of poverty. I do have a problem with a culture that produces 7 out of 10 kids out of wedlock, doesn't put a priority on education and glorifies violence/misogeny/etc. in its music. While I do like rap music I do think it has a negative impact on kids.

I guess it depends on how broadly you characterize "culture." 7 out of 10 kids out of wedlock is a HUGE problem. Is that possibly an issue of availability/acceptance of birth control and abortion? Do those things count as "cultural"? What about living in cities? That obviously plays a huge role. The stakes of the drug trade are that much higher, the drugs themselves are that much more prevalent, and on a more basic level, population density just leads to that many more interactions of all kinds with other humans, positive and negative. Ignoring all of those factors to just blame "black culture" over urban culture or the culture of poverty or the culture of a difficult family life is just wrong.

I also disagree with anyone that that blames art as any kind of significant factor. That's silly, and in any event everyone listens to rap music. it's a non-factor.

 

[timschochet]

What do people that want "Justice for trayvon" actually think is justice in this case?

Young black men no longer being considered "suspicious" in our society simply because they are young black men.

When you loiter or act suspiciously then you draw attention to yourself regardless of your race. I am involved in a youth sports organization. I am suspicious of single men that I dont recognize loitering around our facility. I am not a cop but I am responsible for almost 300 children and their safety on a daily basis. If I follow a middle aged man, regardless or race, who doesnt look like he belongs in my park am I doing something wrong? I am trained by the county to profile such individuals. Is that wrong? I will often ask what they are doing at our facility. If they can explain why they are there my level of suspicion doesnt disappear but it is reduced. If they can't then they are asked to leave.

Sorry, but you just don't seem to get it, and neither do many people here. Yes it's true that white kids dressed like gangbangers who act suspiciously or loiter are going to get treated suspiciously by police. But it's not on the same level. Black kids get treated suspiciously pretty much no matter what they do. They are subjected to a level of scrutiny by the police which white kids have never have to endure. It is simply not the same thing, and it is wrong for you to pretend that it is.

Ever think that in a lot of instances that it goes beyond race? You mentioned that white kids dressed as gangbangers will get harassed. That was your distinction...so, what happens to the white kids that don't dress like gangbangers?Now, take it further...what's the usual attire of inner city youth? Be honest...it's attire that is glorified by a thug persona...

Do you think if a young black male were dressed like Carlton from the Fresh Prince...he's gonna get hassled as much as a kid that looks like he's "keepin' it real"?

I don't know how your mind works...you state one thing about attire and then disregard it like it has no bearing...all in one post.

Honestly, Tim...you need to get your head checked.

Is this a request for more chatter?

Yes, a black man dressed in a suit is going to be hassled less than a black man dressed in gansta wear.

Yes, a white teenager in gangsta wear is going to be hassled less than a white teenager dressed "smartly."

But to suggest that either of these statements, while true, argues against the existence of racism in the police is absurd! Institutionalized racism in our judicial system exists beyond these issues. All things being equal, black people are treated with more suspicion than white people. They are hassled more than white people. They are arrested in higher percentages than white people. They are convicted at a higher percentage than white people, sent to prison for longer terms at a higher percentage than white people, and given the death penalty at a higher percentage than white people. In all aspects of the judicial system they are treated unfairly.

 

[jon_mx]

So after a year and 466 pages we are still arguing the same points from Day 1.

I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you.

Carolina Hustler 2183 timschochet 1791 Christo 1749 BustedKnuckles 1397 jon_mx 1355 Jojo the circus boy 1107

50 posts/page...

those 6 have posted a total of 191 pages and 32 posts worth of this thread...

I for one am tired of carrying everyone else's weight around here.

 

[timschochet]

So after a year and 466 pages we are still arguing the same points from Day 1.

I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you.

Carolina Hustler 2183 timschochet 1791 Christo 1749 BustedKnuckles 1397 jon_mx 1355 Jojo the circus boy 1107

50 posts/page...

those 6 have posted a total of 191 pages and 32 posts worth of this thread...

So what?

You post because you're interested in the topic at hand. Who the #### cares how much I post or how much anyone posts? Such a stupid complaint...

 

[tdoss]

I hope GZ sues Nancy Grace too. He didn't say this, though she keeps saying it on national TV, and people believe her

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/nancy-grace-says-fking-coons-uncensored-while-railing-against-zimmermans-hatred-for-trayvon/

That's unbelievably disgusting and inflammatory.

 

[tdoss]

We should point the finger in the direction of ignorance not race. I feel pretty confident that most people, black or white look past race....The only people who can't are the ignorant. I'm sure all of you like people and are tolerant of people regardless of the color of their skin. But I'm also sure that all of you have no tolerance for the ignorant dumb ###, regardless of the color of their skin. It was ignorance that caused Zimmerman to feel the need to confront Martin and it was ignorance that caused Martin to go physical......As a side note take away the gun and all you have is two ignorant people in a fist fight.

Your side note is ignorant. You could have two people in a fist fight, or you could more likely have one man ground-and-pound'ing another to death.

Or...If Trayvon stopped by his own accord, after flooring Zim, or after Zim screamed, or after the neighbors implored him to stop...we'd just have two idiots in a fist fight and Trayvon would have assault charges. Not sure the racial epithet pushes it to hate crime status but we'd have some sort of charges from the assault.

 

[larry_boy_44]

So after a year and 466 pages we are still arguing the same points from Day 1.

I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you.

Carolina Hustler 2183 timschochet 1791 Christo 1749 BustedKnuckles 1397 jon_mx 1355 Jojo the circus boy 1107

50 posts/page...

those 6 have posted a total of 191 pages and 32 posts worth of this thread...

So what?

You post because you're interested in the topic at hand. Who the #### cares how much I post or how much anyone posts? Such a stupid complaint...

I'm not complaining, it made me laugh...

I'm sure there are tons of threads around here where I have just as many posts...

 

[jon_mx]

Not every one can be a part of the Z-1K club

 

[The Commish]

OK, several of you have responded to my point that there is no evidence that Trayvon Martin doubled back by pointing to the timeline, to the statement by Martin on the phone to Rachel that he was "outside his house", to the statement by Jenna as to where the confrontation took place- all of this, you argue, would cause someone to reasonably conclude that Martin must have doubled back, which would therefore indicate that it's more likely that Trayvon Martin was the actual person who initiated the confrontation.

I am not convinced of that, but you guys make persuasive enough arguments so that I will amend my original contention that there is NO evidence to suggest that Trayvon initiated the fight. Rather, I will now say that there is no conclusive evidence as to who initiated the fight. I will no longer contend that it is more likely that Zimmerman initiated the fight. We just don't know. It does not change my original point this morning that it is wrong for people to simply accept Zimmerman's narrative without question. For the purposes of reaching a verdict in the trial, fine- his narrative which can't be disproved provides reasonable doubt. But for the purposes of discussion we can certainly question it.

wasn't everything they said to you just now said in the trial early last week or earlier already?

Were you not paying attention?

It was mentioned in the trial. They didn't go into real depth on what "outside his house" meant and I suspect it's because we wouldn't be able to know for sure so actual location remained inconclusive regardless of what some wanted to believe.

 

[Leonidas]

I just saw this thread. I don't think I'd ever even looked in this sub forum before.

Zimmerman was found not guilty because he was not guilty.

There never even should have been a trial.

I don't intend to follow this thread as I pretty much just read the pool, just thought I'd drop this off. My own brief cliff notes

-Zimmerman was willing to tell the police investigators everything, right up front, and later at the station, and later in the walk through at the scene. His various statements are exactly as consistent as they should be. The investigator said that is to be expected, and that if what Zimmerman said every time (immediately after, on interview in the station, and later in a walk through) was 100% the same, that is what would be suspicious and is what would indicate a likely fabrication. The investigator is completely correct about that.

-When being interviewed by the investigator, the investigator lied and told Zimmerman there was a video recording of the event. What did Zimmerman say? "THANK GOD"

-Zimmerman passed a lie detector/voice stress analyzer test, which he voluntarily took.

-Responding officers noted Zimmerman's back was wetter and covered in more grass than his front, and Martin's pants had grass stains on the knees (which were still there at trial in evidence)

-The lead investigator in the case said that he believed Z was telling the truth.

-Zimmerman had an injured nose (according to the forensic pathologist, who is THE MAN in that field), it was probably broken.

-The forensic and ballistic evidence are consistent with Zimmerman's claim that he shot Martin while Martin was on top of him

-John Good's eye witness testimony is consistent with Zimmerman's story. He was the closest witness with the best view. He basically said Martin was on top, pounding on Z, while Z was screaming for help

-Zimmerman had at least two separate and distinct hemotobas (sp?) on the back of his head, consistent with a FORCEFUL impact on a hard, flat, not-entirely- smooth surface (like concrete) (this according to the foremost expert in the country on forensic pathology)

-Martin's only injury, other than the single gunshot round, was a small cut on one of his fingers

-Martin had a 4 minute head start (prosecution didn't even try to disagree with defense about this) on Zimmerman from the time Zimmerman lost sight of him to the time they interacted. This alone makes it clear that the confrontation only happened because Martin wanted it to

-Following somebody is not in any way illegal, and being followed by somebody (in this case it seems Z was following at a distance prior to losing sight of Martin for several minutes) is absolutely not legal grounds to attack them.

-Martin, for what it's worth, had a bunch of texts and facebook posts about fighting, being in fights, and having other people ask Martin to teach them to fight and even something about how to break somebody's nose in one punch, as well as tests from Martin about how the other guy in one of his fights didn't bleed enough

-The girl on the phone with Martin prior to the incident (not his girlfriend, just a girl he'd been talking to for 2-3 weeks) didn't talk to investigators for some time afterwards, and not until after talking to the crooked Martin family attorney first. She committed perjury at least twice, she initially lied about her age because she didn't want to be involved, and she lied on the stand during trial by saying Martin never told her anything about any fights or fighting. We have phone records with texts than say otherwise. Those records, BTW, were not heard by the jury due to gross prosecutorial misconduct. The prosecution withheld evidence from the defense in clear violation of discovery laws. Look for them to possibly be disbarred and possibly face other criminal or civil sanctions.

-Tracy Martin, Trayvon's father, initially said that was not his sons screaming on the 911 call, he later lied about this in court. The prosecution even moved to strike the testimony of BOTH police officers who were there and said that Tracy Martin clearly said and mouthed "no". Tracy's lame excuse was that he moved back in his chair and a squeaky wheel may have made it sound like he said no, but he didn't.

-The law says (and it should) that lethal force is justified and lawful when such force is reasonably believed to be necessary to prevent imminent serious bodily harm or death. NO injuries even need to actually be received, so long as the person reasonably fears imminent serious bodily harm or death (or forcible felony).

-Zimmerman stated on the first call to dispatch that Martin was acting like he was on drugs or something. THC was found in his bloodstream and the state's own witness, the medical examiner responsible for the autopsy, stated that the THC levels were high enough they could have affected Martin's behavior.

-The community had been having a lot of problems with young black males burglarizing homes.

-Martin was new to the community, recently arriving to stay there after his mother kicked him out for getting suspended from school again.

-It was a gated, secure access community that was very clearly posted as a neighborhood watch community that called the police.

-Two construction workers had recently followed a similar person, after calling the police, and only because they followed him and reported his location/direction of travel to police were they able to stop him. He had broken into and stolen from homes in the community. The construction workers were given a commendation from the president of the HOA.

 

[eurotrashman]

Welcome to StormFront!

 

[tdoss]

Per ABC news, in the 10 year period from 2000 to 2009, black-on-white killings grew from 8,503 to 8,530 while white-on-black slayings dropped from 4,745 to 4,380. Even though whites account for approximately 64% of the population and Blacks account for less than 13% of the

population, 8% of all homicides are black-on-white murders while only 4% are white-on-black murders.

Or, to put it another way, If you're black, you're approximately three times as likely to be killed by a white person as a particular white person is to be killed by a black person.

What are the odds to get killed by another black person? What are the odds of a particular white person to get killed by a particular white person?

By a particular white person? Probably pretty low. Like, the chances of me getting killed by Tom Cruise are astronomically low.

Why did you use particular in your response?

Because "the odds of a white person being killed by a black person" is a phrase with a different meaning than "the odds of a particular white person being killed by a black person." Another phrase with a completely different meaning would be "a particular white person being killed by a particular black person."

My phrase was used to show that if you're born black in this country, you're more likely to be killed by a white person than you are likely to be killed by a black person if you're born white. By a lot.

Does that mean its racially motivated?

I wonder what the numbers are for blacks killing blacks.

 

[The Commish]

Jojo, I hate that you keep bringing up Trayvon Martin's history according to internet sources. Not only do we not know how much of it (or any of it) is true, we don't know the context, we have no idea how it affects what happened the night in question (I would argue not at all.) Worst of all, it perpetuates certain ugly racial stereotypes that make attitudes in this discussion worse, not better. I wish you would stop.

So it is ok for you to take a wild stab that martin was profiled because of race, but we are not allowed to discuss the text messages that were on martin's phone?

There is a very high probability that Martin had a history of getting in fights. The fact that he was in a fight that was likely structured into rounds would definitely show a scary pattern. The evidence is certainly not 100%, but it is 10 times more reliable than what you are basing your opinions on.

These text messages exist. The odds that they were forged or impersonated is what maybe 1 in 5000?

Tim has showed little honesty in seeking the truth in this case. He knows how he wanted the events to have been and will twist facts to make them fit. He has completely different standards for evidence depending upon who the evidence supports. Way too much emotion and way too little brain in his reasoning.

This is crap. No offense.

Not at all. You did not trust one word out of Zimmerman's mouth, but believed certain aspects of DeeDee's testimony when it supported your position. She was a proven liar. You had no respect for Zimmerman's 5th Amendment rights, but somehow protecting Martin's cellphone and background is sacred and cannot even be considered when arriving at the truth. Your anti-Zimmerman filter you apply to the facts was rather enormous.

For all the crap you've been giving Tim, you're not any better. Comments like this are EXACTLY why you were just given the label. We can go back a few pages where you categorized her not as a liar but as "someone who changed her testimony to better fit what she wanted" or some such. That was in response to me asking why you put value in her comments since she was a "liar". The reality was, you needed part of what she said to fit your narrative. You've attempted to walk the tight rope and have fallen off.

 

[jon_mx]

I just saw this thread. I don't think I'd ever even looked in this sub forum before.

Zimmerman was found not guilty because he was not guilty.

There never even should have been a trial.

I don't intend to follow this thread as I pretty much just read the pool, just thought I'd drop this off. My own brief cliff notes

-Zimmerman was willing to tell the police investigators everything, right up front, and later at the station, and later in the walk through at the scene. His various statements are exactly as consistent as they should be. The investigator said that is to be expected, and that if what Zimmerman said every time (immediately after, on interview in the station, and later in a walk through) was 100% the same, that is what would be suspicious and is what would indicate a likely fabrication. The investigator is completely correct about that.

-When being interviewed by the investigator, the investigator lied and told Zimmerman there was a video recording of the event. What did Zimmerman say? "THANK GOD"

-Zimmerman passed a lie detector/voice stress analyzer test, which he voluntarily took.

-Responding officers noted Zimmerman's back was wetter and covered in more grass than his front, and Martin's pants had grass stains on the knees (which were still there at trial in evidence)

-The lead investigator in the case said that he believed Z was telling the truth.

-Zimmerman had an injured nose (according to the forensic pathologist, who is THE MAN in that field), it was probably broken.

-The forensic and ballistic evidence are consistent with Zimmerman's claim that he shot Martin while Martin was on top of him

-John Good's eye witness testimony is consistent with Zimmerman's story. He was the closest witness with the best view. He basically said Martin was on top, pounding on Z, while Z was screaming for help

-Zimmerman had at least two separate and distinct hemotobas (sp?) on the back of his head, consistent with a FORCEFUL impact on a hard, flat, not-entirely- smooth surface (like concrete) (this according to the foremost expert in the country on forensic pathology)

-Martin's only injury, other than the single gunshot round, was a small cut on one of his fingers

-Martin had a 4 minute head start (prosecution didn't even try to disagree with defense about this) on Zimmerman from the time Zimmerman lost sight of him to the time they interacted. This alone makes it clear that the confrontation only happened because Martin wanted it to

-Following somebody is not in any way illegal, and being followed by somebody (in this case it seems Z was following at a distance prior to losing sight of Martin for several minutes) is absolutely not legal grounds to attack them.

-Martin, for what it's worth, had a bunch of texts and facebook posts about fighting, being in fights, and having other people ask Martin to teach them to fight and even something about how to break somebody's nose in one punch, as well as tests from Martin about how the other guy in one of his fights didn't bleed enough

-The girl on the phone with Martin prior to the incident (not his girlfriend, just a girl he'd been talking to for 2-3 weeks) didn't talk to investigators for some time afterwards, and not until after talking to the crooked Martin family attorney first. She committed perjury at least twice, she initially lied about her age because she didn't want to be involved, and she lied on the stand during trial by saying Martin never told her anything about any fights or fighting. We have phone records with texts than say otherwise. Those records, BTW, were not heard by the jury due to gross prosecutorial misconduct. The prosecution withheld evidence from the defense in clear violation of discovery laws. Look for them to possibly be disbarred and possibly face other criminal or civil sanctions.

-Tracy Martin, Trayvon's father, initially said that was not his sons screaming on the 911 call, he later lied about this in court. The prosecution even moved to strike the testimony of BOTH police officers who were there and said that Tracy Martin clearly said and mouthed "no". Tracy's lame excuse was that he moved back in his chair and a squeaky wheel may have made it sound like he said no, but he didn't.

-The law says (and it should) that lethal force is justified and lawful when such force is reasonably believed to be necessary to prevent imminent serious bodily harm or death. NO injuries even need to actually be received, so long as the person reasonably fears imminent serious bodily harm or death (or forcible felony).

-Zimmerman stated on the first call to dispatch that Martin was acting like he was on drugs or something. THC was found in his bloodstream and the state's own witness, the medical examiner responsible for the autopsy, stated that the THC levels were high enough they could have affected Martin's behavior.

-The community had been having a lot of problems with young black males burglarizing homes.

-Martin was new to the community, recently arriving to stay there after his mother kicked him out for getting suspended from school again.

-It was a gated, secure access community that was very clearly posted as a neighborhood watch community that called the police.

-Two construction workers had recently followed a similar person, after calling the police, and only because they followed him and reported his location/direction of travel to police were they able to stop him. He had broken into and stolen from homes in the community. The construction workers were given a commendation from the president of the HOA.

But Zimmerman got out of the car.

 

[Tibetan Sherpa]

For anyone who is interested, Rachel Jeantel will be on Piers Morgan tonight at 9. What a great few days of TV, following "Sharknado".

 

[jon_mx]

Jojo, I hate that you keep bringing up Trayvon Martin's history according to internet sources. Not only do we not know how much of it (or any of it) is true, we don't know the context, we have no idea how it affects what happened the night in question (I would argue not at all.) Worst of all, it perpetuates certain ugly racial stereotypes that make attitudes in this discussion worse, not better. I wish you would stop.

So it is ok for you to take a wild stab that martin was profiled because of race, but we are not allowed to discuss the text messages that were on martin's phone?There is a very high probability that Martin had a history of getting in fights. The fact that he was in a fight that was likely structured into rounds would definitely show a scary pattern. The evidence is certainly not 100%, but it is 10 times more reliable than what you are basing your opinions on.

These text messages exist. The odds that they were forged or impersonated is what maybe 1 in 5000?

Tim has showed little honesty in seeking the truth in this case. He knows how he wanted the events to have been and will twist facts to make them fit. He has completely different standards for evidence depending upon who the evidence supports. Way too much emotion and way too little brain in his reasoning.

This is crap. No offense.

Not at all. You did not trust one word out of Zimmerman's mouth, but believed certain aspects of DeeDee's testimony when it supported your position. She was a proven liar. You had no respect for Zimmerman's 5th Amendment rights, but somehow protecting Martin's cellphone and background is sacred and cannot even be considered when arriving at the truth. Your anti-Zimmerman filter you apply to the facts was rather enormous.

For all the crap you've been giving Tim, you're not any better. Comments like this are EXACTLY why you were just given the label. We can go back a few pages where you categorized her not as a liar but as "someone who changed her testimony to better fit what she wanted" or some such. That was in response to me asking why you put value in her comments since she was a "liar". The reality was, you needed part of what she said to fit your narrative. You've attempted to walk the tight rope and have fallen off.

I put the same amount of skepticism in her testimony as I did with any if the witnesses with a vested interest. I did not blankety discount everything she said. Tim on the other hand put zero weight into anything Zimmerman said

 

[Spanky267]

So after a year and 466 pages we are still arguing the same points from Day 1.

I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you.

Carolina Hustler 2183 timschochet 1791 Christo 1749 BustedKnuckles 1397 jon_mx 1355 Jojo the circus boy 1107

I think Carolina Hustler has almost as many posts in this thread as I have in my entire posting career here. Wow.