Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (4 Viewers)

[Hang 10]

Okay...If you're in the extreme group (black people and hollywood) that believe Zimmerman "murdered" Martin. Why is GZ calling 911 first? How often does a perp call the cops on himself before he commits a crime?

 

[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.

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.

Seems like reasonable logic.

I wonder though...how many of those majority on minority deaths are a result of self defense. I mean, if the minority group is more prone to being the perpetrator of crime...then wouldn't there also be a disproportionate amount of self defense deaths here as well?

 

[The Commish]

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

No, you didn't discount everything...just the things that went against your theory. I'm sure Tim believes that Zimmerman did see the kid and did follow him like his statements said. He doesn't discount everything...just the things that went against his narrative. He doesn't believe what Zimmerman said as to how the altercation began or much during the altercation.This is one example of what we're talking about here:

You obviously have paid no attention to the trial. The evidence suggest it was Martin who approached Zimmerman. Besides once the fight starts and there is a gun present, that hardly matters who started it from a legal perspective. Zimmerman did not chase down anyone. He was asked by the dispatcher for an address and he went to see a street sign. When he turned around to return to his vehicle Martin was approaching him and asked him if he had a problem. Before throwing your tantrum, get up to speed on what has gone on. None of what you say is near reality.

Most of the stuff from the pro-Martin fanboys is pure wishful fantasy. But the most logical scenario for a murder is not even on the table in this case or is even being argued in this thread.

The "evidence" jon_mx is talking about here is Zimmerman's statement.

It is Didi's phone call also. Zimmerman's story and Didi's story about the start are pretty similar, they diverge once the confrontation starts.

Wait....I thought DiDi was a liar by all accounts? Why would you use a liar's testimony? Personally, I've dismissed anything she's said...she can't be trusted. One looks foolish when they choose to believe some parts of a testimony and not others...oh and it just so happens that the line between believable and complete liar just happens to be dependent on the parts that help/hurt your narrative.

Didi is not a liar. I think originally she told the truth and later embellished the story to help Martin out. I don't think Zimmerman is a liar either, but did embellish parts of his story. That is a natural bias of witnesses with a vested interest in the outcome.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Bigots say what?

 

[CurlyNight]

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

This is a must see! I wonder if she will call him "sir" after every sentence.

 

[Ghost Rider]

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.

That is the MAIN reason why he is LHUCKS Jr. Like Sr. always did, tim always takes over every thread he is in and it always becomes all about him.

 

[parasaurolophus]

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.

The point that was made earlier is that there are many cultures that suffer from poverty, yet don't embrace violence. You admitted poverty wasn't the only factor but then go back to poverty as being the cause for those other factors.

If poverty was the issue, crime would be equal across poverty levels. You cant say that being born out of wedlock is the problem, but that being born out of wedlock is because of poverty. You are talking in circles.

 

[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.

The point that was made earlier is that there are many cultures that suffer from poverty, yet don't embrace violence. You admitted poverty wasn't the only factor but then go back to poverty as being the cause for those other factors.

If poverty was the issue, crime would be equal across poverty levels. You cant say that being born out of wedlock is the problem, but that being born out of wedlock is because of poverty. You are talking in circles.

Could you show me where you think I did the bolded? I was pretty sure I did the opposite of this- I separated those things from poverty as additional/independent variables that contribute to the violent crime rates.

 

[drummer]

CNN is absolutely unwatchable right now. I can't believe these people get paid.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Can we change the name of the thread to "Neighborhood hero kills suspicious thug in self-defense"

 

[jon_mx]

Bigots say what?

Link

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Mayor Nutter from Philly

This is what you have to look up to from beginning to end.

 

[Spanky267]

Can we change the name of the thread to "Neighborhood hero kills suspicious thug in self-defenseNo

No heroes in this case. Zimmerman took someones life. Even in self defense its nothing to be exalted over.

 

[RCon]

Bigots say what?

I seriously think TA is borderline-illiterate.

 

[Bonzai]

Can we change the name of the thread to "Neighborhood hero kills suspicious thug in self-defense"

Jesus..

 

[jon_mx]

Can we change the name of the thread to "Neighborhood hero kills suspicious thug in self-defenseNo

No heroes in this case. Zimmerman took someones life. Even in self defense its nothing to be exalted over.

I believe the douchieness was intentionally doucheful.

 

[Psychopav]

So essentially bad decisions by each led to an altercation where with the evidence we have been presented (no eyewtinesses), both should be able to use self-defense as written by Florida law. So GZ will walk away not guilty, and if TM would have killed GZ, I believe he could have used self-defense if charges were pressed (which I really doubt they would have, especially if GZ has gun on him).

And Martin would have been arrested. There would have been no media circus around the event providing Martin the opportunity to solicit funding from the general public for better lawyers. Thus Martin, like most everyone else that claims self defense very likely gets convicted. Maybe Woz plea bargains to a lesser charge. (Then again per Wikipedia conviction rates in Florida are only 59% so maybe my beliefs on prosecution dominant success rate is skewed here.)

Exactly right. And if for some reason the case WAS publicized, how many of the conservatives in this thread currently going out of their way to defend George Zimmerman would defend Trayvon Martin?

Can't you ask the flip too? Why does it matter? Hypocrisy knows no bounds so why in the end does your question really matter? Why even ask it? For a gotcha moment? It doesn't bring TM back to life and it doesn't do anything for GZ. Lest anyone in this thread forget, nothing that happens in this trial has anything to do with you - a boy is dead and a man ruined his own life one way or the other, most likely. Does i-winning an internet debate about who is more guilty and why someone who has a certain political slant really matter?

I really don't mean to go after you personally, I really don't, but your question is a hollier than thou, I'm better than you type of question.

I don't mean to come off as holier than thou. That's something that I ascribe to the other side of the debate in this thread.

But it does bother me that so many people in this thread are willing to afford every civil liberty to George Zimmerman while at the same time ignoring the fact that so many people in our judicial system are convicted every day on far less evidence- especially young black teens like Trayvon Martin.

But that isn't a question that matters in this case. In this court of law, with these facts, with this relevant evidence as allowed by the court, the civil liberties of this defendant matter more than anything else. The state has the burden of proof for a reason. Taking the liberty away from a citizen is the most powerful and destructive power the government has, and we have designed a system that makes damn sure they cross every t dot every I and do every single thing they can without allowing reasonable doubt to set in before we give them the power to do what they want to do. Everyone, in every court case, in every state, with every defendant, every single day should champion, cherish and protect in their actions, words, or thoughts the civil liberties of every criminal defendant, whether their name is George Zimmerman, Jodi Arias, Joe Schmo, whoever.

If you want to make sure that more young black men have "better days" in court, the solution should never come remotely close to, well, let's make sure to take a little away from the next white or Hispanic guy, just to even the scales a little. That might just be the most damaging thing possible to the very people you are trying to help.

I have not been following this thread but happened in here at the right time to notice this post. Excellent posting, YankeeFan, excellent posting. The bolded parts in particular. Well done.

 

[parasaurolophus]

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.

The point that was made earlier is that there are many cultures that suffer from poverty, yet don't embrace violence. You admitted poverty wasn't the only factor but then go back to poverty as being the cause for those other factors.

If poverty was the issue, crime would be equal across poverty levels. You cant say that being born out of wedlock is the problem, but that being born out of wedlock is because of poverty. You are talking in circles.

Could you show me where you think I did the bolded? I was pretty sure I did the opposite of this- I separated those things from poverty as additional/independent variables that contribute to the violent crime rates.

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I figured bringing up availability of birth control was a tie to poverty.

 

[Warrior]

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...

assuming 1 minute per post, not including the time spent thinking about their replies and editing, that's approx. 160 hours wasted on this one thread. A full month of work.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Could you show me where you think I did the bolded? I was pretty sure I did the opposite of this- I separated those things from poverty as additional/independent variables that contribute to the violent crime rates.

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I figured bringing up availability of birth control was a tie to poverty.

Yeah, I think maybe. My whole point was that you can't just say "other poor communities don't have a violent crime problem" and then fall back on race/culture because there's much more to it than that.

 

[timschochet]

Can we change the name of the thread to "Neighborhood hero kills suspicious thug in self-defense"

Jesus..

Can we change the name of this thread to "Jesus"?

 

[worrierking]

A question for the lawyers--in a civil trial (which is where I believe this case should have been handled from the beginning), would Martin's background be more open to scrutiny? I believe there are certain rules that protect victims in criminal cases so that the issue is not turned into the behavior of the victim. So would the phone and text records potentially be on the table? Would other evidence that we may not have seen also be admissible (for both sides)?

 

[towney]

I was wondering how long the greed would take to set in. One of the Jurors is planning on writing a book per her agent. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-juror-book-20130715,0,2721340.story.

 

[dickey moe]

Obama makes statement following Zimmerman verdict

Posted by

CNN Political Unit

(CNN) - President Barack Obama issued the following statement Sunday following the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial.

"The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if were doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities. We should ask ourselves if were doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, thats a job for all of us. Thats the way to honor Trayvon Martin."

Filed under: President Obama

Using Trayvon Martin's corpse as a prop for his gun control agenda is pretty low even for a lying thieving petty piece of nothing like him.

It's interesting that he used the Zimmerman case as a backdrop for his commentary on gun violence, as opposed to say... the dozens of shootings in the Chicago area over the past few weeks.

 

[identikit]

So essentially bad decisions by each led to an altercation where with the evidence we have been presented (no eyewtinesses), both should be able to use self-defense as written by Florida law. So GZ will walk away not guilty, and if TM would have killed GZ, I believe he could have used self-defense if charges were pressed (which I really doubt they would have, especially if GZ has gun on him).

And Martin would have been arrested. There would have been no media circus around the event providing Martin the opportunity to solicit funding from the general public for better lawyers. Thus Martin, like most everyone else that claims self defense very likely gets convicted. Maybe Woz plea bargains to a lesser charge. (Then again per Wikipedia conviction rates in Florida are only 59% so maybe my beliefs on prosecution dominant success rate is skewed here.)

Exactly right. And if for some reason the case WAS publicized, how many of the conservatives in this thread currently going out of their way to defend George Zimmerman would defend Trayvon Martin?

Can't you ask the flip too? Why does it matter? Hypocrisy knows no bounds so why in the end does your question really matter? Why even ask it? For a gotcha moment? It doesn't bring TM back to life and it doesn't do anything for GZ. Lest anyone in this thread forget, nothing that happens in this trial has anything to do with you - a boy is dead and a man ruined his own life one way or the other, most likely. Does i-winning an internet debate about who is more guilty and why someone who has a certain political slant really matter?

I really don't mean to go after you personally, I really don't, but your question is a hollier than thou, I'm better than you type of question.

I don't mean to come off as holier than thou. That's something that I ascribe to the other side of the debate in this thread.

But it does bother me that so many people in this thread are willing to afford every civil liberty to George Zimmerman while at the same time ignoring the fact that so many people in our judicial system are convicted every day on far less evidence- especially young black teens like Trayvon Martin.

But that isn't a question that matters in this case. In this court of law, with these facts, with this relevant evidence as allowed by the court, the civil liberties of this defendant matter more than anything else. The state has the burden of proof for a reason. Taking the liberty away from a citizen is the most powerful and destructive power the government has, and we have designed a system that makes damn sure they cross every t dot every I and do every single thing they can without allowing reasonable doubt to set in before we give them the power to do what they want to do. Everyone, in every court case, in every state, with every defendant, every single day should champion, cherish and protect in their actions, words, or thoughts the civil liberties of every criminal defendant, whether their name is George Zimmerman, Jodi Arias, Joe Schmo, whoever.

If you want to make sure that more young black men have "better days" in court, the solution should never come remotely close to, well, let's make sure to take a little away from the next white or Hispanic guy, just to even the scales a little. That might just be the most damaging thing possible to the very people you are trying to help.

I have not been following this thread but happened in here at the right time to notice this post. Excellent posting, YankeeFan, excellent posting. The bolded parts in particular. Well done.

Ditto.

 

[HERBERT THE HIPPO]

I was wondering how long the greed would take to set in. One of the Jurors is planning on writing a book per her agent. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-juror-book-20130715,0,2721340.story.

It's greedy to write a book?

 

[TobiasFunke]

So essentially bad decisions by each led to an altercation where with the evidence we have been presented (no eyewtinesses), both should be able to use self-defense as written by Florida law. So GZ will walk away not guilty, and if TM would have killed GZ, I believe he could have used self-defense if charges were pressed (which I really doubt they would have, especially if GZ has gun on him).

And Martin would have been arrested. There would have been no media circus around the event providing Martin the opportunity to solicit funding from the general public for better lawyers. Thus Martin, like most everyone else that claims self defense very likely gets convicted. Maybe Woz plea bargains to a lesser charge. (Then again per Wikipedia conviction rates in Florida are only 59% so maybe my beliefs on prosecution dominant success rate is skewed here.)

Exactly right. And if for some reason the case WAS publicized, how many of the conservatives in this thread currently going out of their way to defend George Zimmerman would defend Trayvon Martin?

Can't you ask the flip too? Why does it matter? Hypocrisy knows no bounds so why in the end does your question really matter? Why even ask it? For a gotcha moment? It doesn't bring TM back to life and it doesn't do anything for GZ. Lest anyone in this thread forget, nothing that happens in this trial has anything to do with you - a boy is dead and a man ruined his own life one way or the other, most likely. Does i-winning an internet debate about who is more guilty and why someone who has a certain political slant really matter?

I really don't mean to go after you personally, I really don't, but your question is a hollier than thou, I'm better than you type of question.

I don't mean to come off as holier than thou. That's something that I ascribe to the other side of the debate in this thread.

But it does bother me that so many people in this thread are willing to afford every civil liberty to George Zimmerman while at the same time ignoring the fact that so many people in our judicial system are convicted every day on far less evidence- especially young black teens like Trayvon Martin.

But that isn't a question that matters in this case. In this court of law, with these facts, with this relevant evidence as allowed by the court, the civil liberties of this defendant matter more than anything else. The state has the burden of proof for a reason. Taking the liberty away from a citizen is the most powerful and destructive power the government has, and we have designed a system that makes damn sure they cross every t dot every I and do every single thing they can without allowing reasonable doubt to set in before we give them the power to do what they want to do. Everyone, in every court case, in every state, with every defendant, every single day should champion, cherish and protect in their actions, words, or thoughts the civil liberties of every criminal defendant, whether their name is George Zimmerman, Jodi Arias, Joe Schmo, whoever.

If you want to make sure that more young black men have "better days" in court, the solution should never come remotely close to, well, let's make sure to take a little away from the next white or Hispanic guy, just to even the scales a little. That might just be the most damaging thing possible to the very people you are trying to help.

I have not been following this thread but happened in here at the right time to notice this post. Excellent posting, YankeeFan, excellent posting. The bolded parts in particular. Well done.

Ditto.

Agreed. Thanks for highlighting this post, I missed it when it was made. Good stuff, YankeeFan.

 

[lod01]

But Zimmerman got out of the car.

For that he gets to pay for the rest of his life.

 

[timschochet]

But Zimmerman got out of the car.

For that he gets to pay for Martin paid with the rest of his life.

 

[17seconds]

One of the jurors is writing a book. Shouldn't that be illegal? Doesn't seem right that you can make loads of cash just because you served on a jury, and it could potentially affect your performance on the jury - gearing up to write a book.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Obama makes statement following Zimmerman verdict

Posted by

CNN Political Unit

(CNN) - President Barack Obama issued the following statement Sunday following the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial.

"The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if were doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities. We should ask ourselves if were doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, thats a job for all of us. Thats the way to honor Trayvon Martin."

Filed under: President Obama

Using Trayvon Martin's corpse as a prop for his gun control agenda is pretty low even for a lying thieving petty piece of nothing like him.

It's interesting that he used the Zimmerman case as a backdrop for his commentary on gun violence, as opposed to say... the dozens of shootings in the Chicago area over the past few weeks.

And make "Dead Fish" look bad?

 

[Stinger Ray]

But Zimmerman got out of the car.

For that he gets to pay for Martin paid with the rest of his life.

 

[lod01]

But Zimmerman got out of the car.

For that he gets to pay for Martin paid with the rest of his life.

Confronting Zimmerman got him killed. Like jon_mx, I was sure Zimmerman was 100% guilty until I heard Martin came towards Zimmerman. He screwed up. He reacted instead of thinking. 'hey, maybe the guy following me has a gun'. 'Maybe I shoudl just go inside'. Pretty simple thought process. Instead it was 'I'm going to get in this guy's face.'

 

[Ballstein]

take home message....walk away and call for help. This applies to travon and zimmerman.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

take home message....walk away and call for help. This applies to travon and zimmerman.

I don't understand why it's so hard for people to acknowledge that both parties behaved badly here. Zimmerman is a wannabe tough guy who followed Martin around. Martin decided to get in his face about it. This is exactly the kind of donk-on-donk confrontation that doesn't end well, especially when one of the donks is armed. It doesn't follow from that that the survivor committed a crime of any kind.

 

[Clifford]

My wife tried using the logic that Zimm would pay for this for the rest of his life. This is the beginning of the ultimate fantasy of his life. Millions from CNN for a reality TV show, speaking gigs at NRA and Tea Party events. I think a run for Congress is probably in order as well.

All this says to me is the stalking and killing a black person in Florida is legal if you can get them to hit you first. And it's questionable that even that happened.

 

[The Commish]

take home message....walk away and call for help. This applies to travon and zimmerman.

I don't understand why it's so hard for people to acknowledge that both parties behaved badly here. Zimmerman is a wannabe tough guy who followed Martin around. Martin decided to get in his face about it. This is exactly the kind of donk-on-donk confrontation that doesn't end well, especially when one of the donks is armed. It doesn't follow from that that the survivor committed a crime of any kind.

Bingo...and why folks are upset that only one paid the price for their bad decisions.

 

[Mario Kart]

My wife tried using the logic that Zimm would pay for this for the rest of his life. This is the beginning of the ultimate fantasy of his life. Millions from CNN for a reality TV show, speaking gigs at NRA and Tea Party events. I think a run for Congress is probably in order as well.

All this says to me is the stalking and killing a black person in Florida is legal if you can get them to hit you first. And it's questionable that even that happened.

I highly doubt any of these happen. Congress? Nope. Reality show? Nope. Speaking gigs? For what? Nope.

 

[ArbyMelt]

My wife tried using the logic that Zimm would pay for this for the rest of his life. This is the beginning of the ultimate fantasy of his life. Millions from CNN for a reality TV show, speaking gigs at NRA and Tea Party events. I think a run for Congress is probably in order as well.

All this says to me is the stalking and killing a black person in Florida is legal if you can get them to hit you first. And it's questionable that even that happened.

Yet another person who doesn't know the facts and evidence of this trial. I'm sure there will be more. But it sounds good, especially to the uneducated.

ETA: i'm guessing you won't hear anything from GZ in next 3-5 years. he is going to disappear for a long time, with that NBC lawsuit $$$

 

[Pots]

Zimmerman's brother interviewed by Piers Morgan after the verdict:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=_fruakb13h8

 

[avoiding injuries]

take home message....walk away and call for help. This applies to travon and zimmerman.

I don't understand why it's so hard for people to acknowledge that both parties behaved badly here. Zimmerman is a wannabe tough guy who followed Martin around. Martin decided to get in his face about it. This is exactly the kind of donk-on-donk confrontation that doesn't end well, especially when one of the donks is armed. It doesn't follow from that that the survivor committed a crime of any kind.

Bingo...and why folks are upset that only one paid the price for their bad decisions.

Pretty sure GZ has paid a price. It may not be a high enough price to appease you, but he has still paid (and will continue to pay).

 

[tommyGunZ]

take home message....walk away and call for help. This applies to travon and zimmerman.

I don't understand why it's so hard for people to acknowledge that both parties behaved badly here. Zimmerman is a wannabe tough guy who followed Martin around. Martin decided to get in his face about it. This is exactly the kind of donk-on-donk confrontation that doesn't end well, especially when one of the donks is armed. It doesn't follow from that that the survivor committed a crime of any kind.

Huh?

 

[The Commish]

take home message....walk away and call for help. This applies to travon and zimmerman.

I don't understand why it's so hard for people to acknowledge that both parties behaved badly here. Zimmerman is a wannabe tough guy who followed Martin around. Martin decided to get in his face about it. This is exactly the kind of donk-on-donk confrontation that doesn't end well, especially when one of the donks is armed. It doesn't follow from that that the survivor committed a crime of any kind.

Bingo...and why folks are upset that only one paid the price for their bad decisions.

Pretty sure GZ has paid a price. It may not be a high enough price to appease you, but he has still paid (and will continue to pay).

He hasn't yet....he might, we'll see. He has options. I said about two days into the case that his payment wouldn't come from criminal charges. He would have to pay in society. As I said, we'll see. It's not about appeasing me, it's about equal payment. So far, one's paid a much more severe price for his actions than the other. Surely that's not in dispute right?

 

[Clifford]

take home message....walk away and call for help. This applies to travon and zimmerman.

I don't understand why it's so hard for people to acknowledge that both parties behaved badly here. Zimmerman is a wannabe tough guy who followed Martin around. Martin decided to get in his face about it. This is exactly the kind of donk-on-donk confrontation that doesn't end well, especially when one of the donks is armed. It doesn't follow from that that the survivor committed a crime of any kind.

Bingo...and why folks are upset that only one paid the price for their bad decisions.

Pretty sure GZ has paid a price. It may not be a high enough price to appease you, but he has still paid (and will continue to pay).

No, GZ gets to finally live out his fantasy of being some kind of cop/vigilante and will get all the attention he so desperately craves, He's going to get millions from a CNN reality show, speaking engagements at right-wing nutbag gun conventions and thinly-veiled racist conferences and meetings. And that's not even counting the money from the book-turned-tv-movie "How I did it"

Martin gets to be dead. Martin's family get to live with the fact that their son was shot even though he could have been fending off what he felt to be a "creepy ### cracker" and the country said it was ok for Zimm to shoot him. Zimm finally gets to live out the fantasy he's always had. He said it in his interview: he wouldn't have done anything differently.

 

[Clifford]

My wife tried using the logic that Zimm would pay for this for the rest of his life. This is the beginning of the ultimate fantasy of his life. Millions from CNN for a reality TV show, speaking gigs at NRA and Tea Party events. I think a run for Congress is probably in order as well.

All this says to me is the stalking and killing a black person in Florida is legal if you can get them to hit you first. And it's questionable that even that happened.

I highly doubt any of these happen. Congress? Nope. Reality show? Nope. Speaking gigs? For what? Nope.

This guy is a freaking hero for a quite large portion of this country's population. CNN reality show is a joke but I'd be shocked if the rest did not happen. A juror has already cut a book deal. Why wouldn't he?

 

[Mario Kart]

One thing that is happening that I cannot put my finger on is the following, and no disrespect to any of the parties involved or with the fallout of any of it or anything of that nature, but:

Of all the atrocities in America going on today, yesterday, whatever, leaders in the black community (Jackson, Sharpton, whoever else) are hanging their hat on this case to further publicize and take advantage of any perceived racial inequalities in America. Of all the things they could focus on (hate repeating these but Chicago, fatherless kids, poverty, whatever) they are hanging their hats on this case. Knowing (if the leaders cared to look at the evidence) what happened, the leaders are taking a stand with this. I don't care if you are black, white, latino, Martian, but knowing what we know about each of those communities, the black leaders are taking their stand here. That in itself is messed up and shows a lack of focus by the leaders, no?

A few years back when Bill Cosby spoke up, does anyone remember what backlash there was against him? Bill Cosby should have been "appointed" a leader to some degree.

 

[culdeus]

take home message....walk away and call for help. This applies to travon and zimmerman.

I don't understand why it's so hard for people to acknowledge that both parties behaved badly here. Zimmerman is a wannabe tough guy who followed Martin around. Martin decided to get in his face about it. This is exactly the kind of donk-on-donk confrontation that doesn't end well, especially when one of the donks is armed. It doesn't follow from that that the survivor committed a crime of any kind.

Bingo...and why folks are upset that only one paid the price for their bad decisions.

Pretty sure GZ has paid a price. It may not be a high enough price to appease you, but he has still paid (and will continue to pay).

No, GZ gets to finally live out his fantasy of being some kind of cop/vigilante and will get all the attention he so desperately craves, He's going to get millions from a CNN reality show, speaking engagements at right-wing nutbag gun conventions and thinly-veiled racist conferences and meetings. And that's not even counting the money from the book-turned-tv-movie "How I did it"

Martin gets to be dead. Martin's family get to live with the fact that their son was shot even though he could have been fending off what he felt to be a "creepy ### cracker" and the country said it was ok for Zimm to shoot him. Zimm finally gets to live out the fantasy he's always had. He said it in his interview: he wouldn't have done anything differently.

No way he gets millions from all that. His personality cannot possibly carry him and the money is not nearly what you think it might be for those types of circuits. He's not Sarah Palin that was a good speaker to begin with and got famous based off her wacky points. He's basically Joe The Plumber with a body count.

 

[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.

Seems like reasonable logic.

I wonder though...how many of those majority on minority deaths are a result of self defense. I mean, if the minority group is more prone to being the perpetrator of crime...then wouldn't there also be a disproportionate amount of self defense deaths here as well?

Just the minority ones? We've already established that minority citizen is more likely to be killed by a majority citizen than the other way around. Does that mean they're more likely to have a legitimate fear for their lives, and a more reasonable use of deadly force?

 

[Dr Oadi]

This is a racial OUTRAEG!!1!

Instead of trying to calm the unarmed teenagers, or simply locking his doors and waiting for the police, Mr. White grabbed an unlicensed pistol and stormed out of his house to confront the teenagers, Mr. Chalifoux said.

The prosecutor acknowledged that the teenagers used epithets, but called Mr. White and his lawyers disingenuous in invoking a racial defense, noting that they missed few chances to embellish testimony with inflammatory references, and he said they used the “lynch mob” strategy to distract the jury from the charges.

He cited trial testimony that indicated that Mr. White fanned the gun menacingly at each teenager and that Daniel did not lunge, but rather defiantly slapped the gun away, with Mr. White retraining it on him, then shooting him point-blank in the face.

Let's see if we can spot differences in the case beyond race.

OK, what are some differences?

NY and their fear of unlicensed guns and then you have Florida. This man shouldn't have been convicted either.

 

[Clifford]

take home message....walk away and call for help. This applies to travon and zimmerman.

I don't understand why it's so hard for people to acknowledge that both parties behaved badly here. Zimmerman is a wannabe tough guy who followed Martin around. Martin decided to get in his face about it. This is exactly the kind of donk-on-donk confrontation that doesn't end well, especially when one of the donks is armed. It doesn't follow from that that the survivor committed a crime of any kind.

Bingo...and why folks are upset that only one paid the price for their bad decisions.

Pretty sure GZ has paid a price. It may not be a high enough price to appease you, but he has still paid (and will continue to pay).

No, GZ gets to finally live out his fantasy of being some kind of cop/vigilante and will get all the attention he so desperately craves, He's going to get millions from a CNN reality show, speaking engagements at right-wing nutbag gun conventions and thinly-veiled racist conferences and meetings. And that's not even counting the money from the book-turned-tv-movie "How I did it"

Martin gets to be dead. Martin's family get to live with the fact that their son was shot even though he could have been fending off what he felt to be a "creepy ### cracker" and the country said it was ok for Zimm to shoot him. Zimm finally gets to live out the fantasy he's always had. He said it in his interview: he wouldn't have done anything differently.

No way he gets millions from all that. His personality cannot possibly carry him and the money is not nearly what you think it might be for those types of circuits. He's not Sarah Palin that was a good speaker to begin with and got famous based off her wacky points. He's basically Joe The Plumber with a body count.

You honestly don't think he's already got publishers bidding against each other for the rights to the exclusive? Point being there is no way to compare the consequences each suffered. One is dead and the other is now going to enjoy a standard of living and attention you could not have possibly achieved before killing Trayvon.

So it's not a wash. And personally I find Zimmerman's paranoia and delusions of grandeur much more disturbing than anything that has been cast at Tray.

I said this case was lost the second they went for anything higher than manslaughter and I was right. If the prosecution had spent their time portraying Zimmerman as the paranoid, delusional, and dangerous man that he is rather than the cold-blooded racist murderer he isn't, they might have gotten a conviction.