[QUOTE=Mexican;41470321]One thing that bugs me, yes it's bad that the media used older pictures to make him appear more innocent, but why does the fact that he was older keep getting cited as evidence that he WASN'T innocent. That's either ageism or indirect racism. Also back at the beginning people kept finding his internet posts with swear words and saying general ghetto culture shit, and apparently that meant he was less innocent too. Now it's the drugs thing, like even if he uses recreational drugs that justifies following and confronting him. Yes, the media picked for reasons to demonize Zimmerman, but the internet did the same to Trayvon, and most of the time when you get down to it it was because he was a black man which intimidated people[/QUOTE]
The truth is no one in the general public knows you. If the day ever comes that you are involved in a legal matter and go in front of the jury, they won't know you.
This means they will have to learn about you, who are you, what are you about? Why should anyone believe a word you say?
This is where your Facebook, Tweets, your texts, your photos, your friends, your clothing, your posture, your vocabulary, your everything is examined and used to get to 'know' who you are. Do you get high, do get in trouble, do you hang out with the wrong crowd? All this is used by people to figure you out.
This is no big deal if you are never put in a position where your credibility is called in question.
On the other hand, you should be aware that people ARE judging you in various times in your life(in court, applying for a job, etc). If you posted 'fun' pictures of yourself with weed, yeah that may ruin your life. You are the dumbass for posting those though, not the public for using it against you.
That's the lesson I hope most parents give their kids. The important lesson is not "the MAN is against you, the system is unfair". The important lesson is present yourself in the way that you expect to be judged. You want to look or act like a wannabe thug? That's who people will think you are.
[QUOTE=coldroll5;41474045]Should of been permabanned.
[IMG]http://cdn.straightfromthea.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/gob6ifj-tw1.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
that pic is about as retarded as the one you quoted
I know everyones thought of this already, but the fallout of this case really puts the LoL kids story into perspective. So many people making full on death threats.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;41475144]The truth is no one in the general public knows you. If the day ever comes that you are involved in a legal matter and go in front of the jury, they won't know you.
This means they will have to learn about you, who are you, what are you about? Why should anyone believe a word you say?
This is where your Facebook, Tweets, your texts, your photos, your friends, your clothing, your posture, your vocabulary, your everything is examined and used to get to 'know' who you are. Do you get high, do get in trouble, do you hang out with the wrong crowd? All this is used by people to figure you out.
This is no big deal if you are never put in a position where your credibility is called in question.
On the other hand, you should be aware that people ARE judging you in various times in your life(in court, applying for a job, etc). If you posted 'fun' pictures of yourself with weed, yeah that may ruin your life. You are the dumbass for posting those though, not the public for using it against you.
That's the lesson I hope most parents give their kids. The important lesson is not "the MAN is against you, the system is unfair". The important lesson is present yourself in the way that you expect to be judged. You want to look or act like a wannabe thug? That's who people will think you are.[/QUOTE]
All things that should have no bearing in a legal case and have nothing to do with the issues at hand
I'm not arguing that it actually doesn't matter in practice. I'm arguing that it does and it's a very bad thing
It has direct bearing on what you wrote.
[quote]One thing that bugs me, yes it's bad that the media used...[/quote]
Of course all that is going to be used, why wouldn't it be? The judge will rule what makes it into court, but what gets reported is not controlled by the judge.
I have to disagree that it's a bad thing. There are rules of law, the judge allows or disallows what matters as per the law. If a mistake is made then people can appeal or the laws can be changed. If Martin's best witness is an inarticulate, hostile witness, that's too bad. It's not the court's fault, or the law's fault, or the public's fault.
That's for the legal case. As far as public reporting goes, it's a first amendment issue. As long as no one is getting slandered or libeled, then it's fair game. I am what I post, that's the way it is. People who know me will know the 'real' me, but if I ever became the object of a national story the only 'me' that the public knows is what they dredge up. That's fair, how else can I be described by people who don't know me to other people who don't know me? By my public persona of course.
You know, at risk of sounding like a dick, Ima say this - Count on the fucking dregs of humanity to maim and kill other people of a different race or creed, all because of a mistaken impression of a case in which race wasn't even an issue.
Has America always been this much of a powderkeg, or is it a strictly 21st-century thing?
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;41475557]It has direct bearing on what you wrote.
Of course all that is going to be used, why wouldn't it be? The judge will rule what makes it into court, but what gets reported is not controlled by the judge.
I have to disagree that it's a bad thing. There are rules of law, the judge allows or disallows what matters as per the law. If a mistake is made then people can appeal or the laws can be changed. If Martin's best witness is an inarticulate, hostile witness, that's too bad. It's not the court's fault, or the law's fault, or the public's fault.
That's for the legal case. As far as public reporting goes, it's a first amendment issue. As long as no one is getting slandered or libeled, then it's fair game. I am what I post, that's the way it is. People who know me will know the 'real' me, but if I ever became the object of a national story the only 'me' that the public knows is what they dredge up. That's fair, how else can I be described by people who don't know me to other people who don't know me? By my public persona of course.[/QUOTE]
I should clarify, when I said older pictures I meant pictures that were older, not pictures of him when he was older. The media was doing the vilifying of Zimmerman whilst the internet was doing the opposite. You guys do sensationalism better than the news ever could because you have no restrictions.
But yeah you're still failing to actually address my point. Yes, people will judge, but the judgments they were making were clearly based in race
[QUOTE=archangel125;41475744]You know, at risk of sounding like a dick, Ima say this - Count on the fucking dregs of humanity to maim and kill other people of a different race or creed, all because of a mistaken impression of a case in which race wasn't even an issue.
Has America always been this much of a powderkeg, or is it a strictly 21st-century thing?[/QUOTE]
Bit of both. America still has a problem with racism and new advances in social media let idiots of every skin color coordinate and organize.
If you look at racism percents in other countries such as Canada or the UK you'll realize how bad racism in America is.
[QUOTE=archangel125;41475744]You know, at risk of sounding like a dick, Ima say this - Count on the fucking dregs of humanity to maim and kill other people of a different race or creed, all because of a mistaken impression of a case in which race wasn't even an issue.
Has America always been this much of a powderkeg, or is it a strictly 21st-century thing?[/QUOTE]
Racism has been around for a long time. Only fools think it's been dispatched.
[QUOTE=coldroll5;41476988]If you look at racism percents in other countries such as Canada or the UK you'll realize how bad racism in America is.[/QUOTE]
Idk man, from what I've seen Europeans sure hate dem gypsies and Muslims
[QUOTE=archangel125;41475744]
Has America always been this much of a powderkeg, or is it a strictly 21st-century thing?[/QUOTE]
Well the US had those whole , slavery, slave debate and Civil rights movement things so no, this is not new.
America still has a large population of people against interacial marriage but also has a growing progressive element so I do see some hope for this ending but probably not even for a century.
I didn't follow this over sensationalized bullshit, so can someone give me the jist of what this is all about?
[QUOTE=DarkKrystal;41481387]I didn't follow this over sensationalized bullshit, so can someone give me the jist of what this is all about?[/QUOTE]
Dumbshit whacker* fails to do his damn job as a neighborhood watch captain and gets himself into a situation where self-deference is applicable through his own ineptitude and gets acquitted of murder charges after shooting someone.
*[url]http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whacker[/url]
[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;41481425]Dumbshit whacker* fails to do his damn job as a neighborhood watch captain and gets himself into a situation where self-deference is applicable through his own ineptitude and gets acquitted of murder charges after shooting someone.
*[url]http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Whacker[/url][/QUOTE]
So it's nothing new?
The Daily Show acted like Zimmerman was guilty and based all their jokes off of that.
[QUOTE=St. Burke;41481946]The Daily Show acted like Zimmerman was guilty and based all their jokes off of that.[/QUOTE]
The Daily Show can be pretty terrible sometimes, they'll just fall back on "We're not real journalists" bullshit when they get called out on it.
[QUOTE=DarkKrystal;41481387]I didn't follow this over sensationalized bullshit, so can someone give me the jist of what this is all about?[/QUOTE]
neighbourhood watch guy follows another guy at night in an area that had recently been robbed, a fight broke out between the two ending with the neighbourhood watch guy shooting the other guy
neighbourhood watch guy is acquitted of murder charges after evidence suggests the other guy attacked him, and so use of his firearm was self defence
^Btw this happened in the same state and the same time Zimmerman got off. When Zimmerman gets off because a jury of 6 (not a single of them black) decided that they understood where he was coming from and could see themselves making the same decision he did, I think that is ample ground for us to spark a discussion about race in this fucking country.
"I only wish that the thousands of people of color who are convicted each year were given the generosity and trust that this jury gave mr zimmerman"
[editline]16th July 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Snapster;41482568][url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1286808[/url]
[url]http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-05-16/story/marissa-alexanders-husband-says-it-was-her-violent-nature-led-shooting[/url][/QUOTE]
I'm sure if Travyon was alive you would also hear a very different "first person account" of the events that evening.
Give me a fucking break.
[QUOTE=Flameon;41482465][url]http://politix.topix.com/news/7033-florida-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shot[/url][/QUOTE]
[Quote]"stand your ground" law. According to the judge's order, "there is insufficient evidence that the Defendant reasonably believed deadly force was needed to prevent death or great bodily harm to herself," and that the fact that she came back into the home, instead of leaving out the front or back door "is inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for her life[/Quote]
[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57434757-504083/fla-woman-marissa-alexander-gets-20-years-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/[/url]
Apparently her husband began a confrontation with Marissa Alexander over pictures sent to her ex husband. Gray(the husband) states she can't leave the bathroom. The key part is that she pushes past him, goes to the car, gets a gun and THEN comes back to the house.
This is a terrible case of domestic and Gray's actions are inexcusable. However, as far as I know legally shooting "warning shots" at someone is just as bad as shooting at someone. Should it be that way???? I don't know.
And I just don't see why people are connecting Zimmerman's case and Alexanders Case. Zimmerman's case did not use the stand your ground defense, they used plain old self defense.
[Quote]Alexander was offered a three year sentence if she pled guilty to aggravated assault, but she rejected the deal because she believed she'd done nothing wrong.[/Quote]
Shame on her lawyers for not strongly advising her to take the 3 years.
[QUOTE=coldroll5;41476988]If you look at racism percents in other countries such as Canada or the UK you'll realize how bad racism in America is.[/QUOTE]
That is so naive and idiotic.
France is one of the most xenophobic countries in the world. Black people are victim of constant blind police ID check in the middle of the street, most of the times involving thorough body search and insults thrown at them. The national front (the biggest extremist right wing party in the country) is growing each year, to the point it almost won a presidential election in 2002. Not to mention more and more neo nazis.
A lot of people have a blind hate for Muslims, to the point where at this point at least half of the mosques in the country have been victim of some sort of threat, if not a direct attack.
Tons of countries around have a growing resent for any outsiders. More and more people in these countries show blatant xenophobia. Remember that one guy who shot up an entire island to prove there were too much Muslims in the country ? Yeah.
The US isn't the best country in the world when it comes to racism and equality, that's for sure, but stop acting like every single other state that exists is a world of love and ever lasting racial tolerance.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;41482057]neighbourhood watch guy follows another guy at night in an area that had recently been robbed, a fight broke out between the two ending with the neighbourhood watch guy shooting the other guy
neighbourhood watch guy is acquitted of murder charges after evidence suggests the other guy attacked him, and so use of his firearm was self defence[/QUOTE]
why did he follow him though? that's just retarded
Zimmerman, to the letter of the law, is not guilty of murder, or manslaughter. However, he is entirely responsible for putting himself in a situation in which he was forced to use lethal force, and ended up killing a teenager.
He followed Trayvon for reasons that can't really be justified by an argument which doesn't involve his race, he did not take the advice of the police dispatcher and back off when he had a chance, and he said or did things when confronted by Trayvon which led to the physical altercation. He is, therefore, indirectly responsible for Trayvon's death. Criminal negligence, at the very least, could be proven.
Still, the verdict handed down by the courts was just, and he's not going to walk away from this without paying his dues - He's being eyed by the federal government and has many civil lawsuits pending - Lawsuits I think he's going to lose.
[QUOTE=archangel125;41493717]Zimmerman, to the letter of the law, is not guilty of murder, or manslaughter. However, he is entirely responsible for putting himself in a situation in which he was forced to use lethal force, and ended up killing a teenager.
[B]He followed Trayvon for reasons that can't really be justified by an argument which doesn't involve his race, he did not take the advice of the police dispatcher and back off when he had a chance, and he said or did things when confronted by Trayvon which led to the physical altercation[/B]. He is, therefore, indirectly responsible for Trayvon's death. Criminal negligence, at the very least, could be proven.
Still, the verdict handed down by the courts was just, and he's not going to walk away from this without paying his dues - He's being eyed by the federal government and has many civil lawsuits pending - Lawsuits I think he's going to lose.[/QUOTE]
Except consider the following:
- It was at night
- Martin was athletic and running away
- Zimmerman told the dispatcher he had lost sight of Martin
- He agreed to stop following Martin
- He stayed on the phone for a while longer
- He was short and fat
- He didn't know where he was
- Martin had a clear upper hand when the altercation started
Do you [I]really[/I] think he managed to track Martin down again and start a fight with him?
[QUOTE=archangel125;41493717] [B]He followed Trayvon for reasons that can't really be justified by an argument which doesn't involve his race, he did not take the advice of the police dispatcher and back off when he had a chance, and he said or did things when confronted by Trayvon which led to the physical altercation[/B]. [/QUOTE]
Zimmerman said he wasn't following Trayvon after the dispatcher told him not to.
He was looking for a street sign to tell the dispatcher.
[QUOTE=butt2089;41493975]Except consider the following:
- It was at night
- Martin was athletic and running away
- Zimmerman told the dispatcher he had lost sight of Martin
- He agreed to stop following Martin
- He stayed on the phone for a while longer
- He was short and fat
- He didn't know where he was
- Martin had a clear upper hand when the altercation started
Do you [I]really[/I] think he managed to track Martin down again and start a fight with him?[/QUOTE]
if you really wanna play speculations, why cant trayvon martin use stand your ground / self-defense law as well?
if wearing a hoodie and being black is suspicious, so is a big dude with a gun approaching you for no reason
but no, apparently the story that trayvon just decided to for no reason, slam a man's head into concrete and beat him up, is a sound story
honestly, just fuck this case, it's decided upon hearsays with zimmerman knowing who truly started the confrontation, a prosecutor thats out there to try get glory, and people wanting riots, it's just insanely stupid
but the moral of the story is, you can go ahead and confront people then kill them while claiming stand your ground without consequences
guess human life isn't so precious
[QUOTE=PonceDeLeon;41494394]Zimmerman said he wasn't following Trayvon after the dispatcher told him not to.
He was looking for a street sign to tell the dispatcher.[/QUOTE]
People seem to be overlooking this. It torpedoes the negligence argument in the civil suit.
[editline]17th July 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;41494502]if you really wanna play speculations, why cant trayvon martin use stand your ground / self-defense law as well?
if wearing a hoodie and being black is suspicious, so is a[B] big dude with a gun approaching you[/B] for no reason
but no, apparently the story that trayvon just decided to for no reason, [B]slam a man's head into concrete[/B] and beat him up, is a sound story
honestly, just fuck this case, it's decided upon hearsays with zimmerman knowing who truly started the confrontation, a prosecutor thats out there to try get glory, and people wanting riots, it's just insanely stupid
but the moral of the story is, you can go ahead and confront people then kill them while claiming stand your ground without consequences
guess human life isn't so precious[/QUOTE]
This entire post is wrong, what did Zimmerman do that posed any danger to Trayvon [I]that is not applicable to daily life[/I]? The bolded parts have something missing in between them, oh the part where Trayvon punches Zimmerman, you wanted to avoid trying to justify that didn't you?
Trayvons self defense went out the window when he was on top and failed to retreat.
[QUOTE=benwaddi;41494507]
This entire post is wrong, what did Zimmerman do that posed any danger to Trayvon [I]that is not applicable to daily life[/I]? The bolded parts have something missing in between them, oh the part where Trayvon punches Zimmerman, you wanted to avoid trying to justify that didn't you?
Trayvons self defense went out the window when he was on top and failed to retreat.[/QUOTE]
so you're saying trayvon martin, just decided to for no reason, go 'golly gee willickers, its a dude...imma go beat him up!!'
and what if trayvon thought upon seeing the man was armed, was simply going to shoot him in the back if he got back up? what if trayvon thought HIS life was in danger because an armed man approached him in the middle of the night?
why is every single sympathy going for zimmerman and trying to sympathize what he MIGHT have been thinking rather than trayvon?
i mean seriously, we're taking a dude on trial who might go to prison for life's word on what happened
that isn't the point, the point is the precedent this shit is making
the point is that it's literally saying if you don't want legal ramification for a confrontation you started out of stupidity, just shoot the dude and claim stand your ground, the point is that an unarmed kid is fucking dead
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.