# George Zimmerman Emerged From Hiding for Truck Crash Rescue



## hadou (Jul 22, 2013)

> George Zimmerman, who has been in hiding since he was acquitted of murder in the death of Trayvon Martin, emerged to help rescue someone who was trapped in an overturned truck, police said today.
> Sanford Police Department Capt. Jim McAuliffe told ABC News that Zimmerman "pulled an individual from a truck that had rolled over" at the intersection of a Florida highway last week.
> The crash occurred at the intersection of I-4 and route 417, police said. The crash site is less than a mile from where he shot Martin.
> It's the first known sighting of Zimmerman since he left the courtroom following his acquittal last week on murder charges for the death of Martin. Zimmerman, 29, shot and killed Martin, 17, in Sanford, Fla., on Feb. 26, 2012. The jury determined that Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense.
> ...


----------



## Blue (Jul 22, 2013)

Lt. James Gordon: They'll hunt you.
Batman: You'll hunt me. You'll condemn me. Set the dogs on me.
Batman: Because that's what needs to happen. Because sometimes the truth isn't good enough. Sometimes people deserve more.
Batman: Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded.


----------



## Krory (Jul 22, 2013)

Hey, guess he needs something to do to ease his conscience of getting away with murder.


----------



## hmph (Jul 22, 2013)

krory said:


> Hey, guess he needs something to do to ease his conscience of getting away with murder.



Accursed justice, denying the mob blood.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 22, 2013)

By all accounts Zimmerman was a fairly nice guy, he stood up for a black homeless man who was beaten by police and wouldn't stop complaining until they took disciplinary action against the cops responsible, he gave the key to his house to his black neighbor whose house was burglarized, and was selected for neighborhood watch in the first place by the local community. This kind of action isn't surprising.


----------



## Linkofone (Jul 22, 2013)

Mob mentality is bullshit.


----------



## Zaru (Jul 22, 2013)

Megaharrison said:


> By all accounts Zimmerman was a fairly nice guy, he stood up for a black homeless man who was beaten by police and wouldn't stop complaining until they took disciplinary action against the cops responsible, he gave the key to his house to his black neighbor whose house was burglarized, and was selected for neighborhood watch in the first place by the local community. This kind of action isn't surprising.



He could invent a miracle cure for all diseases in existence and plenty of people would still think he's a racist murderer who gleefully shot a black teenager for no reason. The media was quick to support that perspective.


----------



## Sablés (Jul 22, 2013)

He planned it.


----------



## Legend (Jul 22, 2013)

This wasnt a fixed publicity stunt at all


----------



## Sablés (Jul 22, 2013)

Megaharrison said:


> By all accounts Zimmerman was a fairly nice guy, he stood up for a black homeless man who was beaten by police and wouldn't stop complaining until they took disciplinary action against the cops responsible, he gave the key to his house to his black neighbor whose house was burglarized, and was selected for neighborhood watch in the first place by the local community. This kind of action isn't surprising.



Really?

Why don't we hear about this in the news?


----------



## Stunna (Jul 22, 2013)

sabl?s said:


> Really?
> 
> Why don't we hear about this in the news?


I think you know the answer to this question.


----------



## Zaru (Jul 22, 2013)

sabl?s said:


> Really?
> 
> Why don't we hear about this in the news?



You mean the same news that used a whitewashed picture of Zimmerman in prison orange next to years old pictures of innocent child Trayvon (who also had been whitewashed for the opposite reason)?


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 22, 2013)

It's a balancing act. How many good deeds need one do to absolve themselves of murder?


----------



## Sablés (Jul 22, 2013)

-Last half was sarcasm m8-


----------



## Blue (Jul 22, 2013)

sabl?s said:


> He planned it.





Legend said:


> This wasnt a fixed publicity stunt at all


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jul 22, 2013)

Blue said:


> Lt. James Gordon: They'll hunt you.
> Batman: You'll hunt me. You'll condemn me. Set the dogs on me.
> Batman: Because that's what needs to happen. Because sometimes the truth isn't good enough. Sometimes people deserve more.
> Batman: Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded.


>Comparing Tubby McItchytriggerfinger to Batman


----------



## Linkofone (Jul 22, 2013)

I'm still going to blame the media and mob mentality.


----------



## navy (Jul 22, 2013)

This story isnt sketchy at all...

 Although why did the police release Zimmerman's name? Couldnt he have just been a good samaritan?


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jul 22, 2013)

sabl?s said:


> Really?
> 
> Why don't we hear about this in the news?


----------



## TSC (Jul 22, 2013)

Zimmerman really thinks he's Batman doesn't he?


----------



## navy (Jul 22, 2013)

TSC said:


> Zimmerman really thinks he's Batman doesn't he?



Batman doesnt use a gun.


----------



## TSC (Jul 22, 2013)

navy said:


> Batman doesnt use a gun.



I know. That's why he fails at it despite his constant attempts at trying to be a dark knight hero.


----------



## Blue (Jul 22, 2013)

navy said:


> Batman doesnt use a gun.



Actual footage of Trayvon vs. George

[YOUTUBE]GTmfnK6XDiA[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## navy (Jul 22, 2013)

LOL,Terry is such a noob. He will never be batman.  At least he didnt break the code and shoot him.


----------



## Blue (Jul 22, 2013)

navy said:


> LOL,Terry is such a noob. He will never be batman.  At least he didnt break the code and shoot him.



>Implying that's Terry
>Implying Terry could ever do the Bateman voice


----------



## navy (Jul 22, 2013)

Oh wait, is this why Bruce quit? 

What a scrub.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jul 22, 2013)

navy said:


> Oh wait, is this why Bruce quit?
> 
> What a scrub.



Pretty much. As he got into his 50s he had what eventually would be Terry's suit to compensate for declining physical abilities from age.

But that time (as shown in the video) his body/heart/whatever failed on him so he pulled a gun to try and stay alive.

The action of which so disgusted him (because guns killing his parents he swore not to ever draw one on someone) that he decided he had to retire. That he lost the moral authority to be Batman.

Case in point why Blue's comparison ITT is terrible.


----------



## Blue (Jul 22, 2013)

Sunny is why we don't deserve heroes like Zimmerman


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Jul 22, 2013)

I still don't get the irrational hate for this guy. Seems like a nice guy.


----------



## Raiden (Jul 22, 2013)

Good to hear that he's doing something positive.


----------



## ShadowReij (Jul 22, 2013)

sabl?s said:


> Really?
> 
> Why don't we hear about this in the news?


Doesn't sell unfortunately.


MbS said:


> I still don't get the irrational hate for this guy. Seems like a nice guy.



Irrational mob irrational, plus you have the played out narrative that the media is selling and people are eating up.

Anyway while I don't see the point in releasing his name, besides "controversy" points in regards to news, this doesn't shock me either. The way the man is described sounds like something he'd do.


----------



## baconbits (Jul 22, 2013)

I like how people who hate Zimmerman have to make up the most implausible scenarios to rationalize their hatred.  Can't you just believe that the guy did something good and still be convinced he did the wrong thing with Trayvon?  Why can't both be true?


----------



## Shock Therapy (Jul 22, 2013)

lol look at the fucking media milking this for all its worth. gonna get some popcorn


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jul 22, 2013)

baconbits said:


> I like how people who hate Zimmerman have to make up the most implausible scenarios to rationalize their hatred.  Can't you just believe that the guy did something good and still be convinced he did the wrong thing with Trayvon?  Why can't both be true?



I generally prefer coincidence over conspiracy but everyone ITT has to admit that its damn convenient.

The problem with conspiracies is too many links in a chain. However, all it would take is a contact to see it and say, "Hey George, wanna do something for good PR?"


----------



## Darth inVaders (Jul 22, 2013)

So God used a man that is indisputably guilty of manslaughter (Trayvon Martin was standing his ground - Zimmerman was taking ground via recklessly chasing and all out stalking) to save a family

God works in mysterious ways indeed.

Zimmerman still owes a debt that can never be repaid to Martin's family.


----------



## Elite Uchiha (Jul 22, 2013)

One step towards redeeming his name


----------



## Blue (Jul 22, 2013)

Darth inVaders said:


> So God used a man that is indisputably guilty of manslaughter (Trayvon Martin was standing his ground)



Use of force is not justifiable against a non-violent individual.

You can pretend like there's some chance in hell that this fat pussy started the fight if you want, but either way, you can't use the word indisputable.


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Jul 22, 2013)

Just saying. George wasn't fat at the start of this..


----------



## Gunners (Jul 22, 2013)

Looks like a PR stunt to me.


----------



## CrazyAries (Jul 22, 2013)

baconbits said:


> I like how people who hate Zimmerman have to make up the most implausible scenarios to rationalize their hatred.  Can't you just believe that the guy did something good and still be convinced he did the wrong thing with Trayvon?  Why can't both be true?



This is a fair point.

BTW,  gives some more information.  



> George Zimmerman, who has been in hiding since he was acquitted of murder in the death of Trayvon Martin, emerged to help rescue a family who was trapped in an overturned vehicle, police said today.
> 
> Zimmerman was one of two men who came to the aid of a family of four -- two parents and two children -- trapped inside a blue Ford Explorer SUV that had rolled over after traveling off the highway in Sanford, Fla. at approximately 5:45 p.m. Thursday, the Seminole County Sheriff's Office said in a statement.
> 
> ...



Zimmerman was one of two people who arrived at the scene and there was a family of four that was saved.

And I have seen no one ask whether or not Zimmerman just showed up after the other guy at the scene did all the saving yet.   I am disappointed.


----------



## Xyloxi (Jul 22, 2013)

Who cares? The royal baby has been born!


----------



## Bioness (Jul 22, 2013)

So I've seen this story on 5 different news sites with each one saying something different.

MSN says it was a motorcyclist
Fox says an entire family in an overturned truck
Yahoo says a single person in an overturned truck
ABC says a single person in a car
USA says family in a car


So...umm.....


----------



## Zaru (Jul 22, 2013)

They're all true, Bioness. Zimmer the man saved all those people in a freak mass collision, at the speed of justice.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 22, 2013)

Zimmerman didn't let someone die in a truck accident once?
He mustn't be a child murderer after all
These things are mutually exclusive and even if they weren't, would cancel each other out

Say, it didn't happen to be a white guy trapped under them wheels was it?


----------



## Elite Uchiha (Jul 22, 2013)

Zimmerman is always around trouble


----------



## Scud (Jul 22, 2013)

Zaru said:


> They're all true, Bioness. Zimmer the man saved all those people in a freak mass collision, at the speed of justice.


Zimmerman is actually Superman. He flies around Florida saving people from overturned vehicles when he's not working his day job at the Daily Planet.


----------



## Zaru (Jul 22, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> He mustn't be a child murderer after all



Hey now, he killed Trayvon and all that, but calling a close to 6 foot tall 17 year old a "child" is going overboard


----------



## Undead (Jul 22, 2013)

This *totally* doesn't sounds staged at all.


----------



## MegaultraHay (Jul 22, 2013)

Paragon said:


> This *totally* doesn't sounds staged at all.



It doesn't.


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 22, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Hey now, he killed Trayvon and all that, but calling a close to 6 foot tall 17 year old a "child" is going overboard



As shocking as it may seem:



There are such things as tall children



THERE I SAID IT


----------



## TenshiNeko (Jul 22, 2013)

Good for Mr. Chubbs! All the hate and the death threats are because of the media and the black leaders. At least the media's now trying to give him a little good press. Maybe they're feeling guilty for the harm they caused? ...Hmm, probably not, since they're still using the pic of "poor innocent little Trayvon" when he was 12. 

Black leaders would probably be glad if Zimmerman got murdered. They don't seem to care much about the actual facts in the case. The more supposed racism they find, the more these guys like Jesse Jackson are "needed"




MbS said:


> I still don't get the irrational hate for this guy. Seems like a nice guy.



Yeah, I know what you mean. Truth be told, he doesn't seem like a bad guy. I believed the racist hype about this case at first. Then it came out that Martin didn't have any marks on him(other than the bullet hole), and Zimmerman was the one who was all beat up. If they're going to claim GZ attacked first, then they need to have some evidence of that on Trayvon's body, and there was none.


TM hadn't done anything wrong at first, but GZ also was not committing a crime by following him. Seems like Trayvon didn't like being followed and decided to beat up the guy following him, and he got himself shot in the process. Same thing would've happened if they'd been both of the same race, but no big deal would've been made.


----------



## Aion Hysteria (Jul 22, 2013)

So he just emerged to appear as the fat superman?

Please.
Grotesque bastard.​


----------



## Platinum (Jul 22, 2013)

Yeah I'm sure this was all just a publicity stunt .

You guys can be so fucking absurd some times.


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Jul 22, 2013)

Zaru said:


> He could invent a miracle cure for all diseases in existence and plenty of people would still think he's a racist murderer who gleefully shot a black teenager for no reason. The media was quick to support that perspective.



I don't think it was about racism. But he has a record. Something that the Zimmerman side ignores.


----------



## Kanga (Jul 22, 2013)

Bad guy turned good?

I thought that only occurred in comics.


----------



## Chains (Jul 22, 2013)

That's great for Zimmerman and the family.
Still doesn't changes that he shot a kid dead.


----------



## Darth inVaders (Jul 22, 2013)

Blue said:


> Use of force is not justifiable against a non-violent individual.
> 
> You can pretend like there's some chance in hell that this fat pussy started the fight if you want, but either way, you can't use the word indisputable.



You are walking home at night for some reason. You notice that a car has slowed down and is following you - what do you feeling and thinking right now? Are you thinking that it is just some concerned citizen innocently checking you out - or are you thinking someone is up to no good and is targeting you? I doubt it is the first one. So you run and this person gets out of his vehicle and chases you. Bet you are thinking this person is now an immediate threat to your life and or safety now aren't you - as any reasonable person would. And in Florida with stand your ground laws, that is enough to defend yourself - and this includes first strike. Because the person who strikes first usually wins the fight, and you don't want your assailant to strike first and the law is not going to make you wait.

In addition to that, the act of running away is a form of body language that clearly says "stay away from me" / "do not follow me" / etc - so continued following is an act of both force (as the person is forcing the pursuit against the other's wishes) and harassment (and harassment via following is called stalking). 

Furthermore, by taking on actions that are not required of him, Zimmerman was also taking on the responsibilities of those actions: he was responsible for his own life and the lives of anyone involved because of his actions - including Trayvon's. And with the responsibilities, Zimmerman acted recklessly and negligently. Any reasonable person would deduce that following what he considered to be a suspect would not only be undeniably dangerous for himself, the possible suspect, and anyone else who could be nearby - but it would also obviously cause the possible suspect to consider him a threat. And if the possible suspect is innocent as Trayvon was, his actions amounted to stalking that would cause a reasonable fear in the person being followed and they get to defend themselves from his perceived threat. Just compare the reasonable and prudent police officer Zimmerman was talking to: she had to tell him the obvious - he should leave this to the police - that is how negligent and reckless he was being. In fact just ask yourself, in Zimmerman's position, if you were unarmed would you get out and follow someone you thought was "up to no good"? (your answer should not be different being armed or not)

So Zimmerman was acting recklessly and negligently, Trayvon was acting within his rights - I have just proven beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed manslaughter - and I did not even contradict Zimmerman's own account. Yes I could just take Zimmerman at his word on everything and prove him guilty of manslaughter - that is how bad this is.

Saving lives does not fix the the life his actions took.


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Jul 22, 2013)

Very convenient. But I never understood why people hated him, he only stalked and killed a teenager. I think most of us as I had these thoughts before.


----------



## Blue (Jul 22, 2013)

>Standing your ground
>Running away

Pick one and only one. If Trayvon ran away like you suggest, he would have escaped.
If he stood his ground, he would have ascertained that Zimmerman wasn't a violent individual, which he is legally required to do before "defending himself".


----------



## Banhammer (Jul 22, 2013)

Lord knows what one calls an armed individual ignoring the police


I'm just going to take the moment of enjoying the irony of Zimmerman living the rest of his life afraid of armed vigilantes


----------



## navy (Jul 22, 2013)

Zimmerman was just doing his job. To protect citizens everywhere from thugs in hoodies. When you call he will be there.


----------



## Blue (Jul 22, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> Lord knows what one calls an armed individual ignoring the police
> 
> 
> I'm just going to take the moment of enjoying the irony of Zimmerman living the rest of his life afraid of armed vigilantes



Take a moment to enjoy the irony of his receiving millions of dollars in donations and book sales, too. 

It's weird that it's almost August and people still think Zimmerman did something wrong.


----------



## navy (Jul 22, 2013)

Zimmerman has a book? Will there be a book signing?


----------



## Elite Uchiha (Jul 22, 2013)

GZ won't be the only one exploiting this tragedy; Martin's mom is already making money


----------



## Ceria (Jul 22, 2013)

Blue said:


> Lt. James Gordon: They'll hunt you.
> Batman: You'll hunt me. You'll condemn me. Set the dogs on me.
> Batman: Because that's what needs to happen. Because sometimes the truth isn't good enough. Sometimes people deserve more.
> Batman: Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded.



But he can take it, because he's the ZimmerMAN


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Jul 22, 2013)

Elite Uchiha said:


> GZ won't be the only one exploiting this tragedy; Martin's mom is already making money



I'm guessing it's for appearances... right?


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jul 22, 2013)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5nv78V_eWA[/youtube]

Bill O'Reilly spittin' truth.  Never thought I'd see the day.


----------



## ExoSkel (Jul 23, 2013)

Chains said:


> That's great for Zimmerman and the family.
> Still doesn't changes that he shot a kid dead.


He shot a teenager wannabe thug dead, who would've most likely grown up into a gangbanger.

The kid was expelled from school for multiple drug possession and he was high as fuck during that night. Look up the case and toxicology report.


----------



## Spock (Jul 23, 2013)

^ Top notch racism. Preach more


----------



## ExoSkel (Jul 23, 2013)

Spock said:


> ^ Top notch racism. Preach more


Top notch bitching. Bitch more.


----------



## Spock (Jul 23, 2013)

ExoSkel said:


> Top notch bitching. Bitch more.



Sure thing, Daniel Carver.


----------



## ExoSkel (Jul 23, 2013)

Spock said:


> Sure thing, Daniel Carver.


You are from saudi. As if you know anything about justice.


----------



## Spock (Jul 23, 2013)

ExoSkel said:


> You are from saudi. As if you know anything about justice.



Spare me your clairvoyance you've no idea where I've grown up.


----------



## ExoSkel (Jul 23, 2013)

Spock said:


> Spare me your clairvoyance you've no idea where I've grown up.


Camel land?


----------



## Spock (Jul 23, 2013)

If you mean the country with the largest camel population, then no, not Australia.


----------



## TSC (Jul 23, 2013)

afgpride said:


> [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5nv78V_eWA[/youtube]
> 
> Bill O'Reilly spittin' truth.  Never thought I'd see the day.



As zanzy sometime Bill says stuff, He actually does from time to time does make great valid points to certain issues like the video you post. However the only thing I think in that video was unnecessary is bringing it in as a "liberal bias" issue. This focus is fault of both liberal and conservative media. There is no one or the other.

As I don't think why it was important bring Obama up on this other than that speech he made which in that interview he actually point out similar things bill has said in this video(not all but few points) That and Obama wasn't taking sides on the trial issue either(at least in the interview script I read from the other thread didn't indicate that). He only point out to the people to become aware of this issue similar to the points Bill here made.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> Lord knows what one calls an armed individual ignoring the police
> 
> 
> I'm just going to take the moment of enjoying the irony of Zimmerman living the rest of his life afraid of armed vigilantes



A 911 Operator is not the police. 
Nice to see the TrayTrayers still don't have any clue what they are talking about.


----------



## navy (Jul 23, 2013)

Even a 6 year old would tell Zimmerman to stop following a stranger. It really makes no difference.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 23, 2013)

Not to mention he was never told to stop following Martin.


----------



## RyokoForTheWin (Jul 23, 2013)

Or the six year old might have told Treyvon to run away from said stranger and seek help from an adult.


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Jul 23, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> Not to mention he was never told to stop following Martin.



He was warned. He acknowledged the warning. He went anyways. And if you see someone that you think is suspicious and follow them anyways, you're a dumbass.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 23, 2013)

Lee-Sensei said:


> He was warned. He acknowledged the warning. He went anyways. And if you see someone that you think is suspicious and follow them anyways, you're a dumbass.



This. 

Also, why are people so eager to prove he's good with unrelated events. If he hadn't helped for fear that he would be exposed you'd all be in here blaming Trayvon supporters.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 23, 2013)

Lee-Sensei said:


> He was warned.



No, he wasn't.


----------



## ExoSkel (Jul 23, 2013)

Advised to stop following = warned

LMFAO


----------



## navy (Jul 23, 2013)

Semantics argument incoming.


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Jul 23, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> No, he wasn't.





I see. BTW, it's nice of you to ignore the rest of my post. If Zim though Tray was dangerous, why would he follow him? That's stupid. You learn this when you're six years old.


----------



## Bioness (Jul 23, 2013)

afgpride said:


> [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5nv78V_eWA[/youtube]
> 
> Bill O'Reilly spittin' truth.  Never thought I'd see the day.



He is saying pretty much what most people are thinking. The "faces" of the progressive black community actively avoid those topics. I do think he fell apart when he starting talking about the need for a father and the emphasis on marriage, but my view also sees those things as flexible. 

Single parents are where the problem begins, also some sort of proportion to kids as well, even with 2 parents if you have fucking 10 kids unless you have a lot of money or get a lot of help, no way will that mix turn out good. Hell even the fucking Brady Bunch had the maid.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 23, 2013)

The image basically constitutes the entirety of Sauf's argument in the other thread.


----------



## Etherborn (Jul 23, 2013)

ExoSkel said:


> He shot a teenager wannabe thug dead, who would've most likely grown up into a gangbanger.
> 
> The kid was expelled from school for multiple drug possession and he was high as fuck during that night. Look up the case and toxicology report.



Are you serious right now? I don't care if you're trying to be funny or you're just trying to piss people off. Watch what you say. Trayvon Martin had been suspended before the incident, yes. He had a juvenile record and had been caught in possession of Marijuana. That doesn't make his death any less of a tragedy. And you're going to sit there and say that he's better off dead because he would have grown up to be a gang member? Forget bias and racism. That's just makes you a horrible human being. 

What happened on that night between Martin and Zimmerman is still partially unclear. Some accounts say Zimmerman just shot him to keep him quiet. Others say that Trayvon attacked first. There is significant evidence that Zimmerman was attacked. The point is, Zimmerman shouldn't have been following the kid at night with a gun in hand. He reported Trayvon to the police. Ok. Fine. The point where he crossed the line is when he decided to start following him. He was a neighborhood watch, not a cop. 

To those that believe Trayvon attacked first. Ok. That's fine too. But you should probably think about how you would react if there was someone with a gun stalking you in the street at night. The chances are that you'd make some irrational decisions. Zimmerman shouldn't have followed Martin. Martin shouldn't have attacked Zimmerman. Unfortunately, they both made stupid decisions and someone ended up dead. Threatening Zimmerman doesn't solve anything, and neither does saying that Martin deserved what he got.

As for Zimmerman helping someone out of a crash. Great. The important thing is that no one died. To me that just means that Zimmerman is a good guy who meant well, but just made a really bad blunder. 

I know you're probably just going to laugh and tell me to go back to camel land, but I honestly don't care. I just couldn't read shit like this and ignore it.


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Jul 23, 2013)

RyokoForTheWin said:


> That's right. Stay away from strangers. You might shoot one and get away with it.



He killed a kid and now he's a pariah.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 23, 2013)

Lee-Sensei said:


> I see. BTW, it's nice of you to ignore the rest of my post.



You can lie about what the dispatcher told him all day long, it doesn't change the facts.



> If Zim though Tray was dangerous, why would he follow him? That's stupid. You learn this when you're six years old.



There's no evidence that he thought him to be dangerous as in violent, not to mention that he had a gun to defend himself in case he were attacked. Turns out he was in fact assaulted and had to use the gun to defend himself.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 23, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> You can lie about what the dispatcher told him all day long, it doesn't change the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> There's no evidence that he thought him to be dangerous as in violent, not to mention that he had a gun to defend himself in case he were attacked. Turns out he was in fact assaulted and had to use the gun to defend himself.



You can't use the word fact to describe the situation since the facts support multiple stories. 

Reasonable doubt =/= fact.


----------



## RyokoForTheWin (Jul 23, 2013)

Lee-Sensei said:


> He killed a kid and now he's a pariah.



Which I think is a travesty of justice of the highest order. He killed a kid. One way or another it should be game over for him.



Lee-Sensei said:


> He was warned. He acknowledged the warning. He went anyways. And if you see someone that you think is suspicious and follow them anyways, you're a dumbass.



Or a member of the neighborhood watch, which, gasp shock horror (not condoning assaulting/murdering), he was. His first dumbass mistake was in not being more stealthy, calling the police again if he saw the kid commit a crime.


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Jul 23, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> You can lie about what the dispatcher told him all day long, it doesn't change the facts.



He was warned, he acknowledged the warning and he ignored it.



> There's no evidence that he thought him to be dangerous as in violent, not to mention that he had a gun to defend himself in case he were attacked. Turns out he was in fact assaulted and had to use the gun to defend himself.



Tell me. If you saw a big guy in a hoodie that looked suspicious and that might be a criminal at night... would you follow him against the dispatcher? Zim initiated the fracas by following him. Zims a dumbass.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jul 23, 2013)

Lee-Sensei said:


> He was warned, he acknowledged the warning and he ignored it.



The fuck was he warned about?  He wasn't "warned" about anything, he was told by an operator that he "didn't need to" follow Trayvon.  

And no, he didn't continue following Trayvon after that.  There is no evidence whatsoever to support that he did, in fact it supports the opposite.  Now stop spouting outdated garbage.


----------



## Blue (Jul 23, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You can't use the word fact to describe the situation since the facts support multiple stories.
> 
> Reasonable doubt =/= fact.



The facts only support Zimmerman's story; they don't confirm it, but they don't even start to support the bullshit the state was trying to weave.


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Jul 23, 2013)

RyokoForTheWin said:


> Which I think is a travesty of justice of the highest order. He killed a kid. One way or another it should be game over for him.







> Or a member of the neighborhood watch, which, gasp shock horror (not condoning assaulting/murdering), he was. His first dumbass mistake was in not being more stealthy, calling the police again if he saw the kid commit a crime.



Except getting out of your car to follow a suspicious person while armed is against neighbourhood watch recommendations. And the neighbourhood watch isn't the police. Shocking, I know.

No. His dumbass mistake was following him in the first place. If he thought Trayvon was suspicious he should have called the police and gone home. Let the police handle it. That's their job. Not his.



> The fuck was he warned about? He wasn't "warned" about anything, he was told by an operator that he "didn't need to" follow Trayvon.



You seem angry. You got a dog in this fight?

Zimmerman said 'okay'. That's the end. He was warned, he acknowledged the warning and he ignored it. 



> And no, he didn't continue following Trayvon after that. There is no evidence whatsoever to support that he did, in fact it supports the opposite. Now stop spouting outdated garbage.



He probably did. There's no proof that he continued to follow Trayvon, like there's no proof that Trayvon initiated the fight.

But Zim did get out of his car with a gun.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 23, 2013)

Not having this weak ass argument again. There's been link after link posted about what the facts of the case are and half of you just ignore them.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Not having this weak ass argument again. There's been link after link posted about what the facts of the case are and half of you just ignore them.



Are you aware of the concept of irony?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 23, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Are you aware of the concept of irony?


Are you? **


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Are you? **



Well  I'm not the one trying to claim TrayTray was an innocent 12 year old who might have brought about world peace if only that horrible white klansmen George Zimmerman didn't stalk him, then shoot him down, and finished him off by raping his corpse. I'm also not the one deluding myself and ignoring the fact that we have plenty of evidence (and in some cases proof) that Trayvon was consistently getting into fights at school, sold and used drugs, illegally owned a gun, and was assaulting Zimmerman. I'm also not the one exaggerating the legal authority of a 911 operator.


----------



## Krory (Jul 23, 2013)

I'm just here to laugh at any stupid, blatantly asinine shit Togashi pulls out of his ass. I got my fill. Carry on.


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Jul 23, 2013)

Togashi should quit 'acting' and become a comedian. He's hilarious!


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

krory said:


> I'm just here to laugh at any stupid, blatantly asinine shit Togashi pulls out of his ass. I got my fill. Carry on.





Lee-Sensei said:


> Togashi should quit 'acting' and become a comedian. He's hilarious!


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 23, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Well  I'm not the one trying to claim TrayTray was an innocent 12 year old who might have brought about world peace if only that horrible white klansmen George Zimmerman didn't stalk him, then shoot him down, and finished him off by raping his corpse. I'm also not the one deluding myself and ignoring the fact that we have plenty of evidence (and in some cases proof) that Trayvon was consistently getting into fights at school, sold and used drugs, illegally owned a gun, and was assaulting Zimmerman. I'm also not the one exaggerating the legal authority of a 911 operator.


You can't say shit like that^ and then post this: 


There's a crowd gathering just to say what stupid shit you'll say next and it looks like you're too happy  to oblige.


----------



## Greed (Jul 23, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Are you aware of the concept of irony?





Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Well  I'm not the one trying to claim TrayTray was an innocent 12 year old who might have brought about world peace if only that horrible white klansmen George Zimmerman didn't stalk him, then shoot him down, and finished him off by raping his corpse. I'm also not the one deluding myself and ignoring the fact that we have plenty of evidence (and in some cases proof) that Trayvon was consistently getting into fights at school, sold and used drugs, illegally owned a gun, and was assaulting Zimmerman. I'm also not the one exaggerating the legal authority of a 911 operator.




It does indeed seem Togashi knows what the concept of irony is

Or was that unintentional?


----------



## TenshiNeko (Jul 23, 2013)

Transcendent Samurai said:


> To those that believe Trayvon attacked first. Ok. That's fine too. But you should probably think about how you would react if there was someone with a gun stalking you in the street at night. The chances are that you'd make some irrational decisions. Zimmerman shouldn't have followed Martin. Martin shouldn't have attacked Zimmerman. Unfortunately, they both made stupid decisions and someone ended up dead. Threatening Zimmerman doesn't solve anything, and neither does saying that Martin deserved what he got.



If it were me, and someone was following me in the night, I would sneak away, run away, somehow try to flee into the dark rainy night. I absolutely would not lose myself from the guy's site, then double back around and try to beat the guy up.

Martin had no way of knowing this was "a guy with a gun" following him. Zimmerman wasn't walking behind him with his gun drawn. Of course, if he had been, Martin would probably still be alive. Even a moron would know not to jump a guy who's got a gun






Lee-Sensei said:


> Except getting out of your car to follow a suspicious person while armed is against neighbourhood watch recommendations. And the neighbourhood watch isn't the police. Shocking, I know.


Except at that time Zimmerman was not on duty as a neighborhood watch person. He was on his own free time, so he had every right to have the gun with him. 

He also had every legal right to follow the "suspicious person" to see what he was up to. A dispatcher, not a policeman, _advised_ him that he didn't need to follow. He acknowledged the advice, and chose not to heed it. You may not agree with his decision, but there was nothing illegal about it.


While there is no actual proof that Martin initiated the fight, the fact that Martin had no bruises and Zimmerman was all beat up would be evidence that it was probably true.


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Jul 23, 2013)

> Except at that time Zimmerman was not on duty as a neighborhood watch person. He was on his own free time, so he had every right to have the gun with him.



Irrelevant. It was against neighbourhood watch recommendations. 



> He also had every legal right to follow the "suspicious person" to see what he was up to. A dispatcher, not a policeman, advised him that he didn't need to follow. He acknowledged the advice, and chose not to heed it. You may not agree with his decision, but there was nothing illegal about it.



Irrelevant. I never said it was illegal. I said he's a dumbass.



> While there is no actual proof that Martin initiated the fight, the fact that Martin had no bruises and Zimmerman was all beat up would be evidence that it was probably true.



And the fact that Zim got out of the car with his gun against the dispatchers warning would be evidence that he probably initiated the fracas.

The fact that he was beat up just means that he was lost the fight.


----------



## Etherborn (Jul 23, 2013)

TenshiNeko said:


> If it were me, and someone was following me in the night, I would sneak away, run away, somehow try to flee into the dark rainy night. I absolutely would not lose myself from the guy's site, then double back around and try to beat the guy up.
> 
> Martin had no way of knowing this was "a guy with a gun" following him. Zimmerman wasn't walking behind him with his gun drawn. Of course, if he had been, Martin would probably still be alive. Even a moron would know not to jump a guy who's got a gun



It's easy for you to say that now, but have you ever been in a situation like that? How can you know what you'd do? Would you really stop and take a minute to think rationally like you are doing now? If you think you would, then good for you. Clearly Trayvon Martin didn't. That wasn't smart, but neither was following someone around with a gun. I really don't care if that's legal in his state. The death sentence is still legal in some states. It's not a matter of legal rights. The point is that it goes against common sense and is asking for trouble. If Zimmerman hadn't started following Martin around with a gun, he wouldn't have died. If Martin hadn't attacked Zimmerman, he most likely wouldn't have died. They were both at fault. Only one of them faced consequences.


----------



## Kruptos (Jul 23, 2013)

Won't change anything. The media has already manipulated the massively ignorant masses into believing in a demonized Zimmerman. They have defamed his character so they can make more money. These people should be taken down or sued for defamation of character.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 23, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You can't use the word fact to describe the situation since the facts support multiple stories.
> 
> Reasonable doubt =/= fact.



I can actually use the word fact when talking about facts, such as the conversation between him and the dispatcher. The call was recorded and you can listen to it over and over again without ever hearing the dispatcher warning Zimmerman or telling him not to follow the suspect.



Lee-Sensei said:


> He was warned, he acknowledged the warning and he ignored it.



He was not warned, he was told that he didn't need to follow Martin. You can keep spinning this any way you want, the phone call will not change, it will always just say "We don't need you to do that [follow the suspect]." You can play that recording a million times and it'll never change into "You shouldn't do that" or "I wouldn't do that if I were you."



> Tell me. If you saw a big guy in a hoodie that looked suspicious and that might be a criminal at night... would you follow him against the dispatcher? Zim initiated the fracas by following him. Zims a dumbass.



Firstly, drop the "against the dispatcher" bullshit, you know it's a lie.

Secondly, it's not like Zimmerman wanted to confront him, merely see where he's going to give the police better directions when they arrive.


----------



## Madara103084 (Jul 23, 2013)

This thread :/ 
One good deed is never enough to repay for the life they have taken.
This was a good deed though cannot deny
But to paint him as a hero and make the young man look as the enemy
This is really sad and disturbing
He got in trouble and same with my friend, but he works in a company and does really good.
You can't pin teenage years on minor problems as who they will turn into as an adult.


----------



## PopoTime (Jul 23, 2013)

Madara103084 said:


> This thread :/
> One good deed is never enough to repay for the life they have taken.
> This was a good deed though cannot deny
> But to paint him as a hero and make the young man look as the enemy
> ...



Drug abuse (as evidenced by autopsy report of codeine related liver damageO

Illegal possession of Guns (text records)

Suspension due to fighting and  (unreported) posession of stolen  (school recorded items as lost instead of stolen to lower the crime rate)

History of fighting (even wanting to have a rematch because in his own words, his opponent "hadnt bled enough")

These arent the minor problems of an otherwise innocent child.

He was 17, by no means a child


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

Transcendent Samurai said:


> It's easy for you to say that now, but have you ever been in a situation like that? How can you know what you'd do? Would you really stop and take a minute to think rationally like you are doing now? If you think you would, then good for you. Clearly Trayvon Martin didn't. That wasn't smart, but neither was following someone around with a gun. I really don't care if that's legal in his state. The death sentence is still legal in some states. It's not a matter of legal rights. The point is that it goes against common sense and is asking for trouble. If Zimmerman hadn't started following Martin around with a gun, he wouldn't have died. If Martin hadn't attacked Zimmerman, he most likely wouldn't have died. They were both at fault. Only one of them faced consequences.



You seem to be implying that Zimmerman was sprinting after poor innocent TrayTray with his gun already wielded and being waved over his head whole shouting racial slurs. 

ZimZam having a gun doesn't mean jack shit, if a woman is walking around and some dude tries to rape her and she pepper sprays him should she be charged with assault in your opinion if her assaulter was black and she wasn't?


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

Madara103084 said:


> This thread :/
> One good deed is never enough to repay for the life they have taken.
> This was a good deed though cannot deny
> But to paint him as a hero and make the young man look as the enemy
> ...



I had a lot of trouble as a teenager and hung around with a pretty rough crowd (well as rough as rough can get in an upper middle class mostly white suburban city), last I checked though I never illegally owned a gun, sold drugs, talked with horrible grammar and spelling on Facebook, nor did I go around assaulting random people.


----------



## TenshiNeko (Jul 23, 2013)

Transcendent Samurai said:


> It's easy for you to say that now, but have you ever been in a situation like that? How can you know what you'd do?



Never been followed while walking in the night, but there were other times when I (or we) thought someone was following. Sometimes hard to tell when they're walking behind you if they're following or not. There were also creeps who'd stop and ask if you wanted a ride. Yeah, those things are scary, but there was not a single time when I (or we) thought we might beat up any of the people. The idea was always to get away and be safe

I may see things differently because I'm a girl, but where I am, the only guys who would initiate a fight in that situation would be thug guys or wanna-be thugs. Normal guy with sense would attempt to flee unless he had no choice.


----------



## Madara103084 (Jul 23, 2013)

PopoTime said:


> Drug abuse (as evidenced by autopsy report of codeine related liver damageO
> 
> Illegal possession of Guns (text records)
> 
> ...



And how many students in upper class society uses drugs as well?

But I don't see real news promoting this information of codeine use. National inquirer types and blogs.

Sounds like a high schooler to me.
I don't know what schools you been but it's common where I'm from and everyone grows out of that mentality and doing fine.

I never gotten into much trouble, been in some fights, smoked some weed, been suspended and etc but went to college, graduated, went to the military, working in a coporation, working on a business plan with my friend to upstart a business.

The gun could be the only thing held against him, but still sources were saying his father was going to hold it for him until he turned 18 years of age.



All I'm saying, I know people who done worse than what the media wants to impose on Trayvon and made a better life, but now we will never know. Red did worse than Trayvon ever done and turned in to the man he became as Malcolm X


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Jul 23, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> He was not warned, he was told that he didn't need to follow Martin. You can keep spinning this any way you want, the phone call will not change, it will always just say "We don't need you to do that [follow the suspect]." You can play that recording a million times and it'll never change into "You shouldn't do that" or "I wouldn't do that if I were you."
> 
> Firstly, drop the "against the dispatcher" bullshit, you know it's a lie.







> Secondly, it's not like Zimmerman wanted to confront him, merely see where he's going to give the police better directions when they arrive.



He got out of his car with a gun. That's all we know for sure.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

Madara103084 said:


> And how many students in upper class society uses drugs as well?
> 
> But I don't see real news promoting this information of codeine use. National inquirer types and blogs.
> 
> ...



The gun thing was the only thing against him? How about the fact that he was consistently getting into physical fights at school and elsewhere? I mean yeah, kids get suspended from school, I got suspended from school a lot because of truancy issues (it's odd how they would suspend a kid for leaving or not coming to school), but most kids don't have a habit of punching people in the face unless they are on a path to becoming a thug nobody.


----------



## Madara103084 (Jul 23, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> I had a lot of trouble as a teenager and hung around with a pretty rough crowd (well as rough as rough can get in an upper middle class mostly white suburban city), last I checked though I never illegally owned a gun, sold drugs, talked with horrible grammar and spelling on Facebook, nor did I go around assaulting random people.



Well, check the web page, that I posted earlier. We don't know he sold drugs, it's not clear if he did it's not the end of the world, doesn't mean he should die, he didn't have the illegal firearm on him, and we don't know if he actually owned or use someone else gun. Horrible grammar is across the board on all social statuses when it comes to facebook, twitter, and etc. The fights are well normal, abnormal to upper middle class I suppose, but lower to low middle class actually normal.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

*Dispatcher: Are you following him?
George: Yeah
Dispatcher: Okay, we don't need you to do that.*

Do you TrayTrayers even know what a warning is?


----------



## navy (Jul 23, 2013)

You seem to think that makes a difference to the events that transpired that night.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

Madara103084 said:


> Well, check the web page, that I posted earlier. We don't know he sold drugs, it's not clear if he did it's not the end of the world, doesn't mean he should die, he didn't have the illegal firearm on him, and we don't know if he actually owned or use someone else gun. Horrible grammar is across the board on all social statuses when it comes to facebook, twitter, and etc. The fights are well normal, abnormal to upper middle class I suppose, but lower to low middle class actually normal.



He didn't deserve to die? So you think its okay that he just assaulted an innocent man who was breaking no laws? Zimmerman was just supposed to take the beating and possibly die as a result?


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Jul 23, 2013)

> He didn't deserve to die? So you think its okay that he just assaulted an innocent man who was breaking no laws? Zimmerman was just supposed to take the beating and possibly die as a result?



You have to prove that he started the fight first. And it's good to know that *you* decide who lives and who dies. Show us the way YT! Show us the way!


----------



## Madara103084 (Jul 23, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> He didn't deserve to die? So you think its okay that he just assaulted an innocent man who was breaking no laws? Zimmerman was just supposed to take the beating and possibly die as a result?



How do we know he instigated the fight? All we know is what GZ told us. The point is that GZ should have taken the wisdom of not getting out of his car if he is only to watch. He called the police and they were already contacted to come. 

Have you ever been followed for suspicious behavior when there was no suspicious behavior? Zimmerman assumed and knew nothing of his past, he just assumed the worst. If that has never happened before you, you wouldn't even begun to imagine or even empathize what he was feeling in those moments.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

Lee-Sensei said:


> You have to prove that he started the fight first. And it's good to know that you decide who lives and who dies. Show us the way YT! Show us the way!



Well common sense and logic suggests that Trayvon started the fight. He already had a history of getting into meaningless fights, and judging by the injuries on Zimmerman and the lack of injuries on Trayvon, as well as the fact that Trayvon was on top beating the fuck out of Zimmerman for most of the fight it's pretty clear that Trayvon started the fight. Not to mention, even if Zimmerman started the fight there is absolutely zero evidence whatsoever to support that, meanwhile there is plenty to support the other side.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

Madara103084 said:


> How do we know he instigated the fight? All we know is what GZ told us. The point is that GZ should have taken the wisdom of not getting out of his car if he is only to watch. He called the police and they were already contacted to come.
> 
> Have you ever been followed for suspicious behavior when there was no suspicious behavior? Zimmerman assumed and knew nothing of his past, he just assumed the worst. If that has never happened before you, you wouldn't even begun to imagine or even empathize what he was feeling in those moments.



All we know is what Zimmerman told us? I guess we also don't have access to forensics reports, eyewitness reports, and basic logic and common sense to try and deduce what happened.  

And yes, I have actually been followed for suspicious behavior when there was none several times, the difference is I didn't turn around and start beating the fuck out the person following me because that is not what civilized people do.


----------



## TenshiNeko (Jul 23, 2013)

Madara103084 said:


> Well, check the web page, that I posted earlier. We don't know he sold drugs, it's not clear if he did it's not the end of the world, doesn't mean he should die, he didn't have the illegal firearm on him, and we don't know if he actually owned or use someone else gun. Horrible grammar is across the board on all social statuses when it comes to facebook, twitter, and etc. *The fights are well normal, abnormal to upper middle class I suppose, but lower to low middle class actually normal*.



My father worked in a factory. That's not upper middle class at all. But all the kids I knew, both guys and girls, were expected to act like regular decent civilized people, not brawling low-class creeps. It wasn't just kids' parents expected decent behavior, it was also that thug behavior wasn't the accepted norm among us. We probably all watched gangsta rappers and hoe-girl singers, but we didn't try to be like them


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Jul 23, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Well common sense and logic suggests that Trayvon started the fight. He already had a history of getting into meaningless fights,



They both have records. We know what Trayvon did. As for Zimmerman... well he wasn't nearly as bad. All he did was assault a police officer, resist arrest and abuse his ex-fiancee to the point where she filed a restraining order against him. No biggy.



> and judging by the injuries on Zimmerman and the lack of injuries on Trayvon, as well as the fact that Trayvon was on top beating the fuck out of Zimmerman for most of the fight it's pretty clear that Trayvon started the fight.



It's pretty clear that Zimmerman lost the fight. Not that Trayvon started the fight.



> Not to mention, even if Zimmerman started the fight there is absolutely zero evidence whatsoever to support that, meanwhile there is plenty to support the other side.



Nope. There's very little evidence either way. It's Zim's word against the word of a dead kid.



> it was also that thug behavior wasn't the accepted norm among us. We probably all watched gangsta rappers and hoe-girl singers, but we didn't try to be like them



I hate that gangst*er* crap too, but isn't this like slut shaming?


----------



## Elite Uchiha (Jul 23, 2013)

^ You forgot to mention Zimmerman got fired from Carmax because he was a bully


----------



## santanico (Jul 23, 2013)

> "'Everyone with Georgie's DNA should be killed' -- just every kind of horrible thing you can imagine."



okay, yeah no, they need to stop


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

Lee-Sensei said:


> They both have records. We know what Trayvon did. As for Zimmerman... well he wasn't nearly as bad. All he did was assault a police officer, resist arrest and abuse his ex-fiancee to the point where she filed a restraining order against him. No biggy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1. You are GREATLY exaggerating Zimmermans records. If I remember correctly the police officer and resisting arrest charges were dropped and were from A VERY LONG TIME AGO, and him and his ex both got restraining orders against each other because it was a mutually toxic relationship, please don't try and change facts to fit your ridiculous bias.

2. Whether Zimmerman lost the fight is besides the point, evidence still SUGGESTS that Trayvon started it. 

3. So eyewitness and forensics reports don't matter or count as evidence?


----------



## Madara103084 (Jul 23, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> All we know is what Zimmerman told us? I guess we also don't have access to forensics reports, eyewitness reports, and basic logic and common sense to try and deduce what happened.
> 
> And yes, I have actually been followed for suspicious behavior when there was none several times, the difference is I didn't turn around and start beating the fuck out the person following me because that is not what civilized people do.



Believe is not I know.


----------



## God Movement (Jul 23, 2013)

This is too convenient.


----------



## Madara103084 (Jul 23, 2013)

TenshiNeko said:


> My father worked in a factory. That's not upper middle class at all. But all the kids I knew, both guys and girls, were expected to act like regular decent civilized people, not brawling low-class creeps. It wasn't just kids' parents expected decent behavior, it was also that thug behavior wasn't the accepted norm among us. We probably all watched gangsta rappers and hoe-girl singers, but we didn't try to be like them



I guess normal where I'm from I guess.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

Madara103084 said:


> Believe is not I know.



Wait, what is going on here? Are you suddenly switching to the logical side or something?


----------



## Madara103084 (Jul 23, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> 1. You are GREATLY exaggerating Zimmermans records. If I remember correctly the police officer and resisting arrest charges were dropped and were from A VERY LONG TIME AGO, and him and his ex both got restraining orders against each other because it was a mutually toxic relationship, please don't try and change facts to fit your ridiculous bias.
> 
> 2. Whether Zimmerman lost the fight is besides the point, evidence still SUGGESTS that Trayvon started it.
> 
> 3. So eyewitness and forensics reports don't matter or count as evidence?



Father was a magistrate. Hmm, very reliable when you need to get out of a legal jam.


----------



## Elite Uchiha (Jul 23, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> 1. You are GREATLY exaggerating Zimmermans records. If I remember correctly the police officer and resisting arrest charges were dropped and were from A VERY LONG TIME AGO, and him and his ex both got restraining orders against each other because it was a mutually toxic relationship, please don't try and change facts to fit your ridiculous bias.
> 
> 2. Whether Zimmerman lost the fight is besides the point, evidence still SUGGESTS that Trayvon started it.
> 
> 3. So eyewitness and forensics reports don't matter or count as evidence?



Can you please provide evidence that Trayvon Martin started the fight? I'll wait, but please don't say because Trayvon was winning the fight means he started it, because I can direct you to over 1000 videos of bullies starting a fight and losing badly.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

Madara103084 said:


> I guess normal where I'm from I guess.



It's also normal to chop off childrens hands in certain parts of the world for shoplifting. Doesn't make it civilized or not animalistic and barbaric.


----------



## RyokoForTheWin (Jul 23, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> And yes, I have actually been followed for suspicious behavior when there was none several times, the difference is I didn't turn around and start beating the fuck out the person following me because that is not what civilized people do.



So uncivilized people have less of a right to live? You're not a barbarian, good for you.

ALL that matters is that a kid, thugite or not, was murdered.

Yeah, I know, how old is fifteen really, but that's not the point.

He should have at LEAST gotten manslaughter.


----------



## Madara103084 (Jul 23, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Wait, what is going on here? Are you suddenly switching to the logical side or something?



I'm speaking from both the logical and empathetical side and my own personal experience. You have to have all to even present a case such as this, pretty much what was going on was Law vs Moral if it was going to be presented as such. Emotion was too weak for this type of case.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

Elite Uchiha said:


> Can you please provide evidence that Trayvon Martin started the fight? I'll wait, but please don't say because Trayvon was winning the fight means he started it, because I can direct you to over 1000 videos of bullies starting a fight and losing badly.



Are you familiar with the phrase "Putting the pieces together". Based on what we know of the night, it is very likely that Trayvon started the fight. Nobody was there on the night that Scott Peterson murder Lacy, so how do we know that pregnant Lacy didn't start the fight by attacking Scott? I mean sure, there is plenty of evidence that Scott was an all around bad guy and didn't give a shit about his wife BUT HOW CAN WE KNOW FOR SURE! JUSTICE FOR SCOTT PETERSON!


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jul 23, 2013)

Lee-Sensei said:


> And the fact that Zim got out of the car with his gun against the dispatchers warning would be evidence that he probably initiated the fracas.


There was no warning, repeatedly calling it a warning doesn't magically make it true.  

And he got out of the car *before* the dispatcher said he didn't need to continue following.  The phone call record proves this undeniably.  

I'm still in awe as to how people that didn't even watch the trial chime in on misinformed, outdated media drivel.


----------



## Revolution (Jul 23, 2013)

Still Trolling the News


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Jul 23, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> 1. You are GREATLY exaggerating Zimmermans records. If I remember correctly the police officer and resisting arrest charges were dropped and were from A VERY LONG TIME AGO,



They were dropped. Not because he didn't do it. He had to go to anger management and some other stuff. No matter how long ago it was (7 years) it still happened and it's on his record.



> and him and his ex both got restraining orders against each other because it was a mutually toxic relationship, please don't try and change facts to fit your ridiculous bias.



No bias at all on my part. I have no connection to this case whatsoever. I just call out bullshit wherever I see it.

You're biased though Mr. KKK. That much is clear. You've exaggerated how bad a kid Trayvon Martin was. Obviously he wasn't an angel and the media was biased, but he's not as bad as you make him out to be either.



> 2. Whether Zimmerman lost the fight is besides the point, evidence still SUGGESTS that Trayvon started it.



No proof so you can't act as if it's a fact.



> 3. So eyewitness and forensics reports don't matter or count as evidence?



Go in to depths about this please. They proved that Trayvon started the fight 100%?



> There was no warning, repeatedly calling it a warning doesn't magically make it true.
> 
> And he got out of the car before the dispatcher said he didn't need to continue following. The phone call record proves this undeniably.
> 
> I'm still in awe as to how people that didn't even watch the trial chime in on misinformed, outdated media drivel.


----------



## Revolution (Jul 23, 2013)

sabl?s said:


> Really?
> 
> Why don't we hear about this in the news?



What news were you watching???


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

RyokoForTheWin said:


> So uncivilized people have less of a right to live? You're not a barbarian, good for you.
> 
> ALL that matters is that a kid, thugite or not, was murdered.
> 
> ...



Do you know the legal definition of murder or manslaughter? Zimmerman did not commit either of those.


And who gives a shit if he is a kid? Kids are capable of unthinkably atrocious acts as well.


----------



## TenshiNeko (Jul 23, 2013)

RyokoForTheWin said:


> ALL that matters is that a kid, thugite or not, was murdered.



He was not murdered. There was evidence showing he started a fight, and the guy he was beating up shot him in self defense. That's not murder, or even manslaughter. If you want to convict a guy on either of those charges you need evidence - proof beyond a reasonable doubt. They didn't have it. The evidence supported Zimmerman's claim of self defense.


----------



## Madara103084 (Jul 23, 2013)

Some people will never get it.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

Madara103084 said:


> Some people will never get it.



*IRONY
RONY
ONY
NY
Y*


----------



## Madara103084 (Jul 23, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> *IRONY
> RONY
> ONY
> NY
> Y*






You have your nerve...


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

Madara103084 said:


> You have your nerve...



1. I'm not surprised that a Naruto fan isn't capable of understanding the difference between facts and feelings.
2. I highly doubt a Naruto fan is capable of enjoying Arrested Development. The writing should be much too subtle for you. Plus how can somebody like you watch a comedy without a laugh track?
3. Please explain to me why Trayvon had a right to assault Zimmerman
4. Please explain to me why Zimmerman did not have a right to defend himself while being assaulted.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jul 23, 2013)

If you don't have a response that's fine, just don't continue spewing bullshit that you're spewing for the sake of spewing.


----------



## Bleach (Jul 23, 2013)

So he's not a heartless killer? I'm so surprised....

/s


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Jul 23, 2013)

afgpride said:


> If you don't have a response that's fine, just don't continue spewing bullshit that you're spewing for the sake of spewing.



Please be nice. You're hurting my feelings. This discussion is repetitive, you're a waste of time and I'm bored with it. That's why I didn't give a proper response.



> 1. I'm not surprised that a Naruto fan isn't capable of understanding the difference between facts and feelings.
> 2. I highly doubt a Naruto fan is capable of enjoying Arrested Development. The writing should be much too subtle for you. Plus how can somebody like you watch a comedy without a laugh track?



Naruto has nothing to do with this. At all.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jul 23, 2013)

Lee-Sensei said:


> Please be nice. You're hurting my feelings. This discussion is repetitive, you're a waste of time and I'm bored with it. That's why I didn't give a proper response.


It's repetitive because you insist on repeating obsolete crap that have been debunked a year ago.  

And spare me your condescending tone.  Compensate for your lack of knowledge with something productive, like actually learning about the trial, instead of pretending to be informed.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

afgpride said:


> It's repetitive because you insist on repeating obsolete crap that have been debunked a year ago.
> 
> And spare me your condescending tone.  Compensate for your lack of knowledge with something productive, like actually learning about the trial, instead of pretending to be informed.



Shut up racist. Everybody knows that this is exactly what happened that night because MSNBC said so!
[YOUTUBE]xO-k4GqbATg[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Jul 23, 2013)

afgpride said:


> It's repetitive because you insist on repeating obsolete crap that have been debunked a year ago.
> 
> And spare me your condescending tone.  Compensate for your lack of knowledge with something productive, like actually learning about the trial, instead of pretending to be informed.



I disagree.

You seem mad. You got a dog in this fight?


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

Lee-Sensei said:


> I disagree.



You disagree? Do you know what the word debunked means? Your feelings do not change the facts buddy.


----------



## Aion Hysteria (Jul 23, 2013)

If George had stayed his fatass in his fucking car like he was told then a kid wouldn't be dead and he wouldn't be hated and destined to die.

It's all HIS fault.
​


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Jul 23, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> You disagree? Do you know what the word debunked means? Your feelings do not change the facts buddy.



Not facts. I disagree. Are you going to quote the KKK again?


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

Aion Hysteria said:


> If George had stayed his fatass in his fucking car like he was told then a kid wouldn't be dead and he wouldn't be hated and destined to die.
> 
> It's all HIS fault.
> ​



He was advised to stay in his car by a fellow civilian so I don't see your point. 



Lee-Sensei said:


> Are you going to quote the KKK again?


----------



## Donquixote Doflamingo (Jul 23, 2013)

Whats with these arguments. 

If Zimmerman did not get out of the car. Tray would be alive. 

I can play this game as well. 

If tray did not go to the store he would be alive. 

If tray ran away he would be alive.

If trays parents made him stay in the house cause it was to late to be going out, he would be alive. 

If Zimmerman wife had sex with him all day long, he would not of shot tray.

So what.


----------



## Aion Hysteria (Jul 23, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> He was advised to stay in his car by a fellow civilian so I don't see your point.



He's a fat killer.
​


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

Aion Hysteria said:


> If George had stayed his fatass in his fucking car like he was told then a kid wouldn't be dead and he wouldn't be hated and destined to die.
> 
> It's all HIS fault.
> ​




According to you, this is the man responsible for the Holocaust and World War 2.

IF ONLY HE HADN'T OPENED AN ART SCHOOL THAT ADOLF HITLER WAS LATER DENIED ADMISSION TO NONE OF THOSE THINGS WOULD EVER  HAVE HAPPENED! IT IS ALL HIS FAULT!


----------



## MegaultraHay (Jul 23, 2013)

Can we stop this?
At this point both sides piss me off.


----------



## Madara103084 (Jul 23, 2013)

Yoshio what does being a naruto fan has to do with anything?
Arrested development, never caught it was working the whole time.
Logic and Empathy are two components are to be used in this case.
That's is the path of wisdom.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

Madara103084 said:


> Yoshio what does being a naruto fan has to do with anything?
> Arrested development, never caught it was working the whole time.
> Logic and Empathy are two components are to be used in this case.
> That's is the path of wisdom.



1. Naruto fans are not at the same intellectual level as me (or most people in the world).
2. Wait... What the fuck? If you've never seen Arrested Development then why the fuck did you use a reaction image from it? Oh well, at least that part makes a bit more sense then.
3. Empathy should not be used if it is going to cloud your perception of the facts.


----------



## Blue (Jul 23, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> 1. Naruto fans are not at the same intellectual level as me (or most people in the world).


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

Gah fine, I'll drop the Naruto aspects. But this is getting ridiculous Blue, we are just having to go around and around in circles with these people.


----------



## Blue (Jul 23, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Gah fine, I'll drop the Naruto aspects. But this is getting ridiculous Blue, we are just having to go around and around in circles with these people.



Perspective is a hard thing to overcome. A lot of these people come from lives where attacking someone physically for following you actually makes sense, because if someone's following you they probably mean you harm.

They'd need to totally readjust their entire worldview to see where people like us come from, where getting attacked is unimaginable and responding to an attack with deadly force makes sense.

Anyway they're all crying because justice was done, so kick back and drink their tears.


----------



## MegaultraHay (Jul 23, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> 1. Naruto fans are not at the same intellectual level as me (or most people in the world).



So if I like something you don't like that makes me beneath normal human intelligent.
You don't need to validate your argument by acting like an arrogant jerk.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 23, 2013)

Lee-Sensei said:


> Please be nice. You're hurting my feelings. This discussion is repetitive, you're a waste of time and I'm bored with it. That's why I didn't give a proper response.





Lee-Sensei said:


> Not facts. I disagree. Are you going to quote the KKK again?





Translation: "I know I'm wrong and I'll pretend the reason I'm running with my tail between my legs right now is because I'm the bigger person, that'll show them."



Aion Hysteria said:


> If George had stayed his fatass in his fucking car like he was told then a kid wouldn't be dead and he wouldn't be hated and destined to die.
> 
> It's all HIS fault.
> ​



He wasn't told to stay in the car by anyone. Also if it hadn't rained that day, Martin wouldn't be dead either, that kind of reasoning won't get you anywhere.

The fault lies with Martin for assaulting an innocent civilian. It's too bad that he died but you can't blame Zimmerman for defending himself.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

Also, reposting this in case anybody else hasn't seen this amazing piece of artwork inspired by the heroic battle of good vs. evil.


----------



## DremolitoX (Jul 23, 2013)

I love that they worked the great Jaffa into the pic.

On a related note, to the evil cunts that wish Zimmerman a life of fear: how does it feel knowing he can just move to Europe after his out of court settlement with NBC (I'm sure AT LEAST tens of millions are going to end up in his pocket after the defamation they pulled) and live "the life" for the rest of his life?


----------



## Etherborn (Jul 23, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> 1. Naruto fans are not at the same intellectual level as me (or most people in the world).



Yet reading Beelzebub makes you superior to everyone else? Makes sense. You're on a site called narutoforums by the way. Anyone you ask is likely to be a Naruto fan on some level. The fact that you either fail to realize that or try to get a reaction out of people knowing that shows that you're not as intelligent as you claim to be. Don't pretend you're above anyone, because all I'm hearing from you right now is the barking of a mad dog. One who somehow associates manga preference with intellect.


----------



## Madara103084 (Jul 23, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> 1. Naruto fans are not at the same intellectual level as me (or most people in the world).
> 2. Wait... What the fuck? If you've never seen Arrested Development then why the fuck did you use a reaction image from it? Oh well, at least that part makes a bit more sense then.
> 3. Empathy should not be used if it is going to cloud your perception of the facts.



The facts was that there wasn't enough facts to criminalize neither one of them and we don't know what truly transpire that night. But one thing I can say one life never blossomed and the other is seen as a hero.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

Madara103084 said:


> The facts was that there wasn't enough facts to criminalize neither one of them and we don't know what truly transpire that night. But one thing I can say one life never blossomed and the other is seen as a hero.



Assault isn't a criminal act?


----------



## Darth inVaders (Jul 23, 2013)

There is no moral ground for Zimmerman and his defenders to attack Trayvon - the best they can do is argue that both did nothing wrong and this was a tragic misunderstanding. These attacks on the only indisputable victim (Trayvon) are vomit inducing.

In fact I crushed the whole argument earlier, proving that Zimmerman bore all of the responsibility with this post:

You are walking home at night for some reason. You notice that a car has slowed down and is following you - what do you feeling and thinking right now? Are you thinking that it is just some concerned citizen innocently checking you out - or are you thinking someone is up to no good and is targeting you? I doubt it is the first one. So you run and this person gets out of his vehicle and chases you. Bet you are thinking this person is now an immediate threat to your life and or safety now aren't you - as any reasonable person would. And in Florida with stand your ground laws, that is enough to defend yourself - and this includes first strike. Because the person who strikes first usually wins the fight, and you don't want your assailant to strike first and the law is not going to make you wait.

In addition to that, the act of running away is a form of body language that clearly says "stay away from me" / "do not follow me" / etc - so continued following is an act of both force (as the person is forcing the pursuit against the other's wishes) and harassment (and harassment via following is called stalking). 

Furthermore, by taking on actions that are not required of him, Zimmerman was also taking on the responsibilities of those actions: he was responsible for his own life and the lives of anyone involved because of his actions - including Trayvon's. And with the responsibilities, Zimmerman acted recklessly and negligently. Any reasonable person would deduce that following what he considered to be a suspect would not only be undeniably dangerous for himself, the possible suspect, and anyone else who could be nearby - but it would also obviously cause the possible suspect to consider him a threat. And if the possible suspect is innocent as Trayvon was, his actions amounted to stalking that would cause a reasonable fear in the person being followed and they get to defend themselves from his perceived threat. Just compare the reasonable and prudent police dispatcher Zimmerman was talking to: she had to tell him the obvious - he should leave this to the police - that is how negligent and reckless he was being. In fact just ask yourself, in Zimmerman's position, if you were unarmed would you get out and follow someone you thought was "up to no good"? (your answer should not be different being armed or not)

So Zimmerman was acting recklessly and negligently, Trayvon was acting within his rights - I have just proven beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed manslaughter - and I did not even contradict Zimmerman's own account. Yes I could just take Zimmerman at his word on everything and prove him guilty of manslaughter - that is how bad this is.

Saving lives does not fix the the life his actions took.


In fact only one person seemed to respond to this pwnage post...



Blue said:


> >Standing your ground
> >Running away
> 
> Pick one and only one. If Trayvon ran away like you suggest, he would have escaped.
> If he stood his ground, he would have ascertained that Zimmerman wasn't a violent individual, which he is legally required to do before "defending himself".



Which neglects what I said in the post.... Zimmerman took actions and as such took on the responsibilities of those actions - therefore it was Zimmerman's responsibility to ensure his actions were not perceived as a threat - but his actions were forceful, negligent and amounted to stalking which caused Trayvon to reasonably identify him as a threat. 

Trayvon had a right to stand his ground as granted by law and he did, the fact that he fled first does not surrender his right to stand his ground (in fact many other states require fleeing first if possible, but the stand your ground law does not require that) nor did it mitigate the threat posed by someone who would go so far as to get out of his vehicle to chase him. 

Even if this overwhelming evidence does not convince some people who must be holding onto their mistaken beliefs, at least show some class and stop attacking the victim with groundless accusations that blatantly ignore his right to self defense.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 23, 2013)

Darth inVaders said:


> There is no moral ground for Zimmerman and his defenders to attack Trayvon - the best they can do is argue that both did nothing wrong and this was a tragic misunderstanding. These attacks on the only indisputable victim (Trayvon) are vomit inducing.



Stop using the word indisputable, you evidently don't know what it means.



> In fact I crushed the whole argument earlier, proving that Zimmerman bore all of the responsibility with this post:



You crushed nothing, you created an appeal to emotion that has nothing to do with the situation Martin or Zimmerman found themselves in.



> You are walking home at night for some reason. You notice that a car has slowed down and is following you - what do you feeling and thinking right now? Are you thinking that it is just some concerned citizen innocently checking you out - or are you thinking someone is up to no good and is targeting you? I doubt it is the first one.



I would stop and ask them if they want something (actually happened to me before, just some guy who wanted directions).



> So you run and this person gets out of his vehicle and chases you. Bet you are thinking this person is now an immediate threat to your life and or safety now aren't you - as any reasonable person would.



Well then I'd scream for help, we are in a residential area at 7 pm after all.



> And in Florida with stand your ground laws, that is enough to defend yourself - and this includes first strike. Because the person who strikes first usually wins the fight, and you don't want your assailant to strike first and the law is not going to make you wait.



No, that's not enough to defend yourself, guess you bought into the bullshit that the media was spreading about Florida's SYG law.

Here's the text:



> (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
> (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that persons will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
> (b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.



Obviously this doesn't apply since both were outside. So the only other part of the law that could apply is this:



> (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.



But Martin wasn't attacked, so this doesn't apply either. 



> In addition to that, the act of running away is a form of body language that clearly says "stay away from me" / "do not follow me" / etc - so continued following is an act of both force (as the person is forcing the pursuit against the other's wishes)



Force? Are you fucking kidding me? By talking, I can "force a conversation", does that mean I am using force against you? No, stop abusing the English language.



> and harassment (and harassment via following is called stalking).



Isn't that funny, there's also a Florida law on this and it proves you wrong once again. I guess you have an indisputably bad understanding of the law. Here's the text:



> (2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
> (3) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
> (4) A person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that persons property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
> (5) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a child under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.



You'll notice on this specifically, all the paragraphs start with "willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly." Did Zimmerman willfully follow Martin? Yes, he did. Did he maliciously follow him? I'd say no, but this is certainly up for debate. Did he repeatedly follow him? No, he did not. That's one of those indisputable facts (just so you know what those actually mean).



> Furthermore, by taking on actions that are not required of him, Zimmerman was also taking on the responsibilities of those actions: he was responsible for his own life and the lives of anyone involved because of his actions - including Trayvon's. And with the responsibilities, Zimmerman acted recklessly and negligently.



What ridiculous logic is that? If I voluntarily do the dishes at a friend's house, break one of his glasses and he assaults me, did I forfeit the right to defend myself? The fact of the matter is that Zimmerman did nothing illegal, so Martin assaulting him as a consequence is nobody's fault but Martin's own.



> Any reasonable person would deduce that following what he considered to be a suspect would not only be undeniably dangerous for himself, the possible suspect, and anyone else who could be nearby - but it would also obviously cause the possible suspect to consider him a threat. And if the possible suspect is innocent as Trayvon was, his actions amounted to stalking that would cause a reasonable fear in the person being followed and they get to defend themselves from his perceived threat.



Absolute nonsense, he was a suspected burglar, not a suspected murderer. I already disproved the stalking part.



> Just compare the reasonable and prudent police dispatcher Zimmerman was talking to: she had to tell him the obvious - he should leave this to the police - that is how negligent and reckless he was being. In fact just ask yourself, in Zimmerman's position, if you were unarmed would you get out and follow someone you thought was "up to no good"? (your answer should not be different being armed or not)



And of course we have to finish on a strong note, the lie about what the dispatcher supposedly told Zimmerman. No, he never said that Zimmerman should stop following or that he should "leave this to the police" or some other nonsense. Please get your facts straight.



> So Zimmerman was acting recklessly and negligently, Trayvon was acting within his rights



Zimmerman was acting within his rights, going somewhere in public where he was legally allowed to go. Martin was not acting within his rights when he assaulted Zimmerman, since assault is illegal.



> - I have just proven beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed manslaughter - and I did not even contradict Zimmerman's own account. Yes I could just take Zimmerman at his word on everything and prove him guilty of manslaughter - that is how bad this is.



You have no idea what you're talking about, yet presume to be able to judge another person based on your own beliefs about what he did and made-up laws. That is how bad it is.

Really cute how you think you "pwn" anything with your badly researched drivel.


----------



## Nemesis (Jul 23, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Assault isn't a criminal act?



Again we don't know who swung first.  Even IF Zimmerman did try to strike first and missed that would mean he instigated the fight and lost all right to self defense.  The moment anyone instigates the fight they lose the right to self defense unless they are out cold and the other guy is still going at it.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

Nemesis said:


> Again we don't know who swung first.  Even IF Zimmerman did try to strike first and missed that would mean he instigated the fight and lost all right to self defense.  The moment anyone instigates the fight they lose the right to self defense unless they are out cold and the other guy is still going at it.



There is literally no evidence that Zimmerman started the fight though nor will we ever find any (because it didn't happen). Forensic evidence though allows us to make the logical conclusion that it is highly possible that Trayvon struck first.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)




----------



## Casyle (Jul 23, 2013)

Blue said:


> Anyway they're all crying because justice was done, so kick back and drink their tears.



I like my tears with sweet tea!


When I heard'd about this yesterday the first thing I thought, literally all day, was I can't wait to see the excuses! I'm surprised I didn't see anyone say, or insinuate, that he caused the wreck so he could look good helping to save 'em. Saw the staged replies a mile away, though.

And damnit Yoshihiro, I keep reflexively reaching up to shoo that bug off my screen! Gah!


----------



## Danzio (Jul 23, 2013)

Too late for a  heel face  turn...


----------



## ExoSkel (Jul 23, 2013)

Transcendent Samurai said:


> Are you serious right now? I don't care if you're trying to be funny or you're just trying to piss people off. Watch what you say. Trayvon Martin had been suspended before the incident, yes. He had a juvenile record and had been caught in possession of Marijuana. That doesn't make his death any less of a tragedy. And you're going to sit there and say that he's better off dead because he would have grown up to be a gang member? Forget bias and racism. That's just makes you a horrible human being.
> 
> What happened on that night between Martin and Zimmerman is still partially unclear. Some accounts say Zimmerman just shot him to keep him quiet. Others say that Trayvon attacked first. There is significant evidence that Zimmerman was attacked. The point is, Zimmerman shouldn't have been following the kid at night with a gun in hand. He reported Trayvon to the police. Ok. Fine. The point where he crossed the line is when he decided to start following him. He was a neighborhood watch, not a cop.
> 
> ...


Dumbass was hiding in the bush and jumped Zimmerman when Zimmerman went back to his car and came back where they both confronted. 

We all agree that Zimmerman is a fucking moron for following that boy, but the dumbass thug wannabe kid wanted to physically harm Zimmerman by jumping him. 

Whos fucking fault is it? Both of them, but Zimmerman had a gun. End of story. This kid wanted to beat the shit out of a random person, instead of just letting it go and I don't pity that fool. Considering the fact that the kid was high as fuck, his testosterone level was probably out of control and made a wrong decision call by jumping Zimmerman.


----------



## baconbits (Jul 23, 2013)

Casyle said:


> I like my tears with sweet tea!
> 
> 
> When I heard'd about this yesterday the first thing I thought, literally all day, was I can't wait to see the excuses! I'm surprised I didn't see anyone say, or insinuate, that he caused the wreck so he could look good helping to save 'em. Saw the staged replies a mile away, though.
> ...



You missed the first page, then.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

ExoSkel said:


> Dumbass was hiding in the bush and jumped Zimmerman when Zimmerman went back to his car and came back where they both confronted.
> 
> We all agree that Zimmerman is a fucking moron for following that boy, but the dumbass thug wannabe kid wanted to physically harm Zimmerman by jumping him.
> 
> Whos fucking fault is it? Both of them, but Zimmerman had a gun. End of story. This kid wanted to beat the shit out of a random person, instead of just letting it go and I don't pity that fool. Considering the fact that the kid was high as fuck, his testosterone level was probably out of control and made a wrong decision call by jumping Zimmerman.



If I was the captain of the neighborhood watch, and there was some stoned as fuck 6 foot tall male walking around suspiciously in the rain when he had been having a series of break-ins in the area I would start following as well.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 23, 2013)

Martin was likely not stoned at the time of time of the incident and even if he were, weed has never been linked to outbursts of violence, quite the opposite.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> Martin was likely not stoned at the time of time of the incident and even if he were, weed has never been linked to outbursts of violence, quite the opposite.



When did I say that he was violent because of the weed TrayTrayer? Weed makes you move eccentrically which could also look suspicious.


----------



## baconbits (Jul 23, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> When did I say that he was violent because of the weed TrayTrayer? Weed makes you move eccentrically which could also look suspicious.



Perhaps, but Sauf is right in pointing out that there wasn't enough in his system to make an argument one way or the other.


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Jul 23, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> Translation: "I know I'm wrong and I'll pretend the reason I'm running with my tail between my legs right now is because I'm the bigger person, that'll show them."



Nope. That's me trying to leave this discussion.


----------



## Chains (Jul 23, 2013)

ExoSkel said:


> He shot a teenager wannabe thug dead, who would've most likely grown up into a gangbanger.
> 
> The kid was expelled from school for multiple drug possession and he was high as fuck during that night. Look up the case and toxicology report.



Trolling, right?

Can't tell.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

Lee-Sensei said:


> Nope. That's me trying to leave this discussion.



Why can't you just be a humble grown up and admit that you were wrong and that Trayvon was a dirty thug who assaulted a man and deserved to get put down?


----------



## Chains (Jul 23, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Why can't you just be a humble grown up and admit that you were wrong and that Trayvon was a dirty thug who assaulted a man and deserved to get put down?



Maybe because he wasn't? There is no evidence supporting that he was a thug.

Smoking weed? Doesn't make you a thug
Middle finger? Doesn't make you a thug
Gold teeth? Doesn't make you a thug.
Allegedly having a gun? Doesn't make you a thug


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

Chains said:


> Maybe because he wasn't? There is no evidence supporting that he was a thug.
> 
> Smoking weed? Doesn't make you a thug
> Middle finger? Doesn't make you a thug
> ...



How about being a drug dealer, and having a history of getting into fights (including assaulting a man on the night of his death)


----------



## ExoSkel (Jul 23, 2013)

Chains said:


> Trolling, right?
> 
> Can't tell.


People always post shits like this. It's like am I suppose to give a flying fuck what you think?


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

ExoSkel said:


> People always post shits like this. It's like am I suppose to give a flying fuck what you think?



Just ignore him. The TrayTrayers have deluded themselves into believing that anybody who doesn't think that TrayTray was the 12 year old reincarnation of Gandhi and would have been the future bringer of world peace is just a racist or a troll.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 23, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> How about being a drug dealer, and having a history of getting into fights (including assaulting a man on the night of his death)



Thug. Noun. A cruel or vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer. 

So no.



Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Just ignore him. The TrayTrayers have deluded themselves into believing that anybody who doesn't think that TrayTray was the 12 year old reincarnation of Gandhi and would have been the future bringer of world peace is just a racist or a troll.


----------



## Chains (Jul 23, 2013)

^Lol, I confront you with logic and this is your response. You really should have kept your name as nensense. It fits.



ExoSkel said:


> People always post shits like this. It's like am I suppose to give a flying fuck what you think?



The truth isn't "shit". You said he was high as fuck and a thug, and that's simply not true.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

Onomatopoeia said:


> Thug. Noun. A cruel or vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer.
> 
> So no.



It isn't cruel to assault an innocent man?


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 23, 2013)

Zimmerman's innocence is debatable, but performing a cruel act does not automatically make someone a cruel person. And a single adjective does not make the definition fit, as Trayvon was neither a ruffian, a robber or a murderer.


----------



## Chains (Jul 23, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> It isn't cruel to assault an innocent man?



By this logic, everyone who was ever cruel is a thug.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 23, 2013)

Onomatopoeia said:


> Zimmerman's innocence is debatable, but performing a cruel act does not automatically make someone a cruel person. And a single adjective does not make the definition fit, as Trayvon was neither a ruffian, a robber or a murderer.





Chains said:


> By this logic, everyone who was ever cruel is a thug.



In most peoples books, somebody who purposely dresses in thuggish attire, sells drugs, illegally owns a weapon, and routinely got into fights would be considered a thug.


----------



## Chains (Jul 23, 2013)

Wait a second when did he dress thuggish? When he died he was wearing a hoodie with cuffed khakis. Show me a picture of him dressing thuggish.

And when did he routinely get into fights? I'm only aware of two fights he's been in, and two is not thuggish. Hell, I wouldn't even consider 4 or 5 thuggish depending on the circumstances.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Jul 23, 2013)

The "Trayvon was a thug and hoodlum" argument by Team Zimmerman is essentially their counterpoint to the "12-year old Saint Trayvon was murdered by Aryan Nation puppy kicker George Zimmerman" tale by Team Martin.

I will state both generalizations are asinine.


----------



## Elite Uchiha (Jul 23, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Are you familiar with the phrase "Putting the pieces together". Based on what we know of the night, it is very likely that Trayvon started the fight. Nobody was there on the night that Scott Peterson murder Lacy, so how do we know that pregnant Lacy didn't start the fight by attacking Scott? I mean sure, there is plenty of evidence that Scott was an all around bad guy and didn't give a shit about his wife BUT HOW CAN WE KNOW FOR SURE! JUSTICE FOR SCOTT PETERSON!



What pieces do you have when there is no evidence of the beginning of the altercation? All we have is GZ's words and eye testimony Trayvon was winning the fight. Those are the pieces of evidence we have. And If I showed u a fight where someone is winning the fight, are you to assume he started it? If so, I can direct you to a few youtube videos.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 23, 2013)

Kagekatsu said:


> The "Trayvon was a thug and hoodlum" argument by Team Zimmerman is essentially their counterpoint to the "12-year old Saint Trayvon was murdered by Aryan Nation puppy kicker George Zimmerman" tale by Team Martin.
> 
> I will state both generalizations are asinine.


But the truth of the matter is that a hoodie doesn't eqaul thuggish. The fact that people say shit like that denotes a bit of racism.


----------



## Blue (Jul 23, 2013)

Since white people don't wear hoodies amirite


----------



## ShadowReij (Jul 23, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> But the truth of the matter is that a hoodie doesn't eqaul thuggish. The fact that people say shit like that denotes a bit of racism.



No it doesn't, anyone can wear a hoodie (hood up) and look suspicious. It doesn't equal thugish but it certainly gives off that impression unfortunately.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 23, 2013)

ShadowReij said:


> No it doesn't, anyone can wear a hoodie (hood up) and look suspicious. It doesn't equal thugish but it certainly gives off that impression unfortunately.


To me it gives off the impression is cold or avoiding the rain.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 24, 2013)

I love Bill Whittle so much. If I was into dudes I would totally have his babies.
[YOUTUBE]Ebu6Yvzs4Ls[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Nemesis (Jul 24, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> There is literally no evidence that Zimmerman started the fight though nor will we ever find any (because it didn't happen). Forensic evidence though allows us to make the logical conclusion that it is highly possible that Trayvon struck first.



There is no evidence either way.  Just because Trayvon wasn't hit doesn't mean Zimmerman didn't try first.  Basically the whole trial was he said he said.  The fact is IF Trayvon struck first Zimmerman had the right to defend himself.  If Zimmerman struck first (or tried to and missed which is entirely possible) then Trayvon had the right to knock him stone cold out.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Jul 24, 2013)

Who the hell is giving Nensense rep?


----------



## Blue (Jul 24, 2013)

Kagekatsu said:


> Who the hell is giving Nensense rep?



This is pretty funny:

Yoshihiro_Togashi	22:29, 18th Jul 2013	-1483 	
Yoshihiro_Togashi	22:29, 18th Jul 2013	-772	
Yoshihiro_Togashi	23:19, 18th Jul 2013	-1573 	
Yoshihiro_Togashi	23:55, 18th Jul 2013	-2097
Yoshihiro_Togashi	12:23, 19th Jul 2013	-746
Yoshihiro_Togashi	21:19, 19th Jul 2013	-34	
Yoshihiro_Togashi	05:33, 20th Jul 2013	-357	

etc, etc, etc, like 10 more negs, and then

Yoshihiro_Togashi	00:34, 24th Jul 2013	16291

Just like that, the magic is gone.


----------



## Lee-Sensei (Jul 24, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Why can't you just be a humble grown up and admit that you were wrong and that Trayvon was a dirty thug who assaulted a man and deserved to get put down?



Why can't you be grown up and leave it alone. All I said is that I'm done. You believe that Trayvon was a thug and in the nobility of Stormfront.org and whatever else you want to believe in. I disagree with you. This argument is going no where.



> Translation: "I know I'm wrong and I'll pretend the reason I'm running with my tail between my legs right now is because I'm the bigger person, that'll show them."



Nope. It means that I'm bored with it.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 24, 2013)

Admins can do strange stuff with rep like rep you multiple times in a row and I think even remove reps.


----------



## Blue (Jul 24, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Admins can do strange stuff with rep like rep you multiple times in a row and I think even remove reps.



I could also just set his rep to any number I wanted without having to bother deleting them or repping him myself. But I don't believe I've ever done that except as jokes, setting someone's rep to -50 billion.


----------



## Zaru (Jul 24, 2013)

I just love destroying the neg efforts of dozens of people with two clicks, it always leaves them confused.



Nemesis said:


> There is no evidence either way.  Just because Trayvon wasn't hit doesn't mean Zimmerman didn't try first.  Basically the whole trial was he said he said.  The fact is IF Trayvon struck first Zimmerman had the right to defend himself.  If Zimmerman struck first (or tried to and missed which is entirely possible) then Trayvon had the right to knock him stone cold out.



Knocking someone out "stone cold" is reasonable force when a guy "fails to hit you" nowadays?
By all means Trayvon had a right to defend himself if Zimmerman threatened his health, and shooting him was clearly an overreaction on Zimmerman's part even with his version of the story (a non-lethal wound probably would have done the trick too), but nothing indicates that Trayvon's life was in danger until he was already having the upper hand. Or am I missing something?


----------



## Xin (Jul 24, 2013)

Zaru said:


> I just love destroying the neg efforts of dozens of people with two clicks, it always leaves them confused.



I already heard about that. 

Would do the same with that kind of power.


----------



## Keile (Jul 24, 2013)

PR stunt or not, this fat racist murderer should be in prison. He should have at least gotten manslaughter, which was well within the law's interpretation. This  case was partially lost in jury selection.


----------



## Zaru (Jul 24, 2013)

Keile said:


> PR stunt or not, this fat racist murderer should be in prison.



Based on what evidence, again?

Well, you might change the charge to a different crime and that might be a case. We already know that the prosecution made a mistake with that.


----------



## Gino (Jul 24, 2013)

He's still gonna perish.....


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 24, 2013)

Keile said:


> PR stunt or not, this fat racist murderer should be in prison. He should have at least gotten manslaughter, which was well within the law's interpretation. This  case was partially lost in jury selection.





Gino said:


> He's still gonna perish.....






Let me guess, you guys didn't even watch the trial?


----------



## Gino (Jul 24, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Let me guess, you guys didn't even watch the trial?



LET ME GUESS FUCK YOU NENSENSE!!!!!


----------



## Keile (Jul 24, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Based on what evidence, again?



I already outlined my reasoning in another thread so I'll just post what I said then:

"Florida Murder #2:

An act is “imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind” if it is an act or series of acts that:

a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.



I'm OK with Zimmerman initiating the contact by racially profiling and stalking the kid at night with a gun in tow. I don't have much doubt he profiled Trayvon and pursued the kid with bad intentions. In other words, I think Zimmerman harbored a "depraved mind" when he left to confront Trayvon. So it's 2nd degree murder. But I'd be OK with a lesser manslaughter charge too.

Only two facts need to proven beyond a reasonable doubt for manslaughter:

1. Trayvon Martin is dead.
2. George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin.

---

The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:

1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or
2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or
3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

---

None of the above apply for Zimmerman imho, manslaughter was a fine charge if murder is too much of a stretch for some people.



> Well, you might change the charge to a different crime and that might be a case. We already know that the prosecution made a mistake with that.



The judge (likely as a favor) later included manslaughter as a possible conviction and at least one juror was in favor of it in backroom discussions. I don't put much blame on the prosecution. I guess not enough of the jury thought Zim was guilty of anything so he as acquitted.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Jul 24, 2013)

Gino said:


> LET ME GUESS FUCK YOU NENSENSE!!!!!



Best post rite hare!!!


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 24, 2013)

Gino said:


> LET ME GUESS FUCK YOU NENSENSE!!!!!



What a mature response.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 24, 2013)

Keile said:


> I already outlined my reasoning in another thread so I'll just post what I said then:
> 
> "Florida Murder #2:
> 
> ...



Every single thing you posted was just grossly exaggerated or straight up fictional bullshit. Please stick with logic and facts rather than laughable emotional appeals. Zimmerman was a great guy and not a racist in any way whatsoever, there is countless evidence to support this


----------



## Gino (Jul 24, 2013)

I'm not on anybodies sides idiot......


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 24, 2013)

Gino said:


> I'm not on anybodies sides idiot......



Which is why you want an innocent man to die for being forced to kill his assaulter in self defense?


----------



## Keile (Jul 24, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Every single thing you posted was just grossly exaggerated or straight up fictional bullshit. Please stick with logic and facts rather than laughable emotional appeals. Zimmerman was a great guy and not a racist in any way whatsoever, there is countless evidence to support this



Part was my post was just Florida state requirements for 2nd degree murder and manslaughter convictions. The other was my own analysis, which relies on the notion Zimmerman was racially profiling Trayvon. This part is my own opinion. 

But if you know the manslaughter and murder facts are inaccurate (this is essentially what you are saying), you can post the real requirements (there's a chance my source got the charge details wrong). If you can't, then people should take note of how "grossly exaggerated" the so-called "fictional bullshit" truly is.



> Zimmerman was a great guy and not a racist in any way whatsoever, there is countless evidence to support this



Speaking about grossly exaggerated and straight up fictional bullshit...


----------



## Gino (Jul 24, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Which is why you want an innocent man to die for being forced to kill his assaulter in self defense?



What are you talking about?


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 24, 2013)

Keile said:


> Part was my post was just Florida state requirements for 2nd degree murder and manslaughter convictions. As far as I know, the requirements are factual. If you know they are different, you can post the real requirements (there's a chance my source got the charge details wrong), else nobody should listen to your unhinged accusations.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking about grossly exaggerated and straight up fictional bullshit...



Your entire rant only works if what you said about Zimmermans thoughts, character, and actions are true which they aren't in the slightest.

And Zimmerman wasn't a great and not racist guy? That's why he had plenty of black friends, took a black girl to prom, saved a black mans life from corrupt cops, volunteered his time to help kids in poverty (blacks), and even voted for Bush 2: Socialist Boogaloo.


----------



## Zaru (Jul 24, 2013)

Shush man, if a white guy treats blacks better than most black people do, he's clearly just a horrible racist that tries to hide his true nature


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 24, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Shush man, if a white guy treats blacks better than most black people do, he's clearly just a horrible racist that tries to hide his true nature



Clearly. Hell, he probably just died his Aryan white skin tan and his Aryan blond hair black and was just infiltrating the blacks to get them on his so that he could deliver them all to his Grand Imperial Master Wizard KKK overlords.


----------



## Gino (Jul 24, 2013)

AHAHAHAAAAAA!!! YOU GUYZ SO FUNNYZZZZZZ


----------



## Keile (Jul 24, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Your entire rant only works if what you said about Zimmermans thoughts, character, and actions are true which they aren't in the slightest.



A manslaughter conviction only requires a blanket summary of what is supposed Zimmerman's mind state was that night. There's circumstantial and background evidence Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon as a dangerous black thug type that night, which is why Zimmerman took his gun and went in pursuit. Many believe this, including at least one law professor, so it's not as though I am alone.



> And Zimmerman wasn't a great and not racist guy? That's why he had plenty of black friends, took a black girl to prom, saved a black mans life from corrupt cops, volunteered his time to help kids in poverty (blacks), and even voted for Bush 2: Socialist Boogaloo.



Give me a break. Every supposed racist says he has black friends.  I don't know who Zimmerman took to prom and I might never know. Studies show a good number of Democrats hold racial bias, just not as many or as much as Republicans, so the fact Zimmerman voted for Obama does not mean he is free of bias. The question is whether he held racial bias that night and acted on it, not whether he thinks blacks are inferior. He probably doesn't think Mexicans are inferior either, but evidence shows he did stereotype nevertheless. The guy wanted to work in law enforcement and and given his record, that was unlikely without a record of reformation.


----------



## Blue (Jul 24, 2013)

> There's circumstantial and background evidence Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon as a dangerous black thug type that night



Remove "racially" and "black" and this statement is true
Leave them in, and it's completely shamelessly false

Even with them removed, "circumstantial" evidence of something that isn't illegal isn't a good reason to send someone to prison


----------



## Keile (Jul 24, 2013)

Blue said:


> Remove "racially" and "black" and this statement is true
> Leave them in, and it's completely shamelessly false
> 
> Even with them removed, "circumstantial" evidence of something that isn't illegal isn't a good reason to send someone to prison



Can't because if Trayvon had been white,  it's likely he would have been left alone. You admitted this yourself in a different thread. In this sense, Trayvon's blackness was integral to Zimmerman's profiling. Without it, everything falls apart.

And hey, murderers get convicted on circumstantial evidence occasionally. Rarely does anyone actually see a murder take place. It's usually DNA which beats a conviction in many circumstantial-based cases. Then again, oftentimes DNA evidence confirms a circumstantial-based conviction and you never hear about it in the news.

Some background info:
"Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence". The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence."

I guess you don't believe Timothy McVeigh should be in prison.


----------



## Zaru (Jul 24, 2013)

I just love how Zimmerman would have had an easier time just randomly murdering someone in cold blood for no reason whatsoever compared to "racially profiling" a black teenager walking around alone in the rain in the evening.

Apparently, , which caused the neighborhood watch to come into existence in the first place, paying special attention to an individual WITH AN INCREDIBLY INCREASED LIKELIHOOD FOR BEING A CRIMINAL COMPARED TO ANY OTHER POSSIBLE AGE/GENDER/RACE COMBINATION... is "racial bias". Well fucking of course it's racial bias, but how the fuck is that Zimmerman's shortcoming? The entire neighborhood thought that way for good reasons. 

If it's racist to take actions based on empiric observations/evidence that include race as a factor, then we might as well all kill ourselves, because apparently self-preservation is racist now. Brb walking into a dangerous black ghetto with my wallet sticking out of my pants.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 24, 2013)

Keile said:


> A manslaughter conviction only requires a blanket summary of what is supposed Zimmerman's mind state was that night. There's circumstantial and background evidence Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon as a dangerous black thug type that night, which is why Zimmerman took his gun and went in pursuit. Many believe this, including at least one law professor, so it's not as though I am alone.
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a break. Every supposed racist says he has black friends.  I don't know who Zimmerman took to prom and I might never know. Studies show a good number of Democrats hold racial bias, just not as many or as much as Republicans, so the fact Zimmerman voted for Obama does not mean he is free of bias. The question is whether he held racial bias that night and acted on it, not whether he thinks blacks are inferior. He probably doesn't think Mexicans are inferior either, but evidence shows he did stereotype nevertheless. The guy wanted to work in law enforcement and and given his record, that was unlikely without a record of reformation.



You do realize that he might have already had the gun on him right? Lots of people who have legal concealed carry permits do. Your entire argument is just you jumping to ridiculous conclusions due to your own emotionally fueled biases.


----------



## Keile (Jul 24, 2013)

Zaru said:


> I just love how Zimmerman would have had an easier time just randomly murdering someone in cold blood for no reason whatsoever compared to "racially profiling" a black teenager walking around alone in the rain in the evening.



I don't see how he would have had an easier time. He'd probably be in prison for murder.




> Apparently, , which caused the neighborhood watch to come into existence in the first place, paying special attention to an individual WITH AN INCREDIBLY INCREASED LIKELIHOOD FOR BEING A CRIMINAL COMPARED TO ANY OTHER POSSIBLE AGE/GENDER/RACE COMBINATION... is "racial bias". Well fucking of course it's racial bias, but how the fuck is that Zimmerman's shortcoming? The entire neighborhood thought that way for good reasons.



The "entire neighborhood" did not act and kill someone. Zimmerman's racial profiling implies ill will and spite towards Trayvon when he left his car with a gun in tow. That's enough for manslaughter whereas 2nd degree murder in this case requires a determination as to who initiated the fight. Legally, Zimmerman's shortcoming was not his bias per se, but what that bias motivated him to do. Frankly, to act out against someone because of some preconceived notion as to their likely criminality (which fluctuates depending on inane things like time of day, grades, age, time of year, arrests) is ridiculous and ill-advised. Any single person can be more of a risk than another.



> If it's racist to take actions based on empiric observations/evidence that include race as a factor, then we might as well all kill ourselves, because apparently self-preservation is racist now. Brb walking into a dangerous black ghetto with my wallet sticking out of my pants.



To pose an example: Certain types of Americans have the highest rate of hate crimes against other types of Americans, does that mean one group should take actions based on empiric observations/evidence that include race as a factor before any particular person commits any crime? Yes or No?

And what actions are justifiable to guard against a potential hate crime? Can I beat a white Neo Nazi to death and then say it's because there was a higher-than-average risk he would attack and possibly kill me, even though he wasn't doing anything but looking suspicious at the time of death?


----------



## Elite Uchiha (Jul 24, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Apparently, , which caused the neighborhood watch to come into existence in the first place, paying special attention to an individual WITH AN INCREDIBLY INCREASED LIKELIHOOD FOR BEING A CRIMINAL COMPARED TO ANY OTHER POSSIBLE AGE/GENDER/RACE COMBINATION... is "racial bias". Well fucking of course it's racial bias, but how the fuck is that Zimmerman's shortcoming? The entire neighborhood thought that way for good reasons.
> 
> If it's racist to take actions based on empiric observations/evidence that include race as a factor, then we might as well all kill ourselves, because apparently self-preservation is racist now. Brb walking into a dangerous black ghetto with my wallet sticking out of my pants.



This just reminds of the time when news stations reported the Boston bombers to be of dark complexion, yet it was the exact opposite. 

Blame it on the blacks, I like that


----------



## Kagekatsu (Jul 24, 2013)

Not to interrupt this schadenfreude, but:



Priorities, wot'z dat?


----------



## Zaru (Jul 24, 2013)

Keile said:


> I don't see how he would have had an easier time. He'd probably be in prison for murder.


I'm talking about a similar scenario where it's not clear who started the whole thing. Difference being, the country wouldn't care one bit. Just another random death. Especially if the victim wasn't black, or the perpetrator was black too.



Keile said:


> The "entire neighborhood" did not act and kill someone. Zimmerman's racial profiling implies ill will and spite towards Trayvon when he left his car with a gun in tow. Zimmerman's shortcoming was not his bias per se, but what that bias motivated him to do.


They didn't because they trusted people like Zimmerman to make such decisions (probably not the best idea, but still)
What did his bias motivate him to do? If there was a series of break-ins done by white 80-year-olds with hats (using an absurd example to show how absurd what you say is), and he had followed an 80 year old wearing a hat based on that empiric observation, would that make him bigoted against old people? 
Nothing in Zimmerman's history suggests a bias against black people, quite the opposite actually, but suddenly there's no other explanation despite what happened in the neighborhood?
He (most likely, nobody can say for sure) did something based on experience and thus statistics. You only find this decision so reprehensible because Trayvon was black. For some reason you are dead set on the idea that if someone makes an empirical decision to act that involves black skin, it has to be racist, and thus it's worse than any other reason.
You throw logic and reason out of the window because someone who isn't black did something bad to a black person. At least that's the only explanation I can find for being so fixated on painting Zimmerman as a racist.



Keile said:


> White Americans have the highest rate of hate crimes against certain minorities, does that mean minorities should take actions based on empiric observations/evidence that include race as a factor before any particular person commits any crime? Yes or No?


If they or their surroundings have frequently been the victims of such crimes? Yes. Welcome to the 20th century social movements.
Otherwise you apply general statistics. Blacks are now incredibly more likely to be the victim of another black person than of a "white hate crime", so "taking action against that" would be an unnecessary action compared to much more pressing dangers.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 24, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> In most peoples books, somebody who purposely dresses in thuggish attire, sells drugs, illegally owns a weapon, and routinely got into fights would be considered a thug.



Then most people are retards.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 24, 2013)

Keile, profiling someone who acts suspiciously like a burglar scouting a neighborhood isn't the same as racially profiling someone.



Kagekatsu said:


> Not to interrupt this schadenfreude, but:
> 
> 
> 
> Priorities, wot'z dat?



Yeah, this has been brought up a lot and it doesn't have a chance in hell since everyone knows Zimmerman isn't a racist. It's just a last desperate attempt to get something on a guy that was painted as the devil by the media and then declared not guilty by a court of law.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 24, 2013)

Is anybody else disgusted with Bush 2: Socialist Boogaloo for his most recent statements about poor innocent 12 year old TrayTray? I mean it's like he is trying to incite riots or something by promoting his ignorance.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jul 24, 2013)

Why are you calling him traytray? That's so derogatory.


----------



## Gino (Jul 24, 2013)

Hand Banana said:


> Why are you calling him traytray? That's so derogatory.



because nobody can slap him in the mouth on the internet.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 24, 2013)

Hand Banana said:


> Why are you calling him traytray? That's so derogatory.



It's a baby name and it is used in reference to how all of you people seem to believe that this 6 foot tall drug dealing violent thug is just an innocent 12 year old baby who din do nuffin and is the reincarnation of Gandhi and would have brought about world peace if his life wasn't cruelly ripped from his hands by by that viscous Arnold Schwarzenegger-esque racist Aryan baby murder named George Adolf Zimmerman.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jul 24, 2013)

Gino said:


> because nobody can slap him in the mouth on the internet.


>Legendary Ninja

Dat title.


----------



## Zaru (Jul 24, 2013)

Inb4 someone doesn't read this properly:

Profiling someone with factors that include their race really has too much of a stigma attached to it for historical reasons. It can be nothing more but applied statistics.

For example, east asians in the USA and Europe are extremely underrepresented in the crime statistics, so you can pretty much lower your guard around them compared to even white americans. Is that racist and reprehensible now? 
If you use the analogy with black americans and their representation in crime statistics, apparently it must be. Otherwise, why the double standard?

As a psychological self-test for those who are itching to scream racism, ask yourself who you'd rather have walking behind you at night in the dark in a less than stellar looking neighborhood. East asian, white, hispanic or black teenagers. (Though that might be influenced by which of them you possibly belong to)
If you picked one of the first two options, congratulations, you have a healthy ability for risk assessment and self-preservation. If not, you're either a candidate for the Darwin award or well-armed and itching to bust some caps. It would be nice if we could be blind to appearances, but the real world puts a wrench in that plan with socio-economic realities.

Note: In its real world application, this obviously includes factors such as location, since young male blacks in a business district of Munich are infinitely less likely to be criminals than young male blacks in a run-down Detroit ghetto, clothing, behaviour and way of speaking, etc... appearance is just one of these many observable factors.
Considering these factors is what separates logic from racism, in case you didn't get that until now. *Plenty of people can't tell or don't understand the difference.*

Zimmerman might have made a decision based on Trayvon's race (the operator asked him for it), but that decision most likely wasn't due to racial bigotry. It was due to what the neighborhood had experienced in the year before the incident.

Heck, I didn't know about that whole neighborhood thing until today, and it really changes the perspective a lot.


----------



## Murdoc (Jul 24, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Inb4 someone doesn't read this properly:
> 
> Profiling someone with factors that include their race really has too much of a stigma attached to it for historical reasons. It can be nothing more but applied statistics.
> 
> ...



Agreed.

Stereotypes don't just emerge out of thin air. This whole case has been blown out of proportion.


----------



## Keile (Jul 24, 2013)

Zaru said:


> I'm talking about a similar scenario where it's not clear who started the whole thing. Difference being, the country wouldn't care one bit. Just another random death. Especially if the victim wasn't black, or the perpetrator was black too.



The specter of racial profiling, how long it took Zimmerman to get arrested, Trayvon's ethnicity, etc. Any scenario with these factors would draw attention.



> They didn't because they trusted people like Zimmerman to make such decisions (probably not the best idea, but still)
> What did his bias motivate him to do? If there was a series of break-ins done by white 80-year-olds with hats (using an absurd example to show how absurd what you say is), and he had followed an 80 year old wearing a hat based on that empiric observation, would that make him bigoted against old people?



Zimmerman's job was to essentially to call the cops and report things, not confront random black kids walking home. Taking action against any old man with a hat because an old man with a hat committed a crime somewhere would imply a more targeted form of profiling, and would still be wrong. Stereotyping and discriminating against an old man with a hat because of other old man with hats is wrong.




> Nothing in Zimmerman's history suggests a bias against black people, quite the opposite actually, but suddenly there's no other explanation despite what happened in the neighborhood?



Based on the events surrounding the case: the robbery, the "they always get away", Trayvon's profiling, etc. It sounds like racial bias motivating Zimmerman to do what he did. I can tell you an African American man wouldn't follow and attack Trayvon. 



> He (most likely, nobody can say for sure) did something based on experience and thus statistics.



If one uses experience and statistics to justify racial profiling, there are still victims and it is still racist and wrong.




> You only find this decision so reprehensible because Trayvon was black. For some reason you are dead set on the idea that if someone makes an empirical decision to act that involves black skin, it has to be racist, and thus it's worse than any other reason.
> You throw logic and reason out of the window because someone who isn't black did something bad to a black person. At least that's the only explanation I can find for being so fixated on painting Zimmerman as a racist.



It is certainly racist to make an empirical decision like stalking on someone based on skin color as that implies racial stereotype. generalizations and discriination It's like saying that because Mexicans steal at a higher-than-average, it's justifiable to take protective action and not to hire Mexicans based on empiricism and statistics. That's racial discrimination in the United States and justified by your logic. It's also de facto racist. 

As for you own opinion of me, I could care less because it isn't based in anything. I complain when I see injustice and I see racists defending it. 



> If they or their surroundings have frequently been the victims of such crimes? Yes. Welcome to the 20th century social movements.
> Otherwise you apply general statistics. Blacks are now incredibly more likely to be the victim of another black person than of a "white hate crime", so "taking action against that" would be an unnecessary action compared to much more pressing dangers.



Social movements protest institutional and cultural racism, not any individual person, so the analogy is invalid. 

First, general statistics can be misleading and there's no reason a person can't pick and choose which potential dangers they are willing to do something about and which they are fine with dealing with. Your "unnecessary action" quip is a judgement-based term as there is in fact no inherent line I can see which separates "unnecessary action" from "necessary action".
So by your twisted earlier logic, a person could decide to kill Neo Nazis if they aren't willing to deal with that crime risk, even if there's a greater risk someone with a mental health problem might be more likely to attack them. Like I said, there is no inherent line where one must stop attacking when there's a potential danger. 

As respects the black-on-black crime statistic, it's coached in circumstance anyway, and changes as circumstance does. For example, merely owning a gun itself raises the risk of death for AAs. That's a circumstance-related statistic. It speaks to gang warfare, delinquency and drug dealing. An AA gangster who mostly deals with AA gangsters has a greater chance of another AA gangster than a Neo Nazi. The same is true in LA, except replace AA gangster with Mexican-American.  But a normal African American person living in a mostly white town rife with Neo Nazis has a greater chance of being the victim of crime from Neo Nazis than from another African American. So even following your logic (which doesn't make sense anyway but I digress), what is the argument against the African American killing Neo Nazis as a preemptive measure in a situation where Neo Nazis now present the most potential risk?


----------



## TSC (Jul 24, 2013)

Kagekatsu said:


> Not to interrupt this schadenfreude, but:
> 
> 
> 
> Priorities, wot'z dat?



Detroit have their own more pressing and important worries they should be focusing on. Not fucking Zimmerman/Tray trial.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 24, 2013)

Following somebody is not confronting them. Why don't you people understand that?


----------



## Keile (Jul 24, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Zimmerman might have made a decision based on Trayvon's race (the operator asked him for it), but that decision most likely wasn't due to racial bigotry. It was due to what the neighborhood had experienced in the year before the incident.



Doing such by itself is evidence of racial bigotry, as person without ignorant bigotry does not make blanket statements about a group and discriminate based on group statistics. If Zimmerman had admitted to racial profiling during the trial, as you believe it, he would be in prison.
If everyone profiled, people would be infuriated.

"I'm not hiring you. Robbery statistics are too high."

..

"We can't have you playing with us; we don't deal with racist Southerners."


----------



## Zaru (Jul 24, 2013)

Keile, I'm not defending WHAT Zimmerman did, most people would have decided differently including myself, but my point is that the reason why he made the decision to follow Trayvon is PROFILING INCLUDING THE FACTOR RACE, not RACISM. There's a huge difference. Or is the police not allowed to search for black suspects anymore? That's profiling including the factor race as well.

He made a bad decision for sure, but that decision was based on what happened in the neighborhood, which happened to identify young males, especially the black ones, as likely suspects for break-ins. That much is a fact, and he acted on it. Not because he thought that all young blacks are probably criminals, and especially not because of hatred for blacks, or anything like that. There is NO indicator for this, given his personal history. At all. 

I will never claim that what Zimmerman did was right, you know. If he had decided differently, Trayvon would still be alive and he would live a peaceful life, and no crime would have happened that day. But the "racist" assumptions are simply unfounded.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 24, 2013)

Keile said:


> Doing such by itself is evidence of racial bigotry, as person without ignorant bigotry does not make blanket statements about a group and discriminate based on group statistics. If Zimmerman had admitted to racial profiling during the trial, as you believe it, he would be in prison.
> If everyone profiled, people would be infuriated.
> 
> "I'm not hiring you. Robbery statistics are too high."
> ...



I'm not attracted to black girls, would you consider me racist for not wanting to have a black girlfriend because of that? Not everything is racial bigotry buddy.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Jul 24, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> I'm not attracted to black girls, would you consider me racist for not wanting to have a black girlfriend because of that? Not everything is racial bigotry buddy.



Yes. **


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 24, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Trayvon would still be alive and *he would live a peaceful life*,



You don't actually believe that do you?


----------



## Hand Banana (Jul 24, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> It's a baby name and it is used in reference to how all of you people seem to believe that this 6 foot tall drug dealing violent thug is just an innocent 12 year old baby who din do nuffin and is the reincarnation of Gandhi and would have brought about world peace if his life wasn't cruelly ripped from his hands by by that viscous Arnold Schwarzenegger-esque racist Aryan baby murder named George Adolf Zimmerman.





Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> What a mature response.





Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Everybody pay close attention, these are the type of people on TrayTray's side.



You really should eat your own words.


----------



## C-Moon (Jul 24, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:
			
		

> I'm not attracted to black girls, would you consider me racist for not wanting to have a black girlfriend because of that



You're considered racist because of stuff like this:


Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> White Nationalism isn't about racism, it is about helping those of your own race during the mainstream medias and governments current war on white people.



You're not gonna fool anyone who's done their research.


----------



## Zaru (Jul 24, 2013)

Togashi, why wouldn't he? He would have no media attention at all as there would be no case.



Keile said:


> Doing such by itself is evidence of racial bigotry, as person without ignorant bigotry does not make blanket statements about a group and discriminate based on group statistics. If Zimmerman had admitted to racial profiling during the trial, as you believe it, he would be in prison.
> If everyone profiled, people would be infuriated.
> 
> "I'm not hiring you. Robbery statistics are too high."
> ...



It's funny because that's exactly what affirmative action does. 
"You're a white male? Sorry, you're not DIVERSE enough."
Sure they still have it better overall but discrimination is still discrimination. 

Also, wow. Why don't you understand the difference between "deciding that there's a higher risk" and making generalizations? We can't judge every person individually because that takes a lot of fucking time and often it would be too late by the time you can make a judgement. In a fairy tale world that might work but we live in reality.
"Oh, so these people were indeed not very trustworthy! Who would've thought!", said the black southerner while the KKK members tightened the rope around his neck.

And you didn't read what I wrote about all the other factors that lead to such decisions, without which race alone doesn't matter at all. A particular race doesn't say anything. Age, gender, socio-economic factors etc. all come together to create a more accurate assessment based on chance. We all do that in daily life to everyone we meet. It saves us a lot of trouble. Don't even dare to pretend that you don't, it would be an obvious lie. It's a function of the human brain.

The very reason why employers aren't allowed to discriminate based on such things anymore is that the overall chance for e.g. criminal behaviour is very low since only a small part of such a minority is criminal even if their chance is much higher than the average. And usually, such people wouldn't meet other qualifications anyway, so there's no notable risk involved. That's quite different. There's no logical reason to stop considering someone based on race alone.

But the ethical and economical problem is, at which point should you be allowed to let statistics influence your hiring decisions? We allow them to factor in education, experience, age etc. which increase the chance for having skills. We allow them to consider police records and personal history, which influence the chance for being a stable employee. We allow them to factor in APPEARANCE, if people have to look in some particular way to fit the company (flight attendants are one example, or would you want a greasy 300 pound fat ass flight attendant stomping through the airplane? Obviously not), which isn't a far cry from race which is mostly perceived through appearance.
What about ex-convicts with a 50% chance of committing a crime again? What if there's a very small minority from a bad part of another country that is deeply involved in criminal activities? Does a company have to consider someone equally if similar people have a 80% chance of being criminal or bad employees? For a job in a bank, for example? Where does the prohibition of "discrimination" end and make way for considering risks rationally?
If someone has a 90% chance of being a high risk for the company, but he happens to be black, should the company be forced to consider him equally? At which percentage does baseless discrimination end and rightful caution begin? That's truly a difficult question and we're going to face it soon enough, especially since the US love lawsuits over discrimination.

I don't support unfounded discrimination, but there's a point at which the countermeasures turn into forcing people to take risks and decisions that they normally wouldn't ever take. Racism has nothing to do with that, race is just perceived as appearance which is just another factor flowing into the decision process. And people make decisions based on factors that relate to information, if that wasn't obvious.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 24, 2013)

Gamma Akutabi said:


> You're considered racist because of stuff like this:
> 
> 
> You're not gonna fool anyone who's done their research.



That is completely unrelated to this. I asked my question because this kid seems to be one of those people that thinks that literally everything is racism.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 24, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Togashi, why wouldn't he? He would have no media attention at all as there would be no case.



Wait, are we talking about Trayvon or Zimmerman? Because if Trayvon didn't get put down then he would likely just continue selling drugs and getting into fights.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jul 24, 2013)

Keile said:


> Doing such by itself is evidence of racial bigotry, as person without ignorant bigotry does not make blanket statements about a group and discriminate based on group statistics.


You don't have to make blanket statements about an entire group to be suspicious of a particular individual based on his behavior and demographic.  With the latter you're making a probabilistic judgment based on statistics.  Is it rational to believe that all black people are criminals because because they commit crimes at a higher rate?  Obviously not.  But would it be rational to assume a black teenager is _more likely_ to commit a crime if that is what the statistics prove?  Even putting behavior aside, yes it would.  That doesn't mean skin color is the cause, but it does mean it can be a precursor to the cause in a closed system (ie; socioeconomic status, social upbringing, etc).  



> If Zimmerman had admitted to racial profiling during the trial, as you believe it, he would be in prison.


Lolno.  At best, the prosecution could have tried to use it as evidence for it being a hate crime.  But whether he was _correct_ in being suspicious of Trayvon was never a question to begin with; he wasn't.  What matters is whether he had _a right_ to be suspicious at all, and he did, and whether he had _a right_ to follow Trayvon, and he did.


----------



## baconbits (Jul 24, 2013)

AFG said it well but I think that there are a lot of Zimmerman haters that need to take a chill pill.  The guy rescued some people and did a good deed.  His good deed is not ruined by the fact that a jury had a different opinion of his actions than you do.

Second, even if you want to pretend Zimmerman is a hispanic who doesn't like blacks there is nothing that makes that sentiment illegal, and a lot of good reasons why he might suspect Martin when he entered the neighborhood.  Either way, when his head was being bashed in he had every right to defend himself.


----------



## Chains (Jul 24, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Wait, are we talking about Trayvon or Zimmerman? Because if Trayvon didn't get put down then he would likely just continue selling drugs and getting into fights.



When will you drop your idea of Trayvon being a thug?


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Jul 24, 2013)

More relevant to the actual subject of the thread, I wonder who the crash victim was, and whether he has recovered.


----------



## CrazyAries (Jul 24, 2013)

Onomatopoeia said:


> More relevant to the actual subject of the thread, I wonder who the crash victim was, and whether he has recovered.



From ABC News:



If this story is correct, the names of the couple were released [via Zimmermann's Lawyer].  They were scheduled to talk about their experience but back out hours before they were to talk to the press.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 24, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> I'm not attracted to black girls, would you consider me racist for not wanting to have a black girlfriend because of that? Not everything is racial bigotry buddy.


Yeah actually I would. If you decided against dating someone solely because of race that's racism. 

I am not attracted to a lot of things. Blonde hair, most Asians, but if I met a sweet girl who I liked for other reasons I would date her if she was blonde or Asian.


----------



## Blue (Jul 24, 2013)




----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 24, 2013)

That makes no sense because Ben Ghazi wasn't anything in the first place. Most of these so called scandals that the Republicans have tried to bring up were manufactured. So much so that they ignored real shit that could be a scandal like the Iranians firing on a drone.


----------



## Crowned Clown (Jul 24, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Yeah actually I would. If you decided against dating someone solely because of race that's racism.
> 
> I am not attracted to a lot of things. Blonde hair, most Asians, but if I met a sweet girl who I liked for other reasons I would date her if she was blonde or Asian.



Well that would be hard considering your thing for Redheads. . .


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 24, 2013)

Crowned Clown said:


> Well that would be hard considering your thing for Redheads. . .


I love redheads, but that's not the only thing I like and it's not like that's all I date. Of all the girls I've had anything real with only like three were redheads.


----------



## Crowned Clown (Jul 24, 2013)

Just giving you a hard time man.

btw, fuck yeah Donald Glover.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 24, 2013)

Crowned Clown said:


> Just giving you a hard time man.
> 
> btw, fuck yeah Donald Glover.


Hells yeah, I have been listening to his shit for like two days straight.


----------



## TSC (Jul 24, 2013)

Crowned Clown said:


> Just giving you a hard time man.
> 
> btw, fuck yeah Donald Glover.



For a moment I read that as "Danny Glover" and was going to say, "That's not Danny Glover in CTK's avatar!"


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 24, 2013)

TSC said:


> For a moment I read that as "Danny Glover" and was going to say, "That's not Danny Glover in CTK's avatar!"


It's okay, we all look the same.


----------



## TSC (Jul 24, 2013)

Since when did Black=AZN?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 24, 2013)

I am so confused.


----------



## Crowned Clown (Jul 24, 2013)

Donald Glover = Danny Glover = Black


----------



## Crowned Clown (Jul 24, 2013)

= Will Smith




Wow that is racist.


----------



## Blue (Jul 24, 2013)

Fuck Will Smith.

...what were we talking about?


----------



## Lady Hinata (Jul 24, 2013)

Well good on him for doing that I guess.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 25, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Yeah actually I would. If you decided against dating someone solely because of race that's racism.
> 
> I am not attracted to a lot of things. Blonde hair, most Asians, but if I met a sweet girl who I liked for other reasons I would date her if she was blonde or Asian.



It would be shallow, not racist. Some people wouldn't even date certain women because of their hair color and that's a much smaller difference in appearance than the skin color.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 25, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> It would be shallow, not racist. Some people wouldn't even date certain women because of their hair color and that's a much smaller difference in appearance than the skin color.


No it's still racist. It's a choice based solely on race. There's probably a word for people who hate people of a certain hair color. I don't know what it's called. But the other thing is that.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jul 25, 2013)

So CTK, if I don't date this black chick I know because black chicks don't appeal to me, I'm still racist even though I have absolutely no issue with black people as a whole?


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 25, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No it's still racist. It's a choice based solely on race. There's probably a word for people who hate people of a certain hair color. I don't know what it's called. But the other thing is that.



Wait, what? Who said anything about hate? The question was if someone who doesn't date black chicks because of their appearance is racist, nobody said that person would hate black chicks.

The color of someone's skin is a huge part of their appearance and many people date based on looks, so how can you say that they're all racists or something equally bad?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 25, 2013)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> So CTK, if I don't date this black chick I know because black chicks don't appeal to me, I'm still racist even though I have absolutely no issue with black people as a whole?


Yup. Widen your horizons CTK will date any color girl. Now if they don't read I won't talk to them


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 25, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Yup. Widen your horizons CTK will date any color girl. Now if they don't read I won't talk to them



Then you're not shallow, congratulations, that doesn't change the fact that many people are and calling them racists because of it is dishonest and devalues the word racist (just like people who use it to describe people that criticize Islam).


----------



## TSC (Jul 25, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Yup. Widen your horizons CTK will date any color girl. Now if they don't read I won't talk to them



So you hate blind women?


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jul 25, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Yup. Widen your horizons CTK will date any color girl. Now if they don't read I won't talk to them



So by that logic, I'm homphobic/against homosexuality because homosexuality doesn't appeal to me. 

Also: good for you, but this isn't about you. 

That being said, I'm sure this logic of yours has validity in some cases, but for mine, it's bullshits. Smelly Smelly bullshits.


----------



## Xiammes (Jul 25, 2013)

You are racist if you don't know find chicks of a different race attractive, what is this shit? I really don't see how sexual preference has any bearing on your ideals of a race.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 25, 2013)

Xiammes said:


> You are racist if you don't know find chicks of a different race attractive, what is this shit? I really don't see how sexual preference has any bearing on your ideals of a race.


I like how people act like they don't understand what I said. If you use race as the sole reason for not dating someone who is otherwise attractive  that's racist. 

This isn't an argument, because I don't give a shit what most of you say.


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jul 25, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I like how people act like they don't understand what I said. If you use race as the sole reason for not dating someone who is otherwise attractive  that's racist.



So again: By that logic, because I'm not attracted to homosexual males and homosexuality doesn't appeal to me, I'm homophobic even though I have no issue with people being homosexual.



> This isn't an argument, because I don't give a shit what most of you say.



So "I'm right and you're wrong because I say so" mentality.

Talk about mature.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 25, 2013)

Yami Munesanzun said:


> So again: By that logic, because I'm not attracted to homosexual males and homosexuality doesn't appeal to me, I'm homophobic even though I have no issue with people being homosexual.



No that's called being straight. 



> So "I'm right and you're wrong because I say so" mentality.
> 
> Talk about mature.



It's called I'm right because I'm right.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 25, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No it's still racist. It's a choice based solely on race. There's probably a word for people who hate people of a certain hair color. I don't know what it's called. But the other thing is that.



I have no words for how goddamn stupid your opinion. Now keep in mind, I'm not calling you stupid (don't want to get banned), but do you have any fucking idea how dumb what you just said is? Physical attraction is subjective. I mean holy fuck man... I don't even know where to begin with you... What's next, are you going to tell me to check my privilege?


----------



## Yami Munesanzun (Jul 25, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No that's called being straight.



It's also called not being attracted to homosexuals because homosexuality doesn't appeal to you.




> It's called I'm right because I'm right.



You're _partially_ right at the most because of the associative connection, not by any actual conscious or sub-conscious prejudices against a race in these two specific situations.

Now if you're honestly going to sit there and tell me that you know my cognitive processes better than I do, you better damn well be my psychologist.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 25, 2013)

Remember everybody, these are the types of fucking people on TrayTray's side.


----------



## Xiammes (Jul 25, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I like how people act like they don't understand what I said. If you use race as the sole reason for not dating someone who is otherwise attractive  that's racist.
> 
> This isn't an argument, because I don't give a shit what most of you say.



What if I don't find someone from another race attractive, your logic is making me out to be a raciest. Its not the idea they are of another race, its that I don't find those races attractive.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 25, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Remember everybody, these are the types of fucking people on TrayTray's side.



Quiet, Juilliard reject. 



Xiammes said:


> What if I don't find someone from another race attractive, your logic is making me out to be a raciest. Its not the idea they are of another race, its that I don't find those races attractive.



Then that's the same as just not finding them attractive. But if you find some attractive and don't date them because of race that's a problem. 





> A Florida couple, who was rescued with their children from a rollover crash by George Zimmerman, is terrified of becoming targets of people who have threatened to kill him following the court's Trayvon Martin innocent verdict.
> 
> "They are very grateful to Zimmerman for what he did, but they do not want to get involved," a friend of Mark and Dana Michelle Gerstle told The Daily Mail in London.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ultra Instinct Vegito (Jul 25, 2013)

I don't like Indian girls because they are Indian.


----------



## C-Moon (Jul 25, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Remember everybody, these are the types of fucking people on TrayTray's side.



OTOH, Zimmerman has someone like you who thinks his ethnicity(partial Hispanic) denotes failure.


----------



## RyokoForTheWin (Jul 25, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Yup. Widen your horizons CTK will date any color girl. Now if they don't read I won't talk to them





TSC said:


> So you hate blind women?



LMAO.. so CTK hates blind women.. news at fucking eleven.



Zezima said:


> I don't like Indian girls because they are Indian.



Yay, we have a rascist who isn't trying to rationalize that they aren't. God bless you.

Also, I'm glad the family is alright.


----------



## Subarashii (Jul 25, 2013)

So I just heard on the news that it wasn't the Trayvon Martin George Zimmerman, with one "n" it was this other guy named George Zimmermann, and he's not all that happy about the other George taking credit for it.


----------



## Zaru (Jul 25, 2013)

Who the fuck is "the other George Zimmermann" and why would anyone even bother mentioning him unless he looks exactly like the Trayvon one?


----------



## Raiden (Jul 25, 2013)

lol trollida

fooling us since 2001


----------



## Subarashii (Jul 25, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Who the fuck is "the other George Zimmermann" and why would anyone even bother mentioning him unless he looks exactly like the Trayvon one?



Well apparently, this is a big publicity stunt... though I did hear this news on Fox"News" so, yeah....


----------



## Raiden (Jul 25, 2013)

Unliked FOX after all the Bengazi comments smh.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 25, 2013)

Subarashii said:


> So I just heard on the news that it wasn't the Trayvon Martin George Zimmerman, with one "n" it was this other guy named George Zimmermann, and he's not all that happy about the other George taking credit for it.


Holy shit. Well this makes him an even worse person. What do all the people who were cheering him on have to say now?


----------



## Aion Hysteria (Jul 25, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> I have no words for how goddamn stupid your opinion



Now lets not act like the majority of your posts aren't trash, bby.​


----------



## Blue (Jul 25, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Holy shit. Well this makes him an even worse person. What do all the people who were cheering him on have to say now?



I say please don't be rused so easily? Anyway, let's talk about this:




> She said she "felt confused" because "if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it.''
> 
> "But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty,'' she added.



How come you guys aren't as smart as this juror? We've explained it half a hundred times.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Jul 25, 2013)

Subarashii said:


> So I just heard on the news that it wasn't the Trayvon Martin George Zimmerman, with one "n" it was this other guy named George Zimmermann, and he's not all that happy about the other George taking credit for it.


So I assume we're back to Level Aryan Nation Puppy Kicker.

Though a source would be nice.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 25, 2013)

Kagekatsu said:


> Though a source would be nice.



This. I love how quick the TrayTrayers are to jump on this bandwagon that could have just been made up out of the blue, yet demanded proof when we posted that TrayTray was a thug and tried to come up with any strawman they could to ignore the proof.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Jul 25, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> This. I love how quick the TrayTrayers are to jump on this bandwagon that could have just been made up out of the blue, yet demanded proof when we posted that TrayTray was a thug and tried to come up with any strawman they could to ignore the proof.



You're not helping your side either, for the record.

I'm just here as an impartial observer.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 25, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> This. I love how quick the TrayTrayers are to jump on this bandwagon that could have just been made up out of the blue, yet demanded proof when we posted that TrayTray was a thug and tried to come up with any strawman they could to ignore the proof.



The proof of what? Two unrelated incidents prove nothing.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 25, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The proof of what? Two unrelated incidents prove nothing.



After that shit you pulled last night your opinion is no longer relevant in this thread.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Jul 25, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> After that shit you pulled last night your opinion is no longer relevant in this thread.


...
Must...resist...using...Bender laugh harder clip


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 25, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> After that shit you pulled last night your opinion is no longer relevant in this thread.


What shit I pulled, calling you racist ass out? 

You were in here talking about White Rights. I'd shut the fuck up.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 25, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> What shit I pulled, calling you racist ass out?
> 
> You were in here talking about White Rights. I'd shut the fuck up.



Calling everybody not sexually attracted to black people racist is what I am referring to. You pretty much got laughed out of the thread.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jul 25, 2013)

The racist attraction thing is still going strong in here?  Jesus.




*Spoiler*: __ 





afgpride said:


> n.
> 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
> 2. *Discrimination or prejudice based on race.*
> 3. A person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others
> ...



My $0.02


----------



## Kagekatsu (Jul 25, 2013)

afgpride said:


> The racist attraction thing is still going strong in here?  Jesus.



Nah, just Nensense being Nensense and CTK being too stubborn to just walk away.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 25, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Calling everybody not sexually attracted to black people racist is what I am referring to. You pretty much got laughed out of the thread.


Not what I said. I said that if your only reason for not dating someone is their race, that's racist.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 25, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Not what I said. I said that if your only reason for not dating someone is their race, that's racist.



You do realize that dating tends to require some sexual attraction right? If there is none then its just a friendship.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 25, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> You do realize that dating tends to require some sexual attraction right? If there is none then its just a friendship.


You do realize that attraction is based on more than race, right?


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 25, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You do realize that attraction is based on more than race, right?



I
Don't
Find
Black
Skin
Sexually 
Attractive

That
Doesn't
Make
Somebody
Racist

Why
Don't
Aren't
You
Capable
Of
Comprehending 
That


----------



## colours (Jul 25, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Why
> *Don't
> Aren't
> You*
> ...





stay gold ponyboy


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 25, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> I
> Don't
> Find
> Black
> ...


Do you know what racism means?


----------



## Blue (Jul 25, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Do you know what racism means?



Neither of you do. Shut up.


----------



## Elite Uchiha (Jul 26, 2013)

Sorry but if your not attracted to Beyonce or Alicia Keys you have bigger problems to worry about.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 26, 2013)

Blue said:


> Neither of you do. Shut up.


I actually do, if you hold someone's race against them that's racism.


----------



## MegaultraHay (Jul 26, 2013)

Blue said:


> Neither of you do. Shut up.


**


----------



## Blackfeather Dragon (Jul 26, 2013)

Elite Uchiha said:


> Sorry but if your not attracted to Beyonce or Alicia Keys you have bigger problems to worry about.



Is it wrong that I find Rihanna and Nicky minaj more attractive than both of them


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 26, 2013)

Blackfeather Dragon said:


> Is it wrong that I find Rihanna and Nicky minaj more attractive than both of them


I think Nicki is fucking schizophrenic.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Jul 26, 2013)

Blackfeather Dragon said:


> Is it wrong that I find Rihanna and Nicky minaj more attractive than both of them


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 26, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Do you know what racism means?



Do you? Just because a black chick can't get me sexually aroused doesn't make me racist. Dating a girl relies on both of you having a sexual attraction towards each other, if there isn't then it's just a fucking friendship. It's not racism, just what turns you on. I mean holy fuck you have no clue what you are talking about.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Jul 26, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Do you? Just because a black chick can't get me sexually aroused doesn't make me racist. Dating a girl relies on both of you having a sexual attraction towards each other, if there isn't then it's just a fucking friendship. It's not racism, just what turns you on. I mean holy fuck you have no clue what you are talking about.



Do you have black friends, I mean REAL LYFE black friends?

Black coworkers and people your daddy pay to do odd jobs don't count.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 26, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Do you? Just because a black chick can't get me sexually aroused doesn't make me racist. Dating a girl relies on both of you having a sexual attraction towards each other, if there isn't then it's just a fucking friendship. It's not racism, just what turns you on. I mean holy fuck you have no clue what you are talking about.


Whatever you say, man. 

Oh, you dropped this: 



I'm sure you need to run along now. Crosses to burn in yards and people to harass.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 26, 2013)

Ayanli said:


> Do you have black friends, I mean REAL LYFE black friends?
> 
> Black coworkers and people your daddy pay to do odd jobs don't count.



Yes I do actually, 7 to be exact. 



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Whatever you say, man.
> 
> Oh, you dropped this:
> 
> ...



Wow, nice strawman buddy. You sure are mature.


----------



## Deleted member 234422 (Jul 26, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Yes I do actually, 7 to be exact.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, nice strawman buddy. You sure are mature.



And these 7 people know that you think of them as friends?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 26, 2013)

Yoshihiro_Togashi said:


> Yes I do actually, 7 to be exact.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, nice strawman buddy. You sure are mature.


That's not a strawman, that's me calling you a racist. In fact I didn't make any argument at all, but it's clear strawman is one more word you don't understand the meaning of. 

That's kind of a cafe thing though, "someone says something I don't like so I yell strawman."

Kind of like of the Bush era Republicans accusing anyone who disagreed with them of being against the country. 

And no this isn't a strawman either, this is what's called a _simile _( pronounced _sim?i?le_). It's a comparative statement. I do know these things might be new to you and I might be moving a little quick. But I have to help those less fortunate and it's clear you're out classed in every argument. 

Don't let the rug burn when I scrap you off the bottom of my shoe.


----------



## Fiona (Jul 26, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> That's not a strawman, that's me calling you a racist. In fact I didn't make any argument at all, but it's clear strawman is one more word you don't understand the meaning of.
> 
> That's kind of a cafe thing though, "someone says something I don't like so I yell strawman."
> 
> ...





Repped

EDIT: I cant rep you


----------



## Kagekatsu (Jul 26, 2013)

Getting back on topic, is there still confirmation on that "It was another Zimmerman that rescued that family" thing?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 26, 2013)

Kagekatsu said:


> Getting back on topic, is there still confirmation on that "It was another Zimmerman that rescued that family" thing?


I don't think it was real, not that it matters. The actions are unrelated to the original case and don't make him seem anymore innocent to those who think he's not.


----------



## Level7N00b (Jul 28, 2013)

Yeah, this is totally fake.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jul 28, 2013)

navy said:


> Batman doesnt use a gun.


----------



## Blue (Jul 28, 2013)

10/10, would buy 3 issues


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 28, 2013)

Comic books are so weird.


----------



## PopoTime (Jul 28, 2013)

Good on Zimmerman, he could have easily kept out of the spotlight and drove on, but he stopped to help.

I just find it disgusting that the family he saved cant associate or praise him because of fear of attacks.


----------



## Elite Uchiha (Jul 28, 2013)

Fear of attacks? Who gives a shit about that family in the grand scheme of things


----------



## Donquixote Doflamingo (Jul 28, 2013)

Lol togashi thinking he is not a racist.


----------



## Zaru (Jul 28, 2013)

Elite Uchiha said:


> Fear of attacks? Who gives a shit about that family in the grand scheme of things





It's the irony, man.

Saying something good about Zimmerman in public after having your life possibly saved by him is a reason to get death threats. Because people would sooner threaten someone's life than admit to Zimmerman not being the horrible person that CERTAIN MEDIA OUTLETS WHICH MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT BE CONNECTED THROUGH TYPICAL LIBERAL BIAS painted him as immediately.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jul 28, 2013)

Level7N00b said:


> Yeah, this is totally fake.


There's a lot of evidence that it was, particularly that the officer on the scene was a vocal Zimmerman supporter and previously had been in contact with Zimmerman.

However, as it has yet to have been investigated by a mainstream media source (and thus that much more credible), I haven't bothered posting and linking itt.

Most mainstream source I've seen covering it is Salon.


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 28, 2013)

Rica_Patin said:


> Do you? Just because a black chick can't get me sexually aroused doesn't make me racist. Dating a girl relies on both of you having a sexual attraction towards each other, if there isn't then it's just a fucking friendship. It's not racism, just what turns you on. I mean holy fuck you have no clue what you are talking about.



Quoted because this is not racist. Cardboard jumps on anything that has to do with race, but in the real world, this isn't racism. It _is_ racial discriminate in regards to sexual conduct. Which you'll probably never admit is not a bad thing. Everyone is sexually discriminate in regards to sexual conduct. Most people are racially discriminate too, and politically and age discriminate in regards to sexual conduct. Some are even ethnically discriminate in regards to sexual conduct.

News flash: Being discriminate in regards to sexual attraction is *NOT* racism, sexist, nazism, and so on.


----------



## Saishin (Jul 28, 2013)

> *Trayvon Martin's mother 'devastated' at juror comments on Zimmerman 'guilt'*
> 
> The mother of Trayvon Martin said his family are "devastated" after one of the jurors who acquitted George Zimmerman revealed that she believes her son's killer "got away with murder".
> 
> ...


----------



## Toroxus (Jul 28, 2013)

I just want to point out that this Zimmerman event has been in the news 24/7 barring the Royal Baby. Meanwhile, practically no American knows about what's going on with Russia.


----------



## Saishin (Jul 28, 2013)

Toroxus said:


> I just want to point out that this Zimmerman event has been in the news 24/7 barring the Royal Baby. Meanwhile, practically no American knows about what's going on with Russia.


The question is, is there an American that really care about what's going on with Russia?


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 28, 2013)

Ayanli said:


> And these 7 people know that you think of them as friends?



Of course they do, 1 one of them is like a brother to me.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 28, 2013)

Sunuvmann said:


> There's a lot of evidence that it was, particularly that the officer on the scene was a vocal Zimmerman supporter and previously had been in contact with Zimmerman.
> 
> However, as it has yet to have been investigated by a mainstream media source (and thus that much more credible), I haven't bothered posting and linking itt.
> 
> Most mainstream source I've seen covering it is Salon.



I had a dream about you last night, it was weird. Apparently I was at my best friends wedding (which is weird because she's not even in a relationship) and she was telling me that her fiancees brother had some weird name and that I probably wouldn't get along with him, then suddenly she pulled a laptop out of her pocket because he messaged her on Skype and I saw it was your name and avatar and then I woke up.


----------



## Fojos (Jul 28, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> As shocking as it may seem:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



17-year old thieves and robbers aren't children.


----------



## Fojos (Jul 28, 2013)

Transcendent Samurai said:


> To those that believe Trayvon attacked first. Ok. That's fine too. But you should probably think about how you would react if there was someone with a gun stalking you in the street at night. The chances are that you'd make some irrational decisions.



Martin hade no knowledge of the gun, so that's irrelevant.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Do you know what racism means?



So when you're not attracted to certain face shapes/body types or eye colors or  hair colors/types it's fine, but if skin color is involved it's a  travesty?

Have you ever seen someone scream at a woman for saying she doesn't date bald men?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 29, 2013)

Fojos said:


> Have you ever seen someone scream at a woman for saying she doesn't date bald men?



You're reading too much into this. Fact of the matter when you discriminate based on race it's racism. There's acceptable forms of discrimination, like ageism can make sense. I don't want to date a girl who's 18 for the most part. We're just at different points in our lives. Also I've never heard of someone not dating someone for being a brunette or for not being blonde or whatever, those people are fucking shallow even though there's no specific word for it. 


There are enough black women in the word that one of them has to be attractive. It's unrealistic to think otherwise.


----------



## Gino (Jul 29, 2013)

People too idiotic to understand what ctk is saying surprise surprise Ban be damned.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 29, 2013)

Toroxus said:


> Quoted because this is not racist. Cardboard jumps on anything that has to do with race, but in the real world, this isn't racism. It _is_ racial discriminate in regards to sexual conduct. Which you'll probably never admit is not a bad thing. Everyone is sexually discriminate in regards to sexual conduct. Most people are racially discriminate too, and politically and age discriminate in regards to sexual conduct. Some are even ethnically discriminate in regards to sexual conduct.
> 
> News flash: Being discriminate in regards to sexual attraction is *NOT* racism, sexist, nazism, and so on.



Also you're full of fucking shit. I jump on anything that has to do with race? I love how everyone around here seems to only have a memory that goes back to page one of the fucking thread their viewing.


----------



## Fojos (Jul 29, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You're reading too much into this. Fact of the matter when you discriminate based on race it's racism. There's acceptable forms of discrimination, like ageism can make sense. I don't want to date a girl who's 18 for the most part. We're just at different points in our lives. Also I've never heard of someone not dating someone for being a brunette or for not being blonde or whatever, those people are fucking shallow even though there's no specific word for it.
> 
> 
> There are enough black women in the word that one of them has to be attractive. It's unrealistic to think otherwise.



People are "discriminated" for their looks all the time, but again, it's only important when skin color is involved.


----------



## Blue (Jul 29, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> People in this thread can try and act like I'm the fucking black panthers or something, but let's see how far that shit gets you into not looking ridiculous to anyone who knows better.



No, you're just crazy. In general, I don't like blondes, so I'm racist against Scandinavians?

Plenty of slave owners had (usually illegitimate and often via rape) children with their slaves, so they... weren't racist?

C'mon dude. Use logic.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 29, 2013)

Blue said:


> No, you're just crazy. In general, I don't like blondes, so I'm racist against Scandinavians?
> 
> Plenty of slave owners had (usually illegitimate and often via rape) children with their slaves, so they... weren't racist?
> 
> C'mon dude. Use logic.



Just because you're racist doesn't mean you won't fuck someone of a different race. I mean what about all those homophobic people caught with boy prostitutes? You mean they're not still homophobic?



Rica_Patin said:


> I'm sorry but what.
> 
> This is a photoshopped picture of an African American model turned white, every race has defining physical features and I just personally don't find African American women or Indians (from India) attractive in general, the skin tone just personally does not arouse my goof rod. It's not racist and you are quite ignorant if you believe that to be the case.



Changing your name isn't going to make anyone forget that you're a racist tool Nensense. 


On top of that, it doesn't matter what their defining features are, some blacks break that mold just like some whites do.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Jul 29, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Skin color has very little to do with looks though.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 29, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Just because you're racist doesn't mean you won't fuck someone of a different race. I mean what about all those homophobic people caught with boy prostitutes? You mean they're not still homophobic?



You seem to take serious weight in the ridiculous stereotype of "If you claim to not be attracted to something then you secretly are". Are you 10 years old or something?

Also telling somebody else to use logic? Oh my...


----------



## Zaru (Jul 29, 2013)

If finding certain visual criteria unappealing is enough to get called racist nowadays, then sorry if I'm not afraid of that word

Congratulations, you just destroyed all its meaning

I'm racist against Scandinavians too Blue


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 29, 2013)

Rica_Patin said:


> You seem to take serious weight in the ridiculous stereotype of "If you claim to not be attracted to something then you secretly are". Are you 10 years old or something?



You seem to not understand the argument I made. Which doesn't surprise me. Where the fuck do I even say what you're talking about? Just because I pointed out instances of people saying they hated something while indulging it doesn't mean I believe it's always true. 


But no I'm not ten, there's scientific facts to back up the idea that some people who hate certain things are secretly running away from being that thing themselves. Even in just a little. That's not some crackpot theory, that's how it is.



Zaru said:


> If finding certain visual criteria unappealing is enough to get called racist nowadays, then sorry if I'm not afraid of that word
> 
> Congratulations, you just destroyed all its meaning
> 
> I'm racist against Scandinavians too Blue



So you wouldn't date someone for being blonde? Like at all? Ever? Yeah I would call that pretty stupid and discriminatory.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 29, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You seem to not understand the argument I made. Which doesn't surprise me. Where the fuck do I even say what you're talking about? Just because I pointed out instances of people saying they hated something while indulging it doesn't mean I believe it's always true.
> 
> 
> But no I'm not ten, there's scientific facts to back up the idea that some people who hate certain things are secretly running away from being that thing themselves. Even in just a little. That's not some crackpot theory, that's how it is.
> ...




Dude. Just stop. Even your own side is embarrassed of you now. You don't even know what the word racist means.


----------



## Rica_Patin (Jul 29, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> So you wouldn't date someone for being blonde? Like at all? Ever? Yeah I would call that pretty stupid and discriminatory.



You do realize that you have to have a sexual attraction to date somebody right? If the two of you aren't boning or aren't going to at some point, then it's just a platonic friendship. It's not "stupid" or "discriminatory" to not date somebody that you aren't attracted to. Have you ever been in a relationship in your life? I mean holy shit bub, you should see my face right now while reading your posts.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 29, 2013)

Rica_Patin said:


> Dude. Just stop. Even your own side is embarrassed of you now. You don't even know what the word racist means.



My _own side? _Let's get one fucking thing clear, I'm my own side. I don't give a darn what the rest of these people here say, even if someone besides Gino who had agreed with my previous sentiments had posted recently (which they haven't, so I'm not sure what you're talking about). 


You see, I'm enough a goddamn adult to say what I want without someone to hide behind. You can hang onto Blue's nuts as tight as you want a peek out to spit out that stupid shit you're saying. You're not going to make me change my tune. 



Rica_Patin said:


> You do realize that you have to have a sexual attraction to date somebody right? If the two of you aren't boning or aren't going to at some point, then it's just a platonic friendship. It's not "stupid" or "discriminatory" to not date somebody that you aren't attracted to. Have you ever been in a relationship in your life? I mean holy shit bub, you should see my face right now while reading your posts.



I'm not into blondes either, but I wouldn't use that to dismiss them. And someone can be sexually attractive without being exactly what you want.


----------

