OT: Trayvon Martin

[Section112]

I believe there was one person on the jury of color. At least they believe she was Hispanic. Not sure if she was yellow Hispanic or blue Hispanic.... see how ridiculous this whole thing was?

No winners here in the end. Travon lost his life unfortunately and for no reason. Zimmerman was the second biggest loser and probably needs to move to another country after this (poor judgement on his part but like others have said did he break a law or just get himself in a position he should not have been in).

The press proved they were major losers and showed their true colors for making this story something that it was probably not. No one truly knows what happened except Zimmerman and Martin. Its maddening to listen to all these idiots on TV espouse their opinions of exactly what happened when they have no clue - but that is what our society has become unfortunately. And there are so many followers who happily follow along...

 

[SHUPirate08]

Originally posted by jcalz88:

woah he got what he deserved? I have no problem what so ever with someone raising there fists, you want to fight it out go for it. But why the need for the gun? Did he have a carry permit? What happened to the days of just throwing some punches and walking away after?

I grew up in a neighborhood of about 12 kids my age and we were all inseperable growing up. I must have fought each and everyone of them dozens of times(dont ask me my win loss ha, but we all did this ) whether it was over a cheap shot in a football game or over a girl. What did we do after? We laughed about it and became better friends for it. No need for guns knives or battle axes. Why did Zimmerman have to take a gun with him, that is something I will never understand.
This post was edited on 7/15 2:34 PM by jcalz88

You keep your fists, I'll keep my battle ax. The difference is nowadays people fight to kill. Zimmerman claimed to be afraid for his life, and when you are back down with some thug on top of you pummeling you with fists, you would too. And if you had a gun, you would surely use it. Its easy for you to critique him sitting in your armchair, but put yourself in that situation. I think you having a backyard brawl with another 10 yr old from down the street over a tootie roll isnt exactly what we are talking about here.

 

[SHUPirate08]

Originally posted by Bobbie Solo:
jcalz, remember who you're responding to. no point in even acknowledging his posts. at least this one is only vaguely racist as compared to the earlier looney stuff.

You, the same genius who just suggested the jury should be filled with blacks and monorities who "understand what its like" to be one??? After a post like that, you should be outright ignored! Or deported, preferably.

 

[SHUPirate08]

Originally posted by SHUBigT:

Race card flying around here like crazy today.

Barack Obama half white half black yet widely considered black

Zimmerman half white half Hispanic yet widely considered white.

I don't understand why everyone wants to make this a black vs white issue when clearly it isn't.

The man brought up a good point though. The media portrays people in an inconstant way. And the average American buys it. Obama wants to appeal to the black vote, so they portray him as a brotha who can identify with their "struggle". The truth is, he is half white and a billionaire from Hawaii. Can you be ANY farther removed from identifying with them? I'M more black than he is. If anyone's racist its the media for perpetuating racism by always referring to people by their race as if thats their identifying factor instead of who they are as a person or what they accomplished as an individual. The media and these instigating racists Sharpton and Jackson are a huge problem as to why we keep thinking racially in this country.

This post was edited on 7/15 7:11 PM by SHUPirate08

 

[shu09]

Originally posted by HALL85:

Just to throw it out there.
* Seemed like this was a reach from the start. The prosecution reached with the charge, probably due to political pressure. Without eye-witness account, next to impossible to find Zimmerman guilty.
* The media as usual is sickening, making this a circus instead of reporting the story and leaving it at that.
* Roddy White and Victor Cruz just reinforcing that some athletes should stick to playing and avoid exposing their ignorance.
* Will be interesting to see what the Justice Department does. They have indicated that they "are reviewing the case", but trying this at the federal level would be a joke.
* Question: Why is George Zimmerman, who is half-hispanic, considered "white" and President Obama who is half-white, considered "black" by the media? I think we all know the answer.
* It was a clearly a tragedy and the loss of a child is a parents worst nightmare.
This post was edited on 7/15 9:22 AM by HALL85

I generally agree with this. Every loss of life is tragic, but it would have been a travesty if this court said that people don't have the right to defend themselves. It was the right decision.

I hate how all the race baiters and grand standers are out there trying to turn this into a race issue. It is anything but that.

 

[Vegas pj]

Originally posted by SkilletHead2:
Nothing new about the term "white Hispanic". Been used in survey work for a long time. Depends on what you are looking for in the survey.

Specifically, what "survey work" are you referring to? Never seen that term anywhere before this trial. My Hispanic friends are offended by that term since most are not "white Hispanic." Even the last official census didn't have that term and I'm offended that I'm considered an "other" in these surveys. Can't wait to see what the media calls a person of Asian/Black descent. Can't make this stuff up.

Nice to see MSNBC's Rachel Maddening is likening this case to 2 hate crime murders by members of extremist groups in the past in calling for federal prosecution of Zimmerman now. Sad.

 

[Torino1]

VegasPJ

You should get out more.the term white or black Hispanic has been used for many a year.Sure helps narrow the number of potential suspects when the cop on the street gets a description of of the actor.

 

[tchaka shipp]

ALL of you are missing the point. What this case proved is that you can walk around with a GUN and STALK someone and confront them and start something with THEM and if they react back and don't want to take YOUR shit you can SHOOT and KILL them. I am very disappointed in the responses here and lack of rational. This can effect YOU and if this ever happened to one of my friends I would NEVER say the LAW is the LAW.

 

[SHPIRATE]

Originally posted by tchaka shipp:
ALL of you are missing the point. What this case proved is that you can walk around with a GUN and STALK someone and confront them and start something with THEM and if they react back and don't want to take YOUR shit you can SHOOT and KILL them. I am very disappointed in the responses here and lack of rational. This can effect YOU and if this ever happened to one of my friends I would NEVER say the LAW is the LAW.

+1 this incident occurred because Zimmerman was stalking Martin. Would he have been bold enough to stalk someone, even after the police told him not to, if he didn't have that gun in his pocket. probably not. No gun here and no one dies.

 

[Pirate6711]

Originally posted by tchaka shipp:
ALL of you are missing the point. What this case proved is that you can walk around with a GUN and STALK someone and confront them and start something with THEM and if they react back and don't want to take YOUR shit you can SHOOT and KILL them. I am very disappointed in the responses here and lack of rational. This can effect YOU and if this ever happened to one of my friends I would NEVER say the LAW is the LAW.

Only one person on this board thinks Zimmerman is blameless, so you have a lot of people in your corner.

The murder charge was never going to stick and I'm shocked it actually took as long as it did for the prosecutors to officially consider manslaughter. Nothing in the case pointed towards murder; the shooting wasn't premeditated, he didn't confront Martin with the intent to kill him, and he didn't commit any felonies that led to Martin's death (following somebody like Zimmerman did is probably at most a misdemeanor menacing charge). I honestly thought Zimmerman was going to get convicted on manslaughter because even though he apparently shot Martin in self-defense, he created the situation that led to his apparent self-defense shooting.

I think people should have the right to legally carry weapons and I think people should have the right to fire the weapons in a kill or be killed situation. But when you create the situation that leads to you shooting and killing somebody in self-defense, you are not blameless. If the prosecutors had properly charged Zimmerman instead of putting forth a media-fueled, trumped-up charge of Murder 2, then I think Zimmerman would be in the Seminole County jail right now waiting to find out how long between 5 and 15 years he'll be in prison.

 

[jcalz88]

Afraid for his life? Cumon now the kid weighs a buck 50 if that, i see it all as bullshit he and his attorney came up with. If you are scared for your life then why are you following this kid around? Jus explain to me why he had to have the gun on him to begin with? If i had someone on top of me punching me, i still would not pull a gun i dont even know why i would have one on me. BTW i am a gun enthusiest I own a handgun along with two rifles, i am also apart of the NRA.

 

[HALL85]

jcalz, if someone has me on my back and is pounding my head with no letting up, and I had a gun with me, I might think he either is going to crack my skull open or beat me into an unconcious state and then take that gun and use it against me. I don't think weight had much to do with it since Zimmerman was on his back and Martin's knees were wet.

I can't speak to carrying a gun...it's just a different culture up here but working in Texas for many years, it's a whole different story in states where you can carry. We have no idea what was going through Zimmerman's head, but he had no history of this type of behavior. Unfortunatley it's a tragedy and probably one of those situations that happened quickly and spiraled out of control. It's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback and say you would not pull the gun even if you weren't attacked....none of us know how we would really react.

 

[shu09]

If you're being beaten up by a thug, you have the right to defend yourself. If that includes using a firearm, so be it.

Zimmerman SHOULD NOT have followed Martin around. But he did and the situation escalated and Zimmerman felt threatened. That's what this is all about.

 

[shu09]

Originally posted by HALL85:

jcalz, if someone has me on my back and is pounding my head with no letting up, and I had a gun with me, I might think he either is going to crack my skull open or beat me into an unconcious state and then take that gun and use it against me. I don't think weight had much to do with it since Zimmerman was on his back and Martin's knees were wet.

I can't speak to carrying a gun...it's just a different culture up here but working in Texas for many years, it's a whole different story in states where you can carry. We have no idea what was going through Zimmerman's head, but he had no history of this type of behavior. Unfortunatley it's a tragedy and probably one of those situations that happened quickly and spiraled out of control. It's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback and say you would not pull the gun even if you weren't attacked....none of us know how we would really react.

+1

 

[jcalz88]

My point is don't b in that position, it was so easily avoidable.. and why was he carrying a gun in the first place.

This post was edited on 7/16 5:39 PM by jcalz88

 

[hbkmyr]

You would be shocked at how many people in the south carry guns just to carry guns. It's like carrying a wallet to them.

 

[Pirate6711]

Originally posted by hbkmyr:
You would be shocked at how many people in the south carry guns just to carry guns. It's like carrying a wallet to them.

Yes. I was at a bachelor party last spring in a quiet beach town last spring. A guy in our group brought his handgun. Why? Because he always has his gun with him. Many of my neighbors are the same way.

 

[hbkmyr]

I use to valet at a hotel in downtown Little Rock. It was crazy how many people brought their firearm with them to eat at the Benihana in the hotel.

 

[jcalz88]

I guess this is a culture I will just never understand.

 

[HALL85]

Originally posted by jcalz88:
I guess this is a culture I will just never understand.

That's because you're "over-rated" and a "project"...lol.

Seriously, you don't have to go that far...I work in PA in the Lehigh Valley and Cabella's (the Home Depot of guns) is a weekend destination for many people in my office.

 

[SnakeTom]

Originally posted by jcalz88:
I guess this is a culture I will just never understand.

That's something I don't understand either. It's also beyond me why anyone would oppose background checks.

Tom K

 

[donnie_baseball]

Originally posted by SnakeTom:

Originally posted by jcalz88:
I guess this is a culture I will just never understand.

That's something I don't understand either. It's also beyond me why anyone would oppose background checks.

Tom K

Agreed, I'd like to see handguns off the streets. So tell me why people are opposed to checking ID's of voters?

 

[SnakeTom]

Originally posted by donnie_baseball:

Originally posted by SnakeTom:

Originally posted by jcalz88:
I guess this is a culture I will just never understand.

That's something I don't understand either. It's also beyond me why anyone would oppose background checks.

Tom K

Agreed, I'd like to see handguns off the streets. So tell me why people are opposed to checking ID's of voters?

They are two entirely different things as one relates to public safety & the other voting rights, but I do not oppose either. I'm obviously very much in favor of background checks before anyone can purchase firearms. As to voter ID's I would favor that also as long as it applies to everyone. Not just the poor, ethnic or racial minorities. I really do not think it would change voting results very much as it has been my experience that those who are wealthy cheat just as much as those who are poor. In many instances that may be how they became wealthy.

Tom K

 

[Muggsy Blue]

Yes!

 

[PiratePride]

Tom K -
win regards to voter id, you say that you are OK with it as long as it is not restricted to the poor and minorities...... as if that proposal was on the table. Whoever proposed voter id's for only the poor and minoritioes????

The arguments I've heard against voter id's are 1. the poor and minorities would have problems getting / paying for a voter ID and 2. we don't need them, because there is no voter fraud. Both specious arguments, IMO.

 

[SnakeTom]

No the law itself would not be discriminatory but the question is how it is implemented. In the past laws of this type (literacy tests for exanple) were used to prevent selective groups from voting. If there are to be voter id's everyone should have to present them not those just selectively chosen from the voter lines. We know what these laws were used for in the past and that should not be repeated.

So tell me do you oppose background checks for firearms as most Republicans do and if so WHY?

TK
This post was edited on 7/21 9:57 AM by SnakeTom

 

[jcalz88]

I consider myself to be extremely right wing at times, and i just do not understand why anyone would oppose background checks, it really blows my mind.

 

[SnakeTom]

Originally posted by jcalz88:
I consider myself to be extremely right wing at times, and i just do not understand why anyone would oppose background checks, it really blows my mind.

I don't see why this should be a right wing or left wing issue. It's really a public safety issue and just common sense.

Tom K

 

[HALL85]

No reason not to require universal background checks. Just common sense. If memory serves me, most of these guns that are used in crimes are bought in the secondary market at these shows. The focus should be on what is causing the crime rather than broad brushing things.

On another front, I cringed hearing what Obama said that "I could have been Trayvon 35 years ago". Really Mr. President?? Because let's remember, you're half white and grew up in an affluent family. I have a better chance of having been Trayvon 35 years ago.....

 

[SnakeTom]

Originally posted by HALL85:


On another front, I cringed hearing what Obama said that "I could have been Trayvon 35 years ago". Really Mr. President?? Because let's remember, you're half white and grew up in an affluent family. I have a better chance of having been Trayvon 35 years ago.....

I disagree with you on that. There is still alot of prejudice in this country. He still has dark skin and that over rides where you were brought up or how affluent you were. Let's not kid ourselves people are victims of profiling all the time. Especially in an area where you are not known. Do you really think Zimmerman would have been following Martin if he were white ???

TK

 

[HALL85]

Tom, I was being a bit facetious and I agree that prejudice and racial profile still exists in too many areas. However, I am encouraged that we are becoming more color-blind as a society, with some level of proof being racial intermarriage is becoming more common.

Obama's comments just fuel the fire and he loves to play the race card when it's to his advantage (kind of like reverse-profiling). I don't know what was going on in Zimmerman's head as to whether he was profiling or not. If a 6'2" white teen with a hoodie pulled over his head that wasn't familiar to Zimmerman, a resident, was there, who knows...maybe he would have followed him as well. We do know that Zimmerman donated his time to minority children and his prom date was black as well. Doesn't sound like a guy that only thought the worst of a particular race.

BTW, my skin is probably just as dark as Obama...lol.

 

[shu09]

Obama's comments were clearly out of line. That is him playing the race card and using the bully pulpit to advance an agenda. The media and many politicians want us to think this incident was entirely about race, which it was not.

 

[Bobbie Solo]

Originally posted by HALL85:
On another front, I cringed hearing what Obama said that "I could have been Trayvon 35 years ago". Really Mr. President?? Because let's remember, you're half white and grew up in an affluent family. I have a better chance of having been Trayvon 35 years ago.....

How do you know? Why is it so hard to show some empathy & understanding towards an opinion/experience that nearly all black men claim to have.

 

[HALL85]

Bobbie, in all seriousness, I have tremendous empathy for victims of predjudice but that's not the point.

I don't know what happened that night nor does anyone as the trial indicated, so I do take issue with anyone that talks in absolutes as to what Zimmerman's and Martins motivation's and actions were. I also have found it distasteful that the media (and President) have played fast and loose with some of the facts especially making a gratuitous comment about his skin color when it's convenient just to make this a point about profiling (which once again, we don't know if that was or wasn't the case).

Just to be fair, he's far from the only politician that pulls this BS, but it's BS none-the-less.

 

[Torino1]

Snake Tom,

The Second Amendment was written so that citizens could protect themselves from an oppressive government.and conduct a revolution against such government.Registering guns puts the average law abiding gun owner at a great disadvantage,as the authorities would know where the guns are located and simply seize them.Self defense was not the primary factor for having an armed citizens.

 

[SnakeTom]

The second amendment is not absolute as States can enact their own safety laws in that area. Background checks to prevent those with criminal records & mental illness from legally purchasing weapons is a valid excercise of government in protecting the health & safety of our citizens. The argument that criminals don't buy guns legally does not hold water because without background checks it just makes it that much easier for them to purchare weapons.

Tom K

 

[JMM13]

nm




This post was edited on 7/23 2:43 PM by JMM13

This post was edited on 7/23 2:44 PM by JMM13

 

[donnie_baseball]

Originally posted by Bobbie Solo:

Originally posted by HALL85:
On another front, I cringed hearing what Obama said that "I could have been Trayvon 35 years ago". Really Mr. President?? Because let's remember, you're half white and grew up in an affluent family. I have a better chance of having been Trayvon 35 years ago.....

How do you know? Why is it so hard to show some empathy & understanding towards an opinion/experience that nearly all black men claim to have.

God only knows what you're even referring to here, but empathy, by definition, means that 85 would have had to have been the subject of prejudice himself. Maybe he has, I don't know. And I don't pretend to know what it's like to be Hall85, Martin, Zimmerman, or a hipster with panic disorder.

You make a lot of assumptions, about Zimmerman being a "loser," and that this was about race, when Zimmerman's past history certainly makes no case for that. That's OK, a lot of other dopes who listen to the POTUS and Sharpton speak about these things think the same way.

This post was edited on 7/24 9:44 AM by donnie_baseball

 

[PiratePride]

Originally posted by SnakeTom:

No the law itself would not be discriminatory but the question is how it is implemented. In the past laws of this type (literacy tests for exanple) were used to prevent selective groups from voting. If there are to be voter id's everyone should have to present them not those just selectively chosen from the voter lines. We know what these laws were used for in the past and that should not be repeated.

So tell me do you oppose background checks for firearms as most Republicans do and if so WHY?

TK

This post was edited on 7/21 9:57 AM by SnakeTom

I guess I can answer our question the same way you answered mine... it depends on how it is implemented.

I am not against background checks, but would want them administered fairly across the board. I would also require proof of completion of a gun safety course.

 

[SnakeTom]

Originally posted by PiratePride:

Originally posted by SnakeTom:

No the law itself would not be discriminatory but the question is how it is implemented. In the past laws of this type (literacy tests for exanple) were used to prevent selective groups from voting. If there are to be voter id's everyone should have to present them not those just selectively chosen from the voter lines. We know what these laws were used for in the past and that should not be repeated.

So tell me do you oppose background checks for firearms as most Republicans do and if so WHY?

TK


This post was edited on 7/21 9:57 AM by SnakeTom

I guess I can answer our question the same way you answered mine... it depends on how it is implemented.

I am not against background checks, but would want them administered fairly across the board. I would also require proof of completion of a gun safety course.

Then I guess we agree on both points.

Tom K