Obama continues to race bait over Zimmerman case
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Zimmermanisahero
Trayvonites are a bit like those whites who would find blacks guilty without a fair trial and hang them.
No, they are like those people who thought OJ Simpson was guilty of murder.
Original post by Chief Wiggum
u wot m8?
That doesn't prove Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after the dispatcher said he didn't need to. It's one possible scenario, but equally, Martin could have approached Zimmerman to attack him.
That doesn't prove Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after the dispatcher said he didn't need to. It's one possible scenario, but equally, Martin could have approached Zimmerman to attack him.
Again, ????. Zimmerman admitted to following him and judging from other witnesses who heard Trayvon screaming that Zimmerman had a gun pointed at him, and moments before he had been on the phone to his friend Rachel Jeantel, (this call was been recovered and data-logged), who asked him where he was it seems unlikely.He ceased his transmission 7:15PM, about the same time Trayvon was getting off the phone to Rachel. He ran home and was a little over 50m from his house when he screamed for help and then was shot. By 7.17PM witnesses are outside and a second policeman arrives on and you are telling me that a fight ensued between an officer brandishing a gun and a 17 year old boy though no-one heard a struggle?
Bearing in mind it sounds like Zimmerman hasn't fully taken pursuit, Trayvon is presumably running home that leaves an estimated 60 secs for an exchange of words, an assault or scuffle and then a gunshot followed by a witnesses and a cop who would have arrived on the scene at 7.17PM but may had a visual up to 20-30 secs before. It doesn't leave a lot of time or plausibility for a theory that gun brandishing zimmerman was assaulted other than in self-defence as he is pointing a gun at him. Oh well, thank f*** you're not a lawyer. LOL
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by 419
Yes it was. You can't just nitpick phrase within a long statement. I really cba with you because you know you're wrong but purposely going along with your scaremongering tirade. I suggest you read the full thing before continuing commenting. He had a wider message that the like of you are distorting in transition with your stupid outlandish conclusion.
Here's a excerpt of what he said around the Martin was me 35 year ago which you're focusing in.
People like you are amongst what's with the world and why it's difficult to progress.
Here's a excerpt of what he said around the Martin was me 35 year ago which you're focusing in.
People like you are amongst what's with the world and why it's difficult to progress.
And Obama is making a non-racial incident (the shooting of Trayvon Martin - there is no evidence of racist intentions) into a race issue. It's exactly the same "in context" or "out of context". He is taking a non-racially motivated crime, and making statements which are going to further heighten tensions in America. I feel the same way after reading the entire statement that you have quoted.
I fail to see why you have personally insulted me. I did not insult you.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by medic_armadillo7
You have got to be trolling. That contradicts so much of the trial, it's not even worth a response.
It seems to be that you are claiming Zimmerman ran after Trayvon Martin, and shot him, without Martin physically attacking Zimmerman? There was plenty of evidence in the trial (where injuries were, the ballistics reports) that completely contradict that.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Chief Wiggum
And Obama is making a non-racial incident (the shooting of Trayvon Martin - there is no evidence of racist intentions) into a race issue. It's exactly the same "in context" or "out of context". He is taking a non-racially motivated crime, and making statements which are going to further heighten tensions in America. I feel the same way after reading the entire statement that you have quoted.
I fail to see why you have personally insulted me. I did not insult you.
I fail to see why you have personally insulted me. I did not insult you.
A black kid was racially profiled. Part of what led to GZ been suspicious of Martin is because he is a black kid- this is a sad matter fact of the American society. That's what Obama was trying to refer to.
And please DPMO and ask me to prove he was racially profiled. Spare me that delusional utopian thinking.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by 419
And that is completely irresponsible of Obama, given that he has no evidence for that. It is beyond disgraceful for the President to make such comments with nothing to back them up with. Do we not need to back up our opinions with evidence any more? NBC had to edit the evidence to make Zimmerman sound racist.
Zimmerman tutored black children, and also voted/campaigned for Obama, AFAIK. So claiming that he's some sort of racist biased against black people is not fair at all.
If Obama wants to speak out against racial profiling, then that's fine. But he should use hard statistics to back it up with, not link it in with this trial.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by G.D.G.
Well if 20 or so little kids die in Afghanistan, it's better than 2,000 US citizens dying isn't it? Tut. Tut.
Apart from it's more like the other way around....
Original post by de_monies
Apart from it's more like the other way around....
So you'd rather a 9/11-esque event happen again?
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Chief Wiggum
And that is completely irresponsible of Obama, given that he has no evidence for that. It is beyond disgraceful for the President to make such comments with nothing to back them up with. Do we not need to back up our opinions with evidence any more? NBC had to edit the evidence to make Zimmerman sound racist.
Zimmerman tutored black children, and also voted/campaigned for Obama, AFAIK. So claiming that he's some sort of racist biased against black people is not fair at all.
If Obama wants to speak out against racial profiling, then that's fine. But he should use hard statistics to back it up with, not link it in with this trial.
Zimmerman tutored black children, and also voted/campaigned for Obama, AFAIK. So claiming that he's some sort of racist biased against black people is not fair at all.
If Obama wants to speak out against racial profiling, then that's fine. But he should use hard statistics to back it up with, not link it in with this trial.
There is evidence for it. What can't you see that? Why is GZ brother praising the speech by Obama if there isn't evidence for it?
Who called GZ a racist? You making the mistake that only racist can racially profile soemone.
Honestly, just admit that the whole thing is way over your head and stop been so obstinate and pretentious. Racial profiling is strife in society and is done by any tom dick and henry of any race. Do yo leave in the real world or in a utopian bubble? Jheeze.
(edited 10 years ago)
Obama isn't even BlackOriginal post by 419
There is evidence for it. What can't you see that? Why is GZ brother praising the speech by Obama if there isn't evidence for it?
Who called GZ a racist? You making the mistake that only racist can racially profile soemone.
Honestly, just admit that the whole thing is way over your head and stop been so obstinate and pretentious. Racial profiling is strife in society and is done by any tom dick and henry of any race. Do yo leave in the real world or in a utopian bubble? Jheeze.
Who called GZ a racist? You making the mistake that only racist can racially profile soemone.
Honestly, just admit that the whole thing is way over your head and stop been so obstinate and pretentious. Racial profiling is strife in society and is done by any tom dick and henry of any race. Do yo leave in the real world or in a utopian bubble? Jheeze.
Asking for evidence isn't being pretentious, nor is it equivalent to something going "over my head".
I could just claim anything I wanted about you, without evidence. That wouldn't be fair, would it? In fact, why did we even bother with the Zimmerman trial? We should just have asked Obama for his view and gone with that. Who cares about the evidence anyway?
If Obama wants to speak out against racial profiling using evidence, then he should do so. He has no evidence Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon Martin, therefore it's an irresponsible comment to link racial profiling to this particular case. Might Zimmerman have racially profiled Martin? Sure, anything is a possibility. But the President of the USA should not make such comments unless there is complete proof of their accuracy.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Chief Wiggum
Asking for evidence isn't being pretentious, nor is it equivalent to something going "over my head".
I could just claim anything I wanted about you, without evidence. That wouldn't be fair, would it? In fact, why did we even bother with the Zimmerman trial? We should just have asked Obama for his view and gone with that. Who cares about the evidence anyway?
If Obama wants to speak out against racial profiling using evidence, then he should do so. He has no evidence Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon Martin, therefore it's an irresponsible comment to link racial profiling to this particular case. Might Zimmerman have racially profiled Martin? Sure, anything is a possibility. But the President of the USA should not make such comments unless there is complete proof of their accuracy.
I could just claim anything I wanted about you, without evidence. That wouldn't be fair, would it? In fact, why did we even bother with the Zimmerman trial? We should just have asked Obama for his view and gone with that. Who cares about the evidence anyway?
If Obama wants to speak out against racial profiling using evidence, then he should do so. He has no evidence Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon Martin, therefore it's an irresponsible comment to link racial profiling to this particular case. Might Zimmerman have racially profiled Martin? Sure, anything is a possibility. But the President of the USA should not make such comments unless there is complete proof of their accuracy.
:faceplam2:
Again, if what he was talking about is so inaccurate, why has GZ's brother condoned the speech? Why is it not routinely been criticised?
Are you actually arguing that racial profiling is strife in society? Delusion galore. And it is linked to this particular case. Everyone knows that.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by G.D.G.
Erm when did I say that I wanted this? I'd rather we not have a 9/11 style event happen again, but I also see that in the places that are attacked with our drone attacks, a 9/11 is a 24/7 over there....
Original post by de_monies
Erm when did I say that I wanted this? I'd rather we not have a 9/11 style event happen again, but I also see that in the places that are attacked with our drone attacks, a 9/11 is a 24/7 over there....
Better there than here.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by G.D.G.
Now tell me why? Are their lives worth less than American ones?
Original post by juanmodesto
No, they are like those people who thought OJ Simpson was guilty of murder.
OJ Simpson was guilty of murder. That's 100% obvious. Pretty hypocritical of black people saying the system failed in the zimmerman case while they were celebrating when the murderous criminal OJ Simpson was freed.
Original post by de_monies
Now tell me why? Are their lives worth less than American ones?
No. It isn't 9/11 for them daily. That's hyperbole. A few civilians die in a hit on terrorists. If these terrorists weren't taken out then US citizens would die.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by G.D.G.
No. It isn't 9/11 for them daily. That's hyperbole. A few civilians die in a hit on terrorists. If these terrorists weren't taken out then US citizens would die.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
OK perhaps I did exagerrate, because thousands aren't dying every second, but it's undeniable how many thousands of people have died as a result of 9/11. It's insulting to those who have died at the hands of the US, to be called "collateral damage" Are there lives really so unimportant that they are considered "collateral damage"
Original post by 419
Again, if what he was talking about is so inaccurate, why has GZ's brother condoned the speech? Why is it not routinely been criticised?
I've seen it criticised online (others support it, of course - such issues divide opinion). Besides, in emotive cases like this, public opinion often isn't a good guide. I'd say public opinion would have been in favour of a Guilty verdict for Zimmerman, despite the evidence not supporting that. People are easily swayed by emotions when they don't know all of the facts involved.
Perhaps Zimmerman's brother is opposed to racial profiling in general? There's absolutely no way he'd admit his brother racially profiled Trayvon (whether or not it was true).
Original post by Chief Wiggum
You have got to be trolling. That contradicts so much of the trial, it's not even worth a response.
It seems to be that you are claiming Zimmerman ran after Trayvon Martin, and shot him, without Martin physically attacking Zimmerman? There was plenty of evidence in the trial (where injuries were, the ballistics reports) that completely contradict that.
It seems to be that you are claiming Zimmerman ran after Trayvon Martin, and shot him, without Martin physically attacking Zimmerman? There was plenty of evidence in the trial (where injuries were, the ballistics reports) that completely contradict that.
Wow, gross twisting of words Chief Wiggum. I'm not saying that there was or was not an altercation. Again, the ASSUMPTION that was previously banded about was that Trayvon had to have attacked the officer before being shot, whereas it is more probable that in this time period given the fact that he is a 17 year old being CHASED BY A MAN WITH A GUN, any assault would have been probably in self-defence or out of fear.
Judging that in this 2 min time period between 7:15PM and 7:17PM, no-one (bar 2 or 3 people) directly saw what happened and ONLY HEARD what happened, you have to piece together the sequence of events from the evidence that you have in front of you, by EDUCATED EXTRAPOLATION as oppose to a careless NONCHALANCE that basically says "Yeah, he probably did it cos he' a black 17 year old teenager".
Say you have 2 mins in which time Trayvon is running and then Zimmerman follows in pursuit. For there to have been an assault by Trayvon, it is most likely that there would have been an exchange of words between them, followed by an escalation, which results in Zimmerman receiving a badly broken nose and a blow to the back of his head, both which will have stunned him for anywhere up to a minute (as I doubt it would have felt like the most wonderful thing in the world). Thereafter, Zimmerman will have had to then given chase again and shoot Trayvon, then you have to allow for ~30 secs for people to step outside their houses and for Officer Smith to arrive (the first police who arrived as back up). The estimated time in all probablilty period is too long, given the rapid sequence of events. In addition to this, setting aside the fact that this boy is black, you have to question the level of provocation in this short period. Say Trayvon and Zimmerman then meet, how does the situation escalate from an officer telling a kid hadn't actually a crime that evening (despite his suspicions), to the officer receiving a broken nose and a blow to the back of the head?
What is more probable (not because Trayvon is black) but because of the rapid succession of events that unfolds, is that Trayvon elicits a flight or fight response, because he is scared. Simply being chased by the officer, will heighten his senses but is not a strong enough stimulus to punch an officer in the face and then strike him again on the back of his head before running towards his house, where his family are. As most humans would experience, such irrational actions given a fairly low risk situation (being chased by the police) will only be executed if the one being chased is directly exposed to a new threat that could potentially end his life, for example A LOADED GUN DIRECTED AT HIM!! This also helps to explain why so many witnesses heard him shout for help, repeatedly!
Earlier on, I mentioned that there were two witnesses that saw what happened. The first witness saw one man on top of the other, but couldn't discern who was who, so his little weight could be given to his testimony on who did what, all that was agree was that there was an altercation between them. The second witness said that she saw Zimmerman unconscious and Trayvon standing, but days later retracted her testimony as she claimed that she was under duress and led by a police officers words to say that when she meant the opposite, so no weight could be given to her testimony. Only one man, allegedly saw Trayvon on top of the policeman and punch him before witness him being shot at close range.
The original thread was that "Obama continues to race bait over Zimmerman case" and the original point that I made was that the whole thing, from the point that Trayvon was first identified to the court house, is deeply infected with racial profiling and it seems to be absolutely acceptable to end life based on this pseudo-science, admit assumption as evidence based on this and try and acquit a person without looking at every detail and to tactically select a jury from a larger sample because the defence or prosecution believes they will more likely find a defendant guilty or innocent. You guys were debating about whether or not there is racial profiling, when the US at their senate level (predominantly full of old, white, republicans) have openly admitted that racial profiling is an endemic problem within so many US institutions. So it's a bit weird you and OP to contradict something that has already been observed and agreed upon. Zimmerman is not a hero and he may yet be tried again, but it will be difficult to do so given any jury would probably be exposed to the lack of sentiment there is towards by the general public (not just Black Americans).
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Is TSR a hotbed of conservative right conspiracy theorists?
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3A (9PL0 3A) 16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- my boyfriend is Muslim and i'm Catholic
- Are these comments made to me racist?
- essay question - sociology
- Relationships and ethnicity
- Would you end all human life instantly if you could?
- who is donald trump
- A difficult BMAT question
- Grant 2023 A Level grading allowances in England similar to Wales/Scotland/NI
- Kamala Harris is the Democrat VP pick
- University of Exeter
- Statistics/competition question
- a level history - edexcel cold war coursework
- Can I quit work for this?
- Hi, would anyone please be able to give me feedback on my practice LNAT essay?
- Extra subject for A level computer science
- Should I date this man again?
- Why Not to Study in the Netherlands
- Official 2023 formula one Thread
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
