I find this offensive.

This is a load of crap. Now someone Photoshops MLK into Treyvon Martin's hoodie.

MLK jr Had nothing to do with the Treyvon Martin case.

This is a case of black protesters using a predominant Black figurehead in an inappropriate way. Might as well put Malcom X in the hoodie.

So now this is a thing... Hoodies on hoodlums. I thought the KKK was bad enough with their stupid ass white coneheads but now everyone has a damn hood?!

anyone else pissed off at this?
2c705edad371ccc373856955d160cf h316 w628 m5 cfemkbcwr - i find this offensive.

You might be interested

Comments

Reply Attach
  • 8

    They're trying their damn hardest to keep this matter about race so they can keep racism alive by dividing people by the color of their skin and it's repugnant. I find it funny though that they would use a figure who was quoted saying "I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.".

    that quote... *tear* so perfect.
    - decrotie2004 July 18, 2013, 1:04 pm
    i applaud you, my good sir
    - Micha12354 July 20, 2013, 2:20 pm
    MLK probably didn't even like Skittles.
    - Ertrov July 21, 2013, 3:10 pm
    Reply
  • 5


    -just something i stumbled past thought i would share it, not because i have reservations to either side but because it said some things i have yet to hear. Yes some of the things are shady and speculation but there are also mentioned facts i have not researched them feel free if you wish :3

    THANK YOU
    - decrotie2004 July 29, 2013, 2:48 pm
    Reply
  • 4

    offended - i find this offensive.

    ^ This post gave me cancer
    - decrotie2004 July 18, 2013, 10:10 am
    Good.
    - Ertrov July 21, 2013, 3:10 pm
    Reply
  • 3

    Yeah, this whole thing is just getting obnoxious! I mean the race baiting and dividing of Americans by race by our leaders both political, social and spiritual to serve their own ends. Zimmerman stood trial and was found innocent, it's as simple as that.. It's all we as Americans can ask for. All of these idiots running around assaulting people, ransacking stores and "protesting" are just using this issue to do whatever they want.

    Reply
  • 2

    This is what you get when the media edits evidence to turn a non racial case into a racial case. Lots of people are not smart enough to do their own research, but then again I guess most people don't expect the media to blatantly lie to them about something like this either.

    i wanna make the constitution clear, if the second amendment only applies to the guard then freedom of the press refers to a severely outdated form of physical medium, the printing press. but the media can do whatever they want because they're pushing some politicians values with their editing. my country saddens me...
    - MIKYTEY July 17, 2013, 6:41 pm
    While I believe the innocent verdict was correct under current Florida law, current Florida law is insane- and this case highlights it. This case also absolutely shows the prejudice in FL's judicial system... When a black woman uses the Stand Your Ground law as a defense for shooting a gun into the ceiling when being attacked by her abusive husband? 20 years in jail. Zimmerman case? Innocent. Not about race.... Really? It's entirely possible Zimmerman's profiling of Martin was more about his attire, age, etc, however, there is no way we can pretend there is not some judicial racism occurring in FL's legal system.
    - Logos385 July 18, 2013, 9:16 am
    #1 do we really know the situation on the woman who fired the gun. was her husband attacking her at that time. and if so why would she not shoot him. there are a lot of details we don't know about that case to judge on any basis.

    the State Vs Zimmerman trial was publicly cast online and on TV with 90% of the testimony available to the masses.

    #2 Again im not saying Zimmerman did not profile Treyvon. He DID profile him as one of the young men that had been causing trouble in the neighborhood. But NOT because he was a black kid.

    This is not a case of racism in the FL judicial system.
    - decrotie2004 July 18, 2013, 1:13 pm
    #1: Yes, we do. It has been established that he was an abusive husband, and we have more evidence that he was attacking her at that time than we have that Martin assaulted Zimmerman.

    I'm not sure what the broadcast comment was in response to.

    #2: How can you dream to know, 100%, that Zimmerman ignored Martin's race? Again, I'm not saying that Zimmerman definitely was acting on race, but I have no idea how you propose we confirm without a doubt that there was no racial consideration...?

    Asserting something doesn't make it true. I have provided a similar case, with different races, that went much differently. All but one of the jurors were white, there was no initial arrest of Zimmerman, the Stand Your Ground law is racist in application, even if not racist in principle.
    - Logos385 July 18, 2013, 1:26 pm
    Jurors race means nothing,
    The Stand your ground law was not used in the Zimmerman case, if it was the case would have never gone to trial.

    In the case you mentioned the lady was being blocked from leaving the front door of her home. was not being chased. went to her car. got the gun. and shot at the roof. Florida gun laws consider that a felony worth of 20 years.

    She had time to go to the garage, get her gun from the car and return to her living room where she was NOT being attacked. she verbally warned him then fired at the ceiling.
    THAT IS NOT STAND YOUR GROUND! she is just a moron. She was not fearing for her life.
    See the story in the link.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57433184/fla-mom-gets-20-years-for-firing-warning-shots/
    - decrotie2004 July 18, 2013, 1:42 pm
    Your first statement shows your insensitivity to the reality that racism still exists.
    The Stand Your Ground law was the reason Zimmerman wasn't arrested for quite some time post-altercation. It also was in the juror's instructions (http://www.scribd.com/doc/153354467/George-Zimmerman-Trial-Final-Jury-Instructions) and in the mindset of some jurors (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/15/2306631/zimmerman-juror-says-panel-considered-stand-your-ground-he-had-a-right-to-defend-himself/).

    I know what the law considers it to be, and that is a very bias look at the situation. However, the reality is that the stand your ground law was considered differently in two situations in which different races were involved. Alexander felt threatened for herself and children, which is the only requirement for Stand Your Ground to apply.

    And let's see: "she had time to go to the garage, get her gun from the car and return to her living room where she was NOT being attacked."
    How about: "he had time to call the police, be warned to not continue, openly tail a teenager, grab a gun, confront that teenager, while NOT being attacked." How is that more reasonable? The attack only happened after Zimmerman stalked and unreasonably confronted Martin.
    - Logos385 July 18, 2013, 2:00 pm
    Zimmerman fired the shot while aggression was taking place, they were in a physical confrontation when the gun went off. I am not saying Zimmerman did not start the fight, im not saying he was right. but the gun didn't go off till after the fight was commenced.

    As for the woman's she could have called the cops and have the man removed in the same way Zimmerman should have listened to the police when they said not to follow.

    I still feel Zimmerman should be tried on something other then the murder. he did disobey orders given to him from authority and that lead to the death of a young man. (I will stop referring to him as a thug as you bring up a valid argument that I know nothing about him and I should not label him based on speculation.)

    Zimmerman did not "get away with murder" as some people are saying. but I have not seen him punished as I feel would be necessary. does he deserve time behind bars? I think so. how much? I don't know.
    - decrotie2004 July 18, 2013, 2:20 pm
    Agreed.

    True. But the verdicts were different, that's the issue.

    I agree that he should not be charged for murder. I think manslaughter may have been closer to correct, but am not legally knowledgeable enough to make such a suggestion.

    I completely agree with that last statement.

    It seems we are actually in moderate agreement. Woot.
    - Logos385 July 18, 2013, 2:37 pm
    Interesting. I was not aware Florida Law specifically excluded black people from being protected under the Stand Your Ground law. Perhaps it is possible that the details of the other case you gave could be separated by more variables than just the color of the defendants skin color?
    - casper667 July 18, 2013, 4:13 pm
    Actually, you're wrong on Stand your Ground. It's a technicality, but all Stand Your Ground laws do is extend Castle Doctrine to most public places. As Alexander was in a private house, I don't really see how it applies (but I am no legal expert so maybe I missed something). Castle Doctrine laws have helped numerous people of all races protect themselves against immediate danger (examples)

    Also, if your Stand Your Ground case is accepted, then you are immune from being prosecuted (which Zimmerman was prosecuted, hence the jury and trial). So it would follow that Zimmerman was not granted immunity from prosecution via Stand Your Ground (same as Alexander), the only difference is that Zimmerman didn't ever seek immunity while Alexander did and was denied. If anything, Alexander's harsh sentence (though she could have accepted a much more reasonable 3 year plea deal) shows that Florida Gun Law is a bit on the harsh side. But I'm guessing you support that as you've previously argued for stronger gun laws?

    Trying to draw parallels between 2 very different cases based on the race of the defendant is quite... racist, actually. In the real world, each case is vastly different. Sometimes white people use what they believe is self-defense against black people and are found guilty, sometimes they are found innocent. Sometimes black people use what they believe is self-defense against white people and are found guilty, sometimes they are also found innocent. I see no racism here. All you've done is found a situation where a "white" hispanic man was found innocent, while in another a black woman was found guilty.

    In the case of CBS' "reporting" if you could call it that of the Alexander trial, it is clearly slanted to skew the facts in her favor. Here's a more fair article(the actual court documents): LINK

    After reading the actual court documents, it's not surprising that her immunity was rejected by the court.

    I would also like to point out that Zimmerman has testified against a white policeman's son for beating a homeless black man in the past. It's pretty clear he is not a racist as he was portrayed to be by the (possibly) unlawful editing of his 911 call done by the media.
    - casper667 July 19, 2013, 12:39 am
    Firstly, Stand Your Ground, as far as I'm aware, supersedes any Castle Law Florida has, as it is almost identical but more expansive. Anyone in any location can use Stand Your Ground to justify a non-retreat. However, they often have to justify that non-retreat in court, which is really only the sensible place to do so. The assumption in Alexander's case was guilt, the assumption in Zimmerman's was innocence. It took weeks of intense national pressure to get police to arrest Zimmerman. Saying, "they both stood trial, equally" is ludicrous.

    While we can't say for sure there was racist motivation, we can say it looks like there might have been, and be pretty justified.
    - Logos385 July 23, 2013, 12:13 pm
    There is no assumptions in either case. They prosecute based on what they have evidence for. They had hardly any evidence to suggest Zimmerman was not justified beyond reasonable doubt, so they did not arrest him until all the racism-hungry butthurt's put pressure on them to arrest him, and even after they got their way, the trial went just as everyone expected it to. I guess they could have held him in jail for 72 hours initially, but then they would have had to let him go and not be able to charge him later (seems rather stupid to do that to me, given that they didn't have a case, but hey whatever makes you happy).

    I still don't see how you can find one case where a black person was guilty, and one where a hispanic was innocent, and conclude that the law is racist. Especially given the extremely different circumstances of each case.

    I think it's pretty safe to say that Zimmerman is not a racist. I think it's also safe to say that the Florida law makes no mention of different protections for different races. So, you must be trying to argue the law's enforcers(judges, police) are racist? If so, even if we assume you are right about police/judges being racist, I'm quite curious how you think repealing a non-prejudiced law will have any effect?
    - casper667 July 23, 2013, 4:25 pm
    The big deal for me is that when the stakes were so low- the Alexander case- and the murkiness pretty equivalent, an arrest was made almost immediately. However, when the stakes were much higher, but the race changed, the arrest took national pressure.

    I never said the law was racist- at least never meant to. I said the system was racist. That means, yes, judges, policemen, etc, could be consciously or unconsciously engaging in racist attitudes/actions.

    I don't think we can ever know whether or not Zimmerman profiled on the basis of race, but we definitely can never rule it out.

    My desire to alter the Stand Your Ground law has nothing to do with its racism, it has to do with my belief in its "insanity." The idea that even if you just feel threatened you have the right to use deadly force is, in my estimation, ridiculous.

    All in all, I think our opinions are closer on this than we originally thought, just our language vastly different. Essentially, I believe we can't divorce race from this case, but do not necessarily think Zimmerman himself acted on race. I think the legal system in Florida deserves some scrutiny, and not just because of national pressure. However, when people are unrightfully calling a 17 year old victim a "thug," (not you) and making assumptions about who attacked who first when we have no way of knowing, a slight change in attitude/perception is necessary.
    - Logos385 July 23, 2013, 9:17 pm
    The Alexander case may have went differently if she, who claimed to be the victim, called for help (preferably before when she was in the garage), but definitely AFTER the fact. What kind of victim flees the scene of the crime when they believe they were justified? I believe that is one of the reasons she was arrested immediately as it would seem a little bit more suspicious to police than someone cooperating, but she definitely did other things wrong that later caused her to recieve a guilty verdict. I seem to remember she got a plea deal, but turned it down. Where was Zimmerman's plea deal? Zimmerman followed the law, correctly reported it, and did not disobey court orders during trial. Alexander cannot say the same for any of those statements.

    I think you're jumping to racism a bit quick. Where did you get the idea that you merely need to feel threatened to be able to use deadly force? That's not the case, and is one of the main reasons (I believe) that Alexander was ultimately found guilty.

    From Florida Law:

    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.


    As you can see, they need to be attacked. Which from the photos and witnesses, I think it's safe to say Martin was definitely attacking Zimmerman (according to the prosecution's own witness - not the defense). I think this also correlates with the Alexander case, in that she was NOT being attacked at the time she fired the gun and hence was not justified.

    I think the law, in it's current form, is fine. It's a dangerous slope when you want to essentially "nerf" self defense laws, and arguably I'd say self-defense laws help minorities the most, as they typically live in areas with higher crime rates. Not all attacks, especially in urban areas, occur in a private home. Being allowed to defend yourself in public if you are being attacked certainly seems like a logical extension of castle doctrine to me. How would you propose we change the law? For reference, here's the relevant statute:link
    - casper667 July 24, 2013, 1:03 am
    Probably the kind of victim that is legitimately terrified of her abuser/for her safety. "Attacked" is a very loose term, and that provision can be used to justify preventative self defense measures. If someone approaches you threateningly, could that not be the start of an attack? As long as a reasonable person could interpret the event as the beginning of an attack, FL law allows action. It by no means says you must be physically harmed or enter an altercation. I think that any reasonable person can agree that the approach of a consistent abuser during argumentation can be viewed as the start of an attack.

    As for Zimmerman, can't Trayvon use stand your ground right back? He was stalked and confronted by a larger, older, armed man while he was unarmed. Was he not within FL law to attempt to defend himself? Obviously the details of the incident are too murky for us to say conclusively what happened, which is why there was reasonable doubt in the jury's minds. However, it irks me when people act so confidently about the circumstances of such a murky case. We know that Zimmerman had many, many chances to refrain from taking Trayvon's life. He could have not profiled him in the first place, could have listened to the authority figure telling him to stop following Trayvon, he could have not followed initially, he could have stayed in his car, he could have not engaged in a fight with a minor (arguably unavoidable, too murky), he could have not shot his gun. Any of these decisions result in Trayvon being alive. Can we not, then, at least mentally, fault Zimmerman somewhat for Trayvon's death?

    And as for the "stand your ground" law in general, it gives people license to, as long as something can be interpreted as an attack, shoot, even when an easy escape route exists. All you have to do to murder someone is provoke them into starting a bar fight and win it with a bullet.
    - Logos385 July 24, 2013, 12:47 pm
    As I understand it, attack means physical assault, not just an approach or a verbal argument. That certainly seems to be the way the court interprets it, as cases I see where there was no physical harm done don't succeed (usually, exceptions may be if the other person pointed a gun, then there would be imminent peril).

    "He was stalked and confronted by a larger, older, armed man" You seem to be passing opinion off as fact. First, "stalk" in law refers to the "repeated" following of someone, as this was a one time incident, he was not "stalking" him.Second, it's not known who confronted who.

    It does appear Zimmerman stopped following Martin after the dispatcher suggested not to, although I can't say he did with 100% certainty. Obviously if Zimmerman had kept driving in the first place, none of this would have happened. But it's definitely not illegal to follow someone acting suspicious especially for the purpose of reporting them to police, and I certainly wouldn't fault him for doing so.
    - casper667 July 24, 2013, 5:47 pm
    And as I understand it, attack is looser. But seeing as dictionaries for legal terminology don't give us much help, and Florida declines to include a glossary themselves, I guess we have to end this portion there.

    Stalk: "A stealthy pursuit of someone or something." Nothing about repetitive approaches. And no, it is not known who confronted who. But in terms of objectives- one was trying to get home, one was trying to stalk/prevent suspicious activity- I think it is probable Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. At the very least, he initiated the incident as a whole.

    Why does it appear that way? I don't see it- could be missing something. And no, I wouldn't necessarily fault him for reporting a suspicious person to the police... but I do fault him for shooting an unarmed teen. Sadly, we will never know exactly what happened, which is why, like I've said, the Jury made the right call.
    - Logos385 July 25, 2013, 7:32 pm
    When I was talking about "stalking" having a repetitive following requirement, I was talking about the legal term, as "stalking" is a crime (basically defined as repeated following). But yes in non-legalese where stalking and following are synonymous, you could say he was stalking him even though it has more of a negative connotation where following is more neutral.

    It appears that way to me because of a few reasons. 1. He did say OK after the dispatcher told him they didn't need him to follow Martin, and the windy noise phones make when running (following Martin) do stop shortly after. he says OK. 2. He is innocent until proven guilty, and they were not able to prove 2nd degree murder or even a lesser manslaughter charge.

    It's entirely possible that he did start the confrontation, and maybe even attacked physically first, but it's not certain and I would even say it's unlikely as there's no evidence to support the claim that he did start the confrontation or physical assault while there is evidence against it (obviously stopped following while still on the phone with 911, and he passed a voice stress test the day after the shooting; voice stress tests had a 100% accuracy rate in a 3 year study by the AFRL).

    I think it's rather sad that an innocent man had his life ruined by trial by media so much so that now both he and his family have to be in hiding. His past actions (testifying against police in defense of homeless man who was beat by one of their sons), and now his recent helping children escape an overturned car, seems to show a man of good character in stark contrast to the racist, paranoid, hateful man the media portrayed him as. I don't mean to give Zimmerman all the spotlight; it's also sad that Martin died. But I think that is kind of common sense.
    - casper667 July 26, 2013, 1:34 am
    Seeing as we completely agree on the legal side of things, I think we can move forward to how to interpret the situation.

    I think it is pretty rightful to hold him (Zimmerman) somewhat at fault, as per all of the decisions he could have made that would have stopped the situation. I feel like the bottom line is very important- he shot an unarmed minor. However, seeing as the situation is "murky," "fuzzy," or whatever else we may call it, I can't fault him definitively.
    - Logos385 July 27, 2013, 1:08 pm
    I don't think there's really much left to discuss, we have differing opinions about how much blame Zimmerman should get. He is a little bit at fault, since he could have never followed Martin in the first place, but it's not outside his legal rights. I feel he's already more than paid for whatever little fault is his; he'll always be hated by the public, have a hard time finding a normal job, have to go in hiding for who knows how long, etc.

    No matter our opinions, it's sad that the media was allowed to slant the whole case so against Zimmerman (sometimes even going so far as editing evidence) that so many people are angry enough to make death threats, commit hate crimes, and riot.
    - casper667 July 27, 2013, 4:44 pm
    Reply
  • 2

    Welcome to the internet.

    • Ertrov
    • July 17, 2013, 6:55 pm
    Reply
  • 2

    I find this offensive too, a denigration of one of the greatest americans we have had in several generations. Wearing a fucking hoodie, fuck that.

    I don't know if they are trying to make him look more treyvon-ish or more thug... either way it is stupid.
    - decrotie2004 August 2, 2013, 8:23 am
    Yeah stupid. Hard to say what the original intent of the picture was/is, but I don't care for the caricature of MLK that way, turns me off to any message the creators might be trying to make.
    - ensignredshirt August 3, 2013, 11:48 pm
    Reply
  • 1

    im
    pissed ...

    apparently so is everyone else.
    - decrotie2004 July 19, 2013, 8:17 am
    Reply
  • 1

    Fuck.

    Reply
  • 1

    How to make a Treyvon Martini:
    8 oz arizona watermelon juice
    8 oz vodka
    1 bag of skittles
    Mix Arizona and vodka together in highball glass then pour in shaker add skittles and ice and shake vigorously for thirty seconds. then pour into Martini Glass.
    Waring one shot will put you on the ground.

    - casper667 August 5, 2013, 3:50 am
    Reply
  • 0

    FYI: That's not how you spell offensive.
    I don't have too much of a problem with this--they are trying to get attention so you don't give it to them.

    #1: fixed the typo, thank you.

    #2 I wonder if they really are trying to get attention or they are just so ignorant as to associate MLK Jr with some Thug from Sanford.

    Side note: I live about 30 miles from Sanford FL. there is no escaping this nonsense
    - decrotie2004 July 17, 2013, 3:50 pm
    i'd assume they're mostly ignorant(the masses anyways) and the more predominant figures are educated but have their own agendas. so i saw something on one of my news websites about the prosecutor(s) signing an invalid arrest warrant and withholding evidence that could have been used FOR zimmerman. but you don't see that on TV. it's politics, and nobody's safe
    - MIKYTEY July 17, 2013, 6:38 pm
    Reply
  • 0

    While I can see the possible offense you are caused by the picture, are you not also offended by the stalking and killing of a young man? People forget this part of the case in the midst of the media's coverage. A seventeen year old is dead because an over zealous, profile-hungry, gun-toting man ignored police advice and unrightfully followed and subsequently fired his gun at the youth. This is horrifyingly tragic, don't forget that.

    I feel bad the situation happened. I sympathize with the parents of Treyvon on their loss. I sympathize with Zimmerman's family, because the actions of one of them none of them will live normal lives. And I agree this is a tragic situation. Although I do not agree with your comments on profile-hungry and gun-toting, I acknowledge George disobeyed police orders, and for that should be punished like anyone else.

    But this is Ignorant people associating historical figureheads with a trial that has nothing to do with them.

    They are making it about race when it was not about race.

    "A black kid is killed by a Hispanic man, and the white race gets blamed. -Anon"
    - decrotie2004 July 18, 2013, 10:08 am
    How can you believe he isn't "profile-hungry?" He literally admitted, under oath, that he profiled the young man he followed. This literally makes him profile-hungry by his own admission. I understand he was on edge from break ins and such, but that doesn't change the designation here. This particular designation is undeniable.

    Disagreeing with "gun-toting" is even more ludicrous. He was carrying a gun. That means he was "gun-toting." Plain and simple. By definition.

    The "trial" has everything to do with race, partly because of media/public attention, partly because of FL's prejudiced judicial system, partly because of Martin's parents' campaign, etc. The event itself only possibly racially charged, but I was never talking about that. I'm not saying I in any way support the picture above-- I don't, and never said so. I am just saying that in almost every situation I see people ignoring the emotional blow this tragedy should have on a sensible conscience. Seriously, if this doesn't make you deeply sorrowful, you need to reevaluate your priorities.
    - Logos385 July 18, 2013, 1:09 pm
    I am not going to reply to most of this because it is pointless to argue, and I will simply agree to disagree. The last thing this post was meant to do was split up the sharenator family.

    I will however comment on "Seriously, if this doesn't make you deeply sorrowful, you need to reevaluate your priorities."

    My priorities are on my family, and their well being. It opens my eyes a bit more about how to keep them safe, on what to teach my children in the future and the laws I must be aware of when voting.

    But if I said this whole situation had an "emotional blow" on me I would be lying. Death happens every day all over the world. Innocent children die from drive by shootings, children starve and are beaten daily, little girls are sold into sex slavery and die because of it.
    So one thug kid from Sanford really does not hurt me emotionally.

    And no, I do not need to reevaluate my priorities.
    - decrotie2004 July 18, 2013, 1:31 pm
    Do you still think my "profile hungry" and "gun toting" designations are incorrect? And it is never pointless to argue/discuss controversial situations- that is what makes our minds grow and opinions strengthen.

    As for being sorrowful, I am aware of all of those tragedies, of course. They all elicit sorrow, and should be treated as tragedies.

    And why do you insist on calling a 17 year old kid a thug repetitively? You know next to nothing of his personal life, and I doubt his skittles warrant that designation.
    - Logos385 July 18, 2013, 1:37 pm
    I lived next door to a drug dealer in Casselberry, about 10 minutes from Sanford a few minutes ago. He had skittles to, and he was a thug, as if there is some sort of disconnect because he had skittles and an Arizona. There was evidence that Trayvon smoked weed and texts on his phone show he was either trying to sell or buy a gun. that is why I call him a thug.

    I agree with you on the "gun-toting" designation assuming you simply mean he had a gun on his person and not used in a negative connotation.

    I still disagree with Profile-hungry unless you mean that he profiled him in any way as I have described previously in a different reply. Zimmerman DID profile him as one of the many trouble makers that were frequent in that area.

    And even though we may disagree with you on some things, I would like to let you know I respect your views. and I am not saying you are wrong. just saying we have different opinions.
    - decrotie2004 July 18, 2013, 1:54 pm
    Because someone smokes weed they are a thug? And he did not attempt to sell or buy a gun. That is an assumption you are making.

    Good.

    When someone profiles a kid literally walking to his own home as a troublemaker? That is an incorrect profile. This means that it is likely the one doing the profiling is too quick to profile. I.e. "profile hungry."

    I of course respect your views as well, which is why I continue discussion. If I didn't, I wouldn't find it necessary to continue. This is a touchy situation, and I just think you are over-simplifying it by attempting to remove race from the equation when it is at least evident in the handling of the legal case, even if it wasn't necessarily evident in the actual events.
    - Logos385 July 18, 2013, 2:05 pm
    I take back previous thug remarks about Trayvon, you are correct that I do not know him, in any form other then what the media shows and I should not judge or label based on assumption.

    good. we agree.

    I will agree that Zimmerman was quick to profile and finally agree with your "profile hungry definition"

    a question on the final remarks, completely hypothetical. what if the panel of jurors were all black or mixed race, do you feel the verdict would have been different, and if so would that have been fair to Zimmerman?
    - decrotie2004 July 18, 2013, 2:25 pm
    Thanks for the first 3.

    As for the last one- I am not quite sure. However, in a case portrayed in the media as so racially charged (whether or not it was), where some aspects of the case relied on the racism question, I think it was a mistake to have a nearly all-white jury. Whether or not this would have changed the verdict, I am not sure. It may have been a mistake to include that as "clearly" showing judicial racism, sorry about that.
    - Logos385 July 18, 2013, 2:35 pm
    Friends?!
    - decrotie2004 July 18, 2013, 2:47 pm
    He didn't disobey a police order though, you can tell this by the 911 call. He says "Shit he's running" which is when he begins pursuing him, his breathing becomes heavier which means he's running trying to catch up, the dispatcher asks if he's following him Zimmerman says yes the dispatchers says he doesn't need to do that and Zimmerman says okay, you can tell he stops because the heavy breathing stops a few seconds after he says okay he then says "He (Trayvon) ran" He later begins giving his address but stops because he doesn't know where Treyvon is. He fired his weapon because he was being attack by Treyvon who had gotten away but went back.
    - triclebickle July 21, 2013, 5:30 am
    I find it surprising and saddening that because Zimmerman may have stopped breathing at one point in the conversation, you assume that Trayvon is at fault. The situation is far murkier than you give it credit for, whether or not someone stopped breathing heavily...
    - Logos385 July 23, 2013, 11:50 am
    Well it doesn't matter what I or you assume now, he was found not guilty by a jury of his peers and he and his family will be forced to live in fear for their lives.
    - triclebickle July 24, 2013, 1:01 am
    What a jury decides has no bearing on your or my personal interpretations of the situation.

    And holy crap, you're worried about Zimmerman and his family's lives? Seriously? Trayvon doesn't get the luxury of fearing for his life- take a step back, a boy is dead.
    - Logos385 July 25, 2013, 7:33 pm
    I was raised to remember the dead, but hold my concern to the living. Sure a boy died and I'll remember his name but he's dead now and nothing done from this point forward will benefit him. So I focus my attention to those living that includes Zimmerman and his family.
    - triclebickle July 30, 2013, 7:17 pm
    You were raised to remember the dead poorly, apparently. All of your discussion automatically assumes the deceased party was the instigator on all fronts. Not only is this unlikely, it's tactless. I believe it is more important to mourn for the victim than for any possible negative repercussions that might affect the perpetrator.
    - Logos385 August 2, 2013, 6:13 pm
    I don't assume he was the instigator on all fronts. He was just a kid walking home from the gas station at night and looked like a suspicious individual, it's happened me before while going on a late night run. But I have good reason to believe based on evidence put forth that he initiated the contact that got him shot. Sure he didn't deserve to get killed, I never said or even implied that he did. And while we're on the subject of tact, you haven't exactly been the image of tactfulness though out this little back and forth between you and I either.
    - triclebickle August 3, 2013, 1:11 pm
    What evidence do you have that Martin initiated contact? The entire situation suggests the opposite. In any case, in my opinion as soon as Zimmerman began following Martin, "contact" was initiated.

    I have said a couple strong things, sure, but they have been in the name of respecting the dead, which I felt like people were failing to do. Being worried about the shooter's future should not be of concern when the victim is dead because of a wholly unnecessary altercation.
    - Logos385 August 3, 2013, 5:18 pm
    The 911 call, Zimmerman stops giving his address to the dispatcher because he doesn't know where Trayvon is, Martin being an athlete could have made it home before Zimmerman was able to find him again. That's the primary piece of evidence that leads me to believe Martin was the one who initiated the altercation that lead to the shooting. The secondary thing is that Martin was shot during the altercation during which Zimmerman sustained injuries to the face and to his scalp on the back of his head. A wound consistent with having your head hit an abrasive surface like concrete with enough force to break skin, like having your head bashed on it by an attacker.

    You're right the altercation was wholly unnecessary, but that was the past and as much as anyone would want to change the past we can't. But right now in the present there are 4 people, 3 of whom are innocent in this matter, who are fearing for their lives and I'm sure you can agree that there doesn't need to be anymore needless loss of life.
    - triclebickle August 3, 2013, 9:10 pm
    Sure, in that single instant Zimmerman lost track of the 17-year-old he was unrightfully following. This is in no way evidence of who started the altercation.

    I don't know about you, but when someone is stalking me, I prefer to not lead them to my home.

    According to Zimmerman, Martin continually punched and struck Zimmerman with his hands, then bashed his head against the pavement. While no one can say how the altercation happened conclusively, Martin had just a single, small skin break on one finger and no other injuries but the gunshot, not consistent with a prolonged attack. Also, who got the upper hand in the situation has nothing to do with who started an altercation. I still see no convincing evidence that Martin started the altercation.

    Of course I agree there should be no further loss of life. I believe there should be no former loss of life. Saying, "oh that's in the past" is a dodge. It's a way to avoid considering a harmed party. But, in reality, we already lost a life, and that is what you seem to refuse to consider in your emotional evaluation of the situation.
    - Logos385 August 4, 2013, 11:51 am
    Then there is nothing more I can do to try and convince you, You had your mind set firm so I faced and up hill battle from the start.
    I've considered both parties extensively, and the fact that we've already lost a life is why place my concern where I do.
    - triclebickle August 4, 2013, 2:42 pm
    I find it extremely disingenuous to call me closed-minded when my position is "I don't know," and your position is "X definitely happened."

    Aside from that, you are saying your emotional track works in a very... awkward way. While there is nothing wrong with this. I strongly suggest you take one more look at the tragedy here, and take a moment to feel for the only actual loss suffered here.
    - Logos385 August 5, 2013, 4:17 am
    Reply
Related Posts
Loading...