Who is the more creepy assed Cracka?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:13 am

Vote or contribute your choice of even creepier.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:47 am

What are you getting at here, Will?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:54 am

Foil wrote:What are you getting at here, Will?

Nothing in particular. No gotcha or odd tangent lurking.
Just that it occurred to me that Zimmerman, once you remove the agenda driven campaign to paint him as somehow 'scary' looking or some kind of child molesting bogey man he really is the opposite of creepy.

So I tried to conjure up a more deserving recipient of the title....
Who do you think is a creepy looking white guy?

Just having fun.
I almost put Michael Jackson on the list but decided to not pick on the dead.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 12:03 pm

If you're really just curious about creepy caucasians, why use the racial epithet in the poll title, rather than this:

Will Robinson wrote:Who do you think is a creepy looking white guy?

vision · Post by **vision** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 12:59 pm

Zimmerman is mixed race.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 1:05 pm

vision wrote:Zimmerman is mixed race.

So is Obama. Why call Zimmerman white and not do the same for Obama? Or is that a narrative of another color?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 1:25 pm

Foil wrote:If you're really just curious about creepy caucasians, why use the racial epithet in the poll title, rather than this:

Will Robinson wrote:Who do you think is a creepy looking white guy?

Because the concept of a "creepy assed Cracka" is based on the criteria the prosecution, Rachel Jeantel and all the Zimmerman-is-a-bogeyman haters have propped up. It isn't a non-race based designation so I want my poll to reflect everyone's best guess as to who is the creepiest Cracka....not the creepiest male human with caucasoid skin tones.
Who do you think the young black males would find to be creepier?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 1:29 pm

vision wrote:Zimmerman is mixed race.

Yet clearly the prosecution and all the Zimmerman haters have no problem referring to him as white, or as a creepy assed Cracka...

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 1:36 pm

Before the media had a chance to try and turn Zimmerman into a white guy, a murderer, a possible child rapist, a white racist, etc. etc.....right up to the moment after his head was driven into the cement and he shot Martin, he was just George, and George just isn't very creepy looking at all really.
At least not compared to so many other 'Crackas'.
So I was curious as to how the list would shape up without the influence of the campaign to make George look like a creepy guy and instead we rely on actual creepiness to inspire us.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 2:08 pm

Will Robinson wrote:Because the concept of a "creepy assed Cracka" is based on the criteria the prosecution, Rachel Jeantel and all the Zimmerman-is-a-bogeyman haters have propped up.
...
So I was curious as to how the list would shape up without the influence of the campaign...

So you are asking for opinions based on appearance outside the influence of trial/media...

...but you use the top trial/media quoted phrase to ask the question?

------

Come on, Will. What are you driving at?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 2:19 pm

Foil wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:Because the concept of a "creepy assed Cracka" is based on the criteria the prosecution, Rachel Jeantel and all the Zimmerman-is-a-bogeyman haters have propped up.
...
So I was curious as to how the list would shape up without the influence of the campaign...
So you are asking for opinions based on appearance outside the influence of trial/media...

...but you use the top trial/media quoted phrase to ask the question?

------

Come on, Will. What are you driving at?

You spelled it out perfectly!
If no one told us Zimmerman is a young black guys vision of a creepy assed Cracka...but the generic designation is a valid one....who fits it better?
Or do you think Zimmerman would still be in the running if he wasn't the guy who shot Martin....was just George?

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 2:41 pm

Will Robinson wrote:If no one told us Zimmerman is a young black guys vision of a creepy assed Cracka...but the generic designation is a valid one....who fits it better?

Ah, so it's essentially the same as the following, but about a different set of stereotypes:

"If no one told us Martin was a vision of a black 'f***er... always gets away'... but the generic designation is a valid one... who fits it better?"

------

Again, why?

If it's simply a random question about "who do you think is creepy", this may be better suited to a Café thread (I could move it if you wanted). Otherwise, I'd suggest getting more specific about your topic.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 3:02 pm

Foil wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:If no one told us Zimmerman is a young black guys vision of a creepy assed Cracka...but the generic designation is a valid one....who fits it better?
Ah, so it's essentially the same as the following, but about a different set of stereotypes:

"If no one told us Martin was a vision of a black 'f***er... always gets away'... but the generic designation is a valid one... who fits it better?"

------

Again, why?

If it's simply a random question about "who do you think is creepy", this may be better suited to a Café thread (I could move it if you wanted). Otherwise, I'd suggest getting more specific about your topic.

I already said it wasn't about a generic 'who is creepier'. Obviously it is Zimmerman/Martin specific, there was nothing hidden about that.
I'm not sure what you think is missing though that I haven't explained.

I was thinking about the assertion that Martin was probably afraid Zimmerman might be a child raper or something and it seemed very contrived.
I tried to accept that premise to be able to examine it and it doesn't seem likely to me so I guess the underlying point of the poll is I'm challenging that premise. I wasn't really looking for a deep conversation though....more like offering a thought excercize.

Here, try this:

Imagine a news reporter broadcasting live on the street, standing there facing the camera telling the news to his viewers and in the background walking from off camera comes a parade of random people down the sidewalk behind the reporter. They walk into view and they continue walking by unil they are off camera...one is Zimmerman, one is Weiner, one is McCain, (but not celebrities...as if they are unknown) and the rest are who ever you guys add to the list.

Now, in a parallel universe where Zimmerman never saw, let alone shot, Martin but all other things are the same, you are in a room with a bunch of young black guys watching that news report you say "Whoa man! Rewind that and check out the creepy assed Cracka!!"
Now when they looked at the rewound footage and realized you meant Zimmerman how many would say to you 'Cracka, you don't even know what Cracka means!'
And how many would agree with you?

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 3:12 pm

Will Robinson wrote:I was thinking about the assertion that Martin was probably afraid Zimmerman might be a child raper or something and it seemed very contrived.
I tried to accept that premise to be able to examine it and it doesn't seem likely to me so I guess the underlying point of the poll is I'm challenging that premise.

Thank you for the clarification.

------

Personally, I think you're looking at it wrong. Based only on Zimmerman's outward appearance, sure, he doesn't seem like a "creepy cracka". But you also have to consider attitude/body language/etc. Given Zimmerman's attitude/anger as evidenced in the recording, it's easy to see why Martin would have been wary.

A similar question applies to Martin, of course. Outwardly, did he look like a criminal "who always gets away"? Zimmerman clearly thought so, and I'm guessing it had to do with more than just Martin's outward appearance.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 3:46 pm

Foil wrote:... Given Zimmerman's attitude/anger as evidenced in the recording, it's easy to see why Martin would have been wary.

I can see being wary if someone is watching/following you, although there is no testimony by Jeantel or others that shows Zimmerman broadcast any attitude or anger at the time Martin allegedly called him a "creepy assed Cracka". So it seems, if he made that judgement of Zimmerman, it was based on appearance and Zimermans scrutiny of Martin. It supports being wary but being wary doesn't support beating someone down.
In spite of that all the media pundits and 'civil rights' leaders had no trouble being so certain of who this George guy really was and implying a beat down was justified...all based on Jeantels conversation?!?

Foil wrote:...A similar question applies to Martin, of course. Outwardly, did he look like a criminal "who always gets away"? Zimmerman clearly thought so, and I'm guessing it had to do with more than just Martin's outward appearance.

In that case who would you contrast Martin with to ask who is more suspicious? Martin or.....who...
To even attempt to do so in a similar context as I've done on the other side of the coin means you have to consider the 'profile' that a neighborhood watch person in that neighborhood would be asked to watch out for and the reason why he was alerted to a specific profile...because 'suspicious' means you predict a bad behavior based on actual history.
For the creepy labeling of Zimmerman, or anyone creepier, no one needs any actual history, it is just subjective.

It sort of takes the foundation right out from under the 'he's-a-racist' charge when you are forced to examine Zimmermans reasoning for 'profiling' black males in this specific scenario.

The two questions don't parallel well.

Who do you think young black guys will get creeped out by if they are followed by one?
Who would a neighborhood watch guy most likely focus on as suspicious if the job criteria suggested he look for young black guys?

You would have to remove the context to make the second one work the way I think you intended and without the context there would have been no shooting....unless one wants to believe Zimmerman really was just a creepy assed Cracka looking to murder a black victim.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:18 pm

Will Robinson wrote:The two questions don't parallel well.

Absolutely, they do.

You asked whether or not Zimmerman looked like a "creepy-a** cracker".
I asked whether or not Martin looked like a "f***er [criminal]... always get away."

In order to answer "yes" to either question, one has to apply a pre-determined stereotype about appearance/attitude.

You think one of those stereotypes (Zimmerman fitting the "creepy white guy") is invalid, and the other (Martin fitting the "black criminal always getting away") is reasonable.

I say they're both uninformed predetermined notions.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:09 pm

I see a big difference. In the one case you are starting out with a very narrow subset.
They have to look like the previous theives known to have been in the neighborhood.

So the profile was established that narrows the potential candidates down before Zimmerman ever gets to decide if the person he sees is appropriate to consider as 'being suspicious'.

He didn't arbitrarily establish the definition of the profile he is using.
Previous offenders, the police and witnesses established the profile based on actual crimes committed by a certain subset of the population. There is no visible generically suspicious human physical characteristic.
'F'ing guys that get away' isnt specific. He was talking about F'ing guys that fit a profile.

On the other hand, creepy is just a visceral reaction to someones appearance or behavior. And a Cracka is a white person.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 7:26 pm

frankly, the poll is worthless without the option of selecting Will for even presenting it. It is offensive, to my mind, to mockingly use the words of a deceased 17 year old, for starters, and to do a cheap-ass Compare and Contrast with three very different individuals makes little or no sense. It isn't funny, it isn't pertinent and shows a view of Will that is anything but flattering.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:02 pm

I bet slick voted for McCain...

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:08 pm

callmeslick wrote:frankly, the poll is worthless without the option of selecting Will for even presenting it. It is offensive, to my mind, to mockingly use the words of a deceased 17 year old, for starters, and to do a cheap-ass Compare and Contrast with three very different individuals makes little or no sense. It isn't funny, it isn't pertinent and shows a view of Will that is anything but flattering.

We don't know that Martin ever said those words and I'm not mocking anyone, I'm using them with genuine sincerity. I like the phrase, it has a great lyrical kind of flow to it and it certainly is pertinent to what I'm talking about.

The narrative that Martin didn't like the look of Zimmerman because he was creepy and possibly a child raper therefore Martin might have had just cause to beat Zimmerman down out of fear is a perfectly acceptable possibility to so many people...people who at the same time are outraged that Zimmerman might have profiled Martin as a possible thief in a neighborhood where young black men are responsible for the bulk of the crime.

That's what makes no sense to me.
Different profiles for different folks I guess.

PS: thanks for your concern about me being seen in an unflattering light though. I'm touched.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:27 pm

Will, one of the jurors thinks Zimmerman should have been sentenced to 2nd degree murder. She was also the only non-white on the jury. Now why do you think SHE had those thoughts and not her co-jurors? Why does she feel justice wasn't served?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerm ... d=19770659

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:59 pm

tunnelcat wrote:Will, one of the jurors thinks Zimmerman should have been sentenced to 2nd degree murder. She was also the only non-white on the jury. Now why do you think SHE had those thoughts and not her co-jurors? Why does she feel justice wasn't served?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerm ... d=19770659

She said in her heart she thought he was a murderer but she also said there was no evidence and that she thinks Zimmerman should never have been charged...

When asked by GMA host Robin Roberts whether the case should have gone to trial, the juror said, "I don't think so." She added, "I felt like this was a publicity stunt."

"We had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence."

I think she is a great example of how people are so led by emotion they could easily convict a man of second degree murder even though, at the same time, knowing full well that man had a lawful claim of self defense.

I don't think her race has anything to do with her feelings. She said she doesn't think race had anything to do with it. I think if you asked her to define justice with law instead of feelings she would say justice was served....that is the jist of what she said in the interview.
I wish the media would do a solid examination of all the distinctions she made to reach her decision and present the narrative that reflects the wisdom in those distinctions instead of still saying things like 'how can a child get killed for carrying groceries home'?

It's no wonder people are so conflicted with the media and the President and so many other loudmouths willing to cloud the issue for personal gain.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:08 pm

How do you know that Martin didn't have that same right to claim to self defense? He can't tell his side of the story like Zimmerman has. Dead men can't defend themselves.

vision · Post by **vision** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:20 pm

woodchip wrote:
vision wrote:Zimmerman is mixed race.
So is Obama. Why call Zimmerman white and not do the same for Obama? Or is that a narrative of another color?

I get really aggravated that Obama's white side is so downplayed. I also understand that he is culturally black if he identifies with African Americans. I honestly don't know if Zimmerman was culturally white or hispanic or both or neither. I didn't really follow the story. I certainly don't consider him a cracka.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:25 pm

tunnelcat wrote:How do you know that Martin didn't have that same right to claim to self defense? He can't tell his side of the story like Zimmerman has. Dead men can't defend themselves.

The fact that a shooting victim can't tell you he had a right to self defense isn't justification to convict the shooter who claims self defense AND has a lot of evidence to support his version.

If that logic prevailed every criminal ever shot would result in the shooter going to jail for murder!

The juror you just refered to wanted to convict Zimmerman and yet she determined there was no evidence to do it with. So would you go ahead and convict him anyway just because Martin might have wanted to claim self defense?!?

Martin, who was seen on top of Zimmerman pounding him when a witness heard frantic screams for help went to see what was up and he clearly saw Martin on top beating Zimmerman? You think he had a right to self defense when that witness shouted at him to stop the violence and he kept hitting Zimmerman?! If Zimmerman had died from a head wound at that point would you be telling me Martin had a right to self defense?!?

If it was Martins voice on the tape he was yelling 'Help me...help me me beat the crap out of this Cracka!'

No, we don't have Martin telling his side of the story but there certainly is a reason or two based in fact to believe you are wrong.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Fri Jul 26, 2013 12:17 am

This thread is incredibly shitty even by the usual standards. So congrats for that, I guess.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:50 am

as for the 'who's black' debate, re:Obama or anyone, those of us who grew up in the South have an easy barometer: Which bathroom in Town Hall would a person be expected to use, and what water fountains? What restaurants would an individual be prevented from dining in? On that scale, it is clear where Obama would stand. Anyone dancing around the matter with 'half-white' or such claptrap clearly doesn't grasp the issues involved.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:52 am

callmeslick wrote:as for the 'who's black' debate, re:Obama or anyone, those of us who grew up in the South have an easy barometer: Which bathroom in Town Hall would a person be expected to use, and what water fountains? What restaurants would an individual be prevented from dining in? On that scale, it is clear where Obama would stand. Anyone dancing around the matter with 'half-white' or such claptrap clearly doesn't grasp the issues involved.

So Hispanics could use the white only bathrooms back then?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:25 am

callmeslick wrote:as for the 'who's black' debate, re:Obama or anyone, those of us who grew up in the South have an easy barometer: Which bathroom in Town Hall would a person be expected to use, and what water fountains? What restaurants would an individual be prevented from dining in? On that scale, it is clear where Obama would stand. Anyone dancing around the matter with 'half-white' or such claptrap clearly doesn't grasp the issues involved.

No, on that scale it is only clear where Obama would be classified if he were back in the past! Today we all get our racial designation from the media and government and it can change to suit their needs.
Example:
Zimmerman was a Hispanic until the media needed him to fill in for the missing white racist they had starring in their story about Trayvon Martin's "murder". They even did the special effects on the police video and on the audio recording to make him more believable in the role....

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:41 am

Top Gun wrote:This thread is incredibly **** even by the usual standards. So congrats for that, I guess.

Strike it down and your journey to the Ferno side will be complete!

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Fri Jul 26, 2013 8:16 am

Will Robinson wrote:Different profiles for different folks I guess.

Ah. You could change the poll, as follows:

Which stereotype/profile/impression do you agree with?
A. Zimmerman as "creepy-a** cracker"
B. Martin as criminal "f***er... always gets away"

* A and B
* Only A
* Only B
* Neither

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:05 am

woodchip wrote:
callmeslick wrote:as for the 'who's black' debate, re:Obama or anyone, those of us who grew up in the South have an easy barometer: Which bathroom in Town Hall would a person be expected to use, and what water fountains? What restaurants would an individual be prevented from dining in? On that scale, it is clear where Obama would stand. Anyone dancing around the matter with 'half-white' or such claptrap clearly doesn't grasp the issues involved.
So Hispanics could use the white only bathrooms back then?

the few that were in the region I was in could,as best as I recall. That dances around my point, which was, Obama clearly could not. With Hispanic citizens it would have likely been subject to the complexion of their skin, frankly.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:25 am

Foil wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:Different profiles for different folks I guess.
Ah. You could change the poll, as follows:

Which stereotype/profile/impression do you agree with?
A. Zimmerman as "creepy-a** cracker"
B. Martin as criminal "f***er... always gets away"

* A and B
* Only A
* Only B
* Neither

No because that implies the profile Zimmerman was working off of was merely based on someone's feelings the way one judges 'who is creepy' instead of recognizing it was built on who was responsible for actual past criminal activity.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:54 am

Will Robinson wrote:
Foil wrote:You could change the poll, as follows:

Which stereotype/profile/impression do you agree with?
A. Zimmerman as "creepy-a** cracker"
B. Martin as criminal "f***er... always gets away"

* A and B
* Only A
* Only B
* Neither
No because that implies the profile Zimmerman was working off of was merely based on someone's feelings the way one judges 'who is creepy' instead of recognizing it was built on who was responsible for actual past criminal activity.

That's exactly the position the question is asking about.

You would pick "Only B", and state that you think A is solely appearance-based, and you think B has a legitimate basis, correct?

I'd pick "Neither", and state that I think neither position is well-informed.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:54 am

Will Robinson wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:How do you know that Martin didn't have that same right to claim to self defense? He can't tell his side of the story like Zimmerman has. Dead men can't defend themselves.

The fact that a shooting victim can't tell you he had a right to self defense isn't justification to convict the shooter who claims self defense AND has a lot of evidence to support his version.

If that logic prevailed every criminal ever shot would result in the shooter going to jail for murder!

The juror you just refered to wanted to convict Zimmerman and yet she determined there was no evidence to do it with. So would you go ahead and convict him anyway just because Martin might have wanted to claim self defense?!?

Martin, who was seen on top of Zimmerman pounding him when a witness heard frantic screams for help went to see what was up and he clearly saw Martin on top beating Zimmerman? You think he had a right to self defense when that witness shouted at him to stop the violence and he kept hitting Zimmerman?! If Zimmerman had died from a head wound at that point would you be telling me Martin had a right to self defense?!?

If it was Martins voice on the tape he was yelling 'Help me...help me me beat the crap out of this Cracka!'

No, we don't have Martin telling his side of the story but there certainly is a reason or two based in fact to believe you are wrong.

I guess that the number of homicides going up in "Stand Your Ground" states shows us that there are more bad guys out there assaulting people than ever before and that having a police force is pretty worthless in protecting us from all those bad guys. But I do wonder how many of those were secretly unjustified murder? That's always the risk when people take the law into their own hands, sometimes it will be self defense, sometimes it will be a murder that was covered up as a stand your ground shooting. If I shoot someone inside my own home, there is no question that I'm defending myself, because the intruder is NOT supposed to be there. Out in public, there is no way to determine who's the aggressor and who's the victim. It's rife for abuse, as is apparently happening.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafe ... on/1233133

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Jul 26, 2013 1:51 pm

tunnelcat wrote:... If I shoot someone inside my own home, there is no question that I'm defending myself, because the intruder is NOT supposed to be there. Out in public, there is no way to determine who's the aggressor and who's the victim. It's rife for abuse, as is apparently happening.

How do we know you didnt invite the victim over to your house for dinner and then shoot him because you are a racist cracka?
See how your logic works?

Both of those links are authored by a 'journalist' who is trying to connect Stand Your Ground law to the Zimmerman case, as you are, which is incorrect.
Zimmerman didn't invoke stand your ground.....primarily because no one who isn't a race baiting community agitator would ever expect him to need any exemption from a duty to retreat while lying prone on his back with the assailant on top of him beating his head in...
He may not have been in his home but he has a much better reason for shooting instead of running away than you do in your scenario above.

You are as confused as juror B29

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:31 pm

Will Robinson wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:... If I shoot someone inside my own home, there is no question that I'm defending myself, because the intruder is NOT supposed to be there. Out in public, there is no way to determine who's the aggressor and who's the victim. It's rife for abuse, as is apparently happening.
How do we know you didnt invite the victim over to your house for dinner and then shoot him because you are a racist cracka?
See how your logic works?

If there's evidence of forcible entry or a break in, that's the proof of intent to harm. If I don't know the person and they're inside, same thing. Now if I shoot someone in the back when they tried to flee my premises, or I kiledl someone I knew accidentally, I might me held accountable for MY actions. I personally probably wouldn't get off scot free if I didn't meet the letter of the law for home self-defense.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:55 pm

tunnelcat wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:
tunnelcat wrote:... If I shoot someone inside my own home, there is no question that I'm defending myself, because the intruder is NOT supposed to be there. Out in public, there is no way to determine who's the aggressor and who's the victim. It's rife for abuse, as is apparently happening.
How do we know you didnt invite the victim over to your house for dinner and then shoot him because you are a racist cracka?
See how your logic works?
If there's evidence of forcible entry or a break in, that's the proof of intent to harm. If I don't know the person and they're inside, same thing. Now if I shoot someone in the back when they tried to flee my premises, or I kiledl someone I knew accidentally, I might me held accountable for MY actions. I personally probably wouldn't get off scot free if I didn't meet the letter of the law for home self-defense.

How do we know you didn't stage the break in after inviting them in so you could shoot them? I think you should be charged for premeditated murder because the victim is dead and can't tell their side of the story....

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Jul 27, 2013 9:37 am

wow, are you reaching, Will.......which, to my eyes, seems to expose a self-awareness that you are attempting to defend the indefensible.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Jul 27, 2013 10:04 am

callmeslick wrote:wow, are you reaching, Will.......which, to my eyes, seems to expose a self-awareness that you are attempting to defend the indefensible.

not really. I seem him just using your own argument against you.

there was NO evidence that Zimmerman profiled (because of race) or attacked Martin. yet you INSIST that we cannot know because Martin is dead and we cannot hear his side of the story. Will is just stating your very own argument to make his point. so maybe now you understand how foolish your stance was.