DescentBB

Will Robinson wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:On this white privilege meme. How much of an exemption to the law should black people have to make up for it?

That statement right there reeks of resentment. The fact you need to ASK how much more do white people have to give to make up for the years of slavery, forced servitude, forced relocation, family separations, wholesale rape and murder and vile repression of another race tells me you're not happy about giving more than what you think is due, or have already given up to now. In fact, we may never be able to fully make due for the sins visited upon black people by white people in the past, or present.

How much is 2+2 ?

Oh dear! I just revealed that I'm actually a serial killer of french poodles, the pioneer of string theory and have a penchant for cheap merlot!!
When will I learn to keep quiet?!?

Or, maybe TC just exhibited the worse case of projecting bigotry on to someone based on NO FRIKKEN CORRELATION TO REALITY ever.
An event that is only out marveled by the extreme level of her own white guilt that she just revealed by stating the premise of her comment!

I hereby cite TC as proof my theory on programming is equally as effective on the kneejerk liberals as I had implied before. (only sort of joking)

Touched a nerve did I? Tsk, tsk.

Spidey wrote:I’m not responsible for what people did in the past.

Nor am I responsible for the "sins" of my race.

No, you're not and neither am I. But there are still bigots and racists in this country fanning the flames of racism even today, so the stain never disappears. The White Supremacists, the KKK and the Nazis are still around and still spout their hatred, very publicly.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:LOL!

I assume you're speaking of "we" as a country. Assuming "we" have done everything that needs to be done to guarantee them equality, we have made amends as much as depends on us.

Have we really? So why is there still strife between the races? If whites are all so nice and amenable to black people, why do so many still harbor hatred towards blacks?

I never declared anyone a thug, that’s why my post has the word thug in quotes. (meaning in this context…used by others)

And, this is the perfect example of the intellectual dishonesty, I was talking about.

Spidey wrote:I never declared anyone a thug, that’s why my post has the word thug in quotes. (meaning in this context…used by others)

And, this is the perfect example of the intellectual dishonesty, I was talking about.

really, what was your intent, then, in plain English, in stating that 'around here we assume 'thugs' are armed'? If you want intellectual purity, you may wish to be clearer with your words.

Brush up on your understanding. (although I believe your point was to slander me, rather than you didn't understand me)

And learn some context, while your at it.

CUDA wrote:

Top Gun wrote:Will I'm glad you were apparently hovering over the scene as it unfolded and thus know for a fact that the situation escalated immediately from Zimmerman following Martin to Martin beating Zimmerman up, without any sort of back-and-forth provocation in between.

Oh wait, you don't know that. Nor does anyone else. But please, keep pushing your version of the narrative. It's quite amusing.

And you don't know either....

That was...my whole point. Which is why I didn't give my thoughts on what happened, because I have no ★■◆●ing clue. Nor does anyone else here. And yet in the rest of your post, you're still making basic assumptions about the incident that can't be proven either way.

Also if Will uses a bull★■◆● term like "race mongering" one more time, I might be physically ill.

tunnelcat wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:LOL!

I assume you're speaking of "we" as a country. Assuming "we" have done everything that needs to be done to guarantee them equality, we have made amends as much as depends on us.

Have we really? So why is there still strife between the races? If whites are all so nice and amenable to black people, why do so many still harbor hatred towards blacks?

I did say "assuming". As far as I know there are no laws on the books holding white people in preference to blacks. Kind of a silly association, though, TC. People still have free will, and freedom of opinion and thought. I've known of white people who still harbor hatred toward blacks (I don't think we killed them all in the Civil War, or anything), and I happen to work in a small town where I've been told that white people should not wander into the black part of town (a warning that may be lingering from 20-30 years in the past, to be fair). The succinct answer is that people are mostly an unfortunate combination of wicked (Biblical), ignorant, and stupid, in the absence of inspiration to strive to be otherwise.

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:On this white privilege meme. How much of an exemption to the law should black people have to make up for it?

That statement right there reeks of resentment. The fact you need to ASK how much more do white people have to give to make up for the years of slavery, forced servitude, forced relocation, family separations, wholesale rape and murder and vile repression of another race tells me you're not happy about giving more than what you think is due, or have already given up to now. In fact, we may never be able to fully make due for the sins visited upon black people by white people in the past, or present.

How much is 2+2 ?

Oh dear! I just revealed that I'm actually a serial killer of french poodles, the pioneer of string theory and have a penchant for cheap merlot!!
When will I learn to keep quiet?!?

Or, maybe TC just exhibited the worse case of projecting bigotry on to someone based on NO FRIKKEN CORRELATION TO REALITY ever.
An event that is only out marveled by the extreme level of her own white guilt that she just revealed by stating the premise of her comment!

I hereby cite TC as proof my theory on programming is equally as effective on the kneejerk liberals as I had implied before. (only sort of joking)

Touched a nerve did I? Tsk, tsk.

Honestly Im not sure....is the gag reflex set off by a nerve?

tunnelcat wrote:But there are still bigots and racists in this country fanning the flames of racism even today, so the stain never disappears. The White Supremacists, the KKK and the Nazis are still around and still spout their hatred, very publicly.

Careful there that sword you are swinging around with such zeal has two edges to it. One of them is pointed where you are refusing to look.

tunnelcat wrote:..Have we really? So why is there still strife between the races?

Oh! Oh! I know!! I know!!

/me jumps up and down raising hand

Because, for one reason anyway, there is lots of money and power in it for the 'wedge industry*'!


(*euphemism for race monger. thank me later, TG)

Foil wrote:Vision, if you're trying to make statistical inferences about likelihood of a given person to commit these crimes, you're doing some bad math.

Nah, I was just curious about the known statistics and was shocked because they are opposite of what I expected. It's just something to think about, in a general sense.

Foil wrote:

CUDA wrote:Martin assaulted Zimmerman. A CRIME. (And it doesn't matter if there was a verbal confrontation or not beforehand. It is illegal to assault someone)

Sorry, CUDA, you're making an assumption here. We have zero evidence about who started the physical conflict.

It's possible that Martin started the assault.
It's also possible that Zimmerman started the assault.

All we know is how the fight ended.

either you TOTALLY missed my statement or you CHOSE to intentionally ignore it.

Martin assaulted Zimmerman, that is an undesputable FACT. Zimmerman was the ONLY one with injuries to his person (save the gunshot) and eye witness testimony confirms the account. Martin committed a crime by assaulting Zimmerman. Martin committed the ONLY crime in the confrontation.

Spidey wrote:Brush up on your understanding. (although I believe your point was to slander me, rather than you didn't understand me)

And learn some context, while your at it.

you didn't answer my question. What were you getting at?

CUDA wrote:Martin assaulted Zimmerman, that is an undesputable FACT. Zimmerman was the ONLY one with injuries to his person (save the gunshot) and eye witness testimony confirms the account

who is this 'eyewitness'? You keep coming back to this and all I recall was someone, who from a distance, THOUGHT they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.This, for but a brief time, with no context from that witness as to who started what, or how, or the entire sequence of the physical exchange. Also, as I pointed out earlier(and having some experience with fights in my misspent youth), Martin's autopsy showed no wounds other than the gunshot. No bruises on hands, no scrapes, nothing. Many have even suggested(with no proof, mind you) that Zimmerman may have shown self-inflicted wounds, but certainly he didn't present with a concussion nor anything serious by way of physical damage. A real hell of a fight, huh, to end with a gunshot?

.

Martin committed a crime by assaulting Zimmerman. Martin committed the ONLY crime in the confrontation.

since Martin was not available to charge,nor try, you can no more claim that he committed a crime than nothing. Seriously, CUDA, can you not see that you have been, consistently jumping to conclusions based on nothing by way of admissable, incontrovertable facts? The lack of facts to prove anything is why I have been comfortable accepting the not guilty verdict for Zimmerman, I would at least like to see the same openness be applied to the deceased Martin, who paid with his life for WHATEVER occurred that evening.

CUDA wrote:. Zimmerman was the ONLY one with injuries to his person (save the gunshot)

That's a pretty big "save" there eh?? You know what makes me laugh? 30 year old playing cop was getting his ass beat by a teenager!! I'd kill the kid too so my rep wouldn't get hurt.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:Martin assaulted Zimmerman, that is an undesputable FACT. Zimmerman was the ONLY one with injuries to his person (save the gunshot) and eye witness testimony confirms the account

who is this 'eyewitness'? You keep coming back to this and all I recall was someone, who from a distance, THOUGHT they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.

thats what is referred to in legal terms AS ANEYE WITNESS.

Also, as I pointed out earlier(and having some experience with fights in my misspent youth), Martin's autopsy showed no wounds other than the gunshot. No bruises on hands, no scrapes, nothing. Many have even suggested(with no proof, mind you) that Zimmerman may have shown self-inflicted wounds, but certainly he didn't present with a concussion nor anything serious by way of physical damage.

the EYE WITNESS testimony, and forensic expert testimony say otherwise. SERIOUSLY have you even looked at any of it?

real hell of a fight, huh, to end with a gunshot?

thats why he feared for his life and was found not quilty.try and keep up

Martin committed a crime by assaulting Zimmerman. Martin committed the ONLY crime in the confrontation.

since Martin was not available to charge,nor try, you can no more claim that he committed a crime than nothing. Seriously, CUDA, can you not see that you have been, consistently jumping to conclusions based on nothing by way of admissable, incontrovertable facts? The lack of facts to prove anything is why I have been comfortable accepting the not guilty verdict for Zimmerman, I would at least like to see the same openness be applied to the deceased Martin, who paid with his life for WHATEVER occurred that evening.

GOD slick pay attention. EYE WITNESS testimony. Physical evidence. Forensic expert testimony.

I never said Martin deserved to die. NO ON HERE HAS. But at least stop suggesting that Martin was not in someway culpable for his own demise. Too many people on this forum and IRL are making that assertion.

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:Martin assaulted Zimmerman, that is an undesputable FACT. Zimmerman was the ONLY one with injuries to his person (save the gunshot) and eye witness testimony confirms the account

who is this 'eyewitness'? You keep coming back to this and all I recall was someone, who from a distance, THOUGHT they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.

thats what is referred to in legal terms AS ANEYE WITNESS.

read what I wrote--I clearly understood there was one eyewitness, but that person saw very little.

Also, as I pointed out earlier(and having some experience with fights in my misspent youth), Martin's autopsy showed no wounds other than the gunshot. No bruises on hands, no scrapes, nothing. Many have even suggested(with no proof, mind you) that Zimmerman may have shown self-inflicted wounds, but certainly he didn't present with a concussion nor anything serious by way of physical damage.

the EYE WITNESS testimony, and forensic expert testimony say otherwise. SERIOUSLY have you even looked at any of it?

I did, I have and I noted the shortcomings. Minor injuries to Z, no other wounds than gunshot to M, eyewitness saw about 10 seconds from a distance, and the forensic experts from both sides differed.

real hell of a fight, huh, to end with a gunshot?

thats why he feared for his life and was found not quilty.try and keep up

he was found not guilty(and I repeat for around the hundredth time)because there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict. Nothing more, nothing less. That is how our legal system works. Speaking of keeping up, you might wish to go and get a basic grasp of the tenets of our judicial/legal system, and try better to understand the meaning of a Not Guilty verdict.

Martin committed a crime by assaulting Zimmerman. Martin committed the ONLY crime in the confrontation.

since Martin was not available to charge,nor try, you can no more claim that he committed a crime than nothing. Seriously, CUDA, can you not see that you have been, consistently jumping to conclusions based on nothing by way of admissable, incontrovertable facts? The lack of facts to prove anything is why I have been comfortable accepting the not guilty verdict for Zimmerman, I would at least like to see the same openness be applied to the deceased Martin, who paid with his life for WHATEVER occurred that evening.

GOD slick pay attention. EYE WITNESS testimony. Physical evidence. Forensic expert testimony.

I never said Martin deserved to die. NO ON HERE HAS. But at least stop suggesting that Martin was not in someway culpable for his own demise. Too many people on this forum and IRL are making that assertion.

frankly, since no court of law ever had the chance to evaluate Martin's behavior insofar as criminality or culpability(this trial was merely a presentation around Zimmerman's guilt or not), I have no way of knowing Martin's culpability, nor do you. All we have for 'facts' there are the fact that he arrived on the scene with Skittles and Iced Tea and departed from the scene to the morgue. Yet, based upon one really limited eyewitness, conflicting forensic experts, lack of Zimmerman sworn testimony and little else, you leap to conclusions. Please note, CUDA, that I have offered nothing by way of conclusions. I certainly cannot, if a jury couldn't, prove a damn thing about the details of that night. And that, and only that is what I have been asserting here. We don't know, we'll never know, and it is YOU and others making bold, clear assertions essentially out of your collective asses.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Brush up on your understanding. (although I believe your point was to slander me, rather than you didn't understand me)

And learn some context, while your at it.

you didn't answer my question. What were you getting at?

The point I was making is this…

The same people who are claiming that Zimmerman was using profiling to determine that Martin was a “thug” are also the ones claiming that Zimmerman knew he had the advantage because he was armed.

These two things contradict each other.

.............................

Slick…you may not be drawing any unfounded conclusions…but your whole “skittles” mantra and such sure does a good job painting a picture.

CUDA wrote:Martin assaulted Zimmerman, that is an undesputable FACT.

Again, you're making assumptions, CUDA. We don't know which guy assaulted the other first (note that defending against assault is not assault). Here's a scenario which fits the known evidence:

Zimmerman assaults Martin. Martin is able to avoid getting hit, and then retaliates by getting Zimmerman to the ground. The fight then proceeds per the other eyewitness accounts and the physical evidence about the gunshot.

I'm not saying that's what happened (because we don't know). I'm saying that you are making an assumption when you discount it as a possibility.

Slick,
Martin did have an abrasion to one of his knuckles and Zimmermans head showed trauma to the face...broken nose...as well as cuts and abrasion to the back of the head.

Zimmerman had reported that in addition to being sucker punched...nose...he had his head slammed into cement and his mouth covered with Martins hands. The head slamming would have most likely been carried out with open hands as was the covering of the mouth; not likely to wound your hands slamming a head of a body you are sitting on top of into the cement beneath it.
So the forensics are quite consistent with Zimmermans acounting of the event.

Another thing, I know from first hand experience (my right hand to be precise) you can break a guys nose with a punch and NOT suffer any wounds to your hand.

As to the 'differing' between forensic experts....yea, there was a difference alright! One was competent and one was a bumbling fool who kept changing his testimony!

Now, for the 15 seconds the witness watched the struggle. Go watch a lightweight fight and count the blows that are thrown! You might get the impression in only 15 seconds that people are engaged in violence....yea, I'm pretty sure of that. Now imagine one of those guy jumping on the other and straddling him and the referee lets him continue to attack...no rules... It might resemble an MMA beating....hmmm, that's a familiar phrase!

The witness heard cries for help, went outside where he discovered the struggle taking place quite close to his back door, he observed one guy on top dominating the other and shouted at them to stop, they didnt and so he had determined he saw enough violence to make him want call the police!
So your attempt to diminish the witnesses ability to asses the potential for danger is ridiculous!

Will Robinson wrote:Honestly Im not sure....is the gag reflex set off by a nerve?

Yep. You've never heard of the glossopharyngeal nerve? It's particularly sensitive to choking on crow.

Will Robinson wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:But there are still bigots and racists in this country fanning the flames of racism even today, so the stain never disappears. The White Supremacists, the KKK and the Nazis are still around and still spout their hatred, very publicly.

Careful there that sword you are swinging around with such zeal has two edges to it. One of them is pointed where you are refusing to look.

Any you're ignoring the side of the sword that's still doing the slicing and dicing.

Will Robinson wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:..Have we really? So why is there still strife between the races?

Oh! Oh! I know!! I know!!

/me jumps up and down raising hand

Because, for one reason anyway, there is lots of money and power in it for the 'wedge industry*'!

(*euphemism for race monger. thank me later, TG)

Well, I'll have to agree it's a great excuse that keep's up the dander for lots of whites who still can't come to terms with some of the nastiness that their own race still-to-this-day does to blacks and other people of color, all in the name of superiority.

I see that Zimmerman was pulled over in Texas for speeding. It was OK in Texas to carry a handgun in his glove compartment there, but if he crosses into Arizona, he might just be profiled as a Mexican smuggler and get tossed in the can, or deported. If he ends up being stopped in California while carrying, it's NOT legal to have a weapon in your glovebox. Maybe they'll throw him in jail.

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Honestly Im not sure....is the gag reflex set off by a nerve?

Yep. You've never heard of the glossopharyngeal nerve? It's particularly sensitive to choking on crow.

That's amusing and sad at the same time. You actually think you are serving crow.

Will Robinson wrote:That's amusing and sad at the same time. You actually think you are serving crow.

No. You're eating your own product. You seem to think that blacks, or other non-white races are demanding special consideration and that if we just get rid of this "wedge industry", all our problems would magically go away. It's too simplistic and too one-sided of a view to solve a very complex problem. People, especially whites, need to view the race issue from the eyes of those on the other side in order to solve things, not sit in behind their resentment of losing privilege. It won't solve things, ever. Of course, you could just ship every black person back to Africa if you'd like a quick fix. And if white slave buyers had never brought them to America in the first place centuries ago, we wouldn't have this problem now, would we?

Will Robinson wrote:Slick,
Martin did have an abrasion to one of his knuckles and Zimmermans head showed trauma to the face...broken nose...as well as cuts and abrasion to the back of the head.

Zimmerman had reported that in addition to being sucker punched...nose...he had his head slammed into cement and his mouth covered with Martins hands. The head slamming would have most likely been carried out with open hands as was the covering of the mouth; not likely to wound your hands slamming a head of a body you are sitting on top of into the cement beneath it.
So the forensics are quite consistent with Zimmermans acounting of the event.

not really. One forensic expert reported no wounds of any type on Martin. Zimmerman could show no treatment for a nose break, although I agree that the picture looks as if he took a shot to the nose. Odd, however(and you claim experience as well as I do) isn't it that Martin could deliver a nose-breaking shot at close range, then supposedly wrestle around with a guy and have NO BLOOD other than his own on his clothing?

As to the 'differing' between forensic experts....yea, there was a difference alright! One was competent and one was a bumbling fool who kept changing his testimony!

for the upteenth time, as Foil keeps politely pointing out, you jump to conclusions with utterly no standing to do so. Please, enlighten us with you deep knowledge of forensics, pathology or medicine that allows you to judge a professional based upon public performance. Some of the brightest scientists and scholars I've ever known were painful to listen to in a public presentation.

Now, for the 15 seconds the witness watched the struggle. Go watch a lightweight fight and count the blows that are thrown! You might get the impression in only 15 seconds that people are engaged in violence....yea, I'm pretty sure of that. Now imagine one of those guy jumping on the other and straddling him and the referee lets him continue to attack...no rules... It might resemble an MMA beating....hmmm, that's a familiar phrase!

Will, I've witnessed a few street and bar fights, and have owned shares in a couple of professional boxers over the years, so I've been to a prizefight or three. Comparing a couple of amateurs with trained fighters is laughable. Even more laughable is that you think you can sell this ★■◆● to the rest of us by way of defending your bizarre assumptions.

The witness heard cries for help, went outside where he discovered the struggle taking place quite close to his back door, he observed one guy on top dominating the other and shouted at them to stop, they didnt and so he had determined he saw enough violence to make him want call the police!
So your attempt to diminish the witnesses ability to asses the potential for danger is ridiculous!

but, the same witness wasn't absolutely sure about who was doing what to whom, and wasn't sure who was crying for help. Still more uncertainty in a situation about which you and CUDA and others claim absolute certainty.......and what neither of you seem to grasp is that(at least for myself and Foil in this thread, as I read it)it is THIS VERY THING that is being objected to.

tunnelcat wrote: ...You seem to think that blacks, or other non-white races are demanding special consideration and that if we just get rid of this "wedge industry", all our problems would magically go away.

I was talking about how people wanted to ignore the law and convict Zimmerman in spite of the law and evidence and I was scolded by self righteous leftwing kneejerks that their desire was to be accepted because we white people don't understand their anger due to our 'white privilege'.
So I asked just how much of an exemption and to what laws, are we supposed to build in to the system because they are underprivileged compared to whites.

I have pointed to a despicable effort to to stir up black peoples emotions to the breaking point by so called leaders of the community based on fabricated offenses. It is that effort to gin up outrage that gives birth to such ill-logical desires and harms race relations.

I never said 'remove that source of horrible agita and "all our problems would magically go away'! It sure will help though!

Why do you insist on misrepresenting my position instead of dealing with what I actually said?
Is it because you found the truth was in the way of sustaining the left wing narrative so you simply revise it until your story sounds reasonable. What does that say about your audience?

Just like NBC and ABC found Zimmerman to be too Hispanic and his actual words on the 911 call too racially neutral and his head too bloody so they edited him to be 'white' and 'racist' and to look like he 'had no injuries'?

Or is my noticing things like that some how wrong due to my 'white privilege? Or is it OK to notice things like that but I should let it go because I'm a privileged white man?
How will letting those kind of tactics go unchallenged move us toward equality?!?

Maybe instead of creating a false narrative for blacks you should share some of that privilege that lets us see such phony tactics for what they are!
Tell them they are being played and letting it happen just to empower the race-pimps diminishes the real struggle! That is a great privilege to share with them. The privilege of the truth! Instead of withholding the truth and feeding them lies to manipulate their outrage so you can send them into battle for the likes of frikken Sharpton, et al!!

Here is my personal summary at this point…

One side is using speculation and conjecture to create facts that don’t exist.

The other side is using known but irrelevant facts to create a story that doesn’t exist.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Slick,
Martin did have an abrasion to one of his knuckles and Zimmermans head showed trauma to the face...broken nose...as well as cuts and abrasion to the back of the head.

Zimmerman had reported that in addition to being sucker punched...nose...he had his head slammed into cement and his mouth covered with Martins hands. The head slamming would have most likely been carried out with open hands as was the covering of the mouth; not likely to wound your hands slamming a head of a body you are sitting on top of into the cement beneath it.
So the forensics are quite consistent with Zimmermans acounting of the event.

not really. One forensic expert reported no wounds of any type on Martin. Zimmerman could show no treatment for a nose break, although I agree that the picture looks as if he took a shot to the nose. Odd, however(and you claim experience as well as I do) isn't it that Martin could deliver a nose-breaking shot at close range, then supposedly wrestle around with a guy and have NO BLOOD other than his own on his clothing?

The autopsy report and the defense expert found the damage to Martins hand.

Since it was raining, and Zimmerman was on his back immediately after the blow to the nose, and the subsequent damage was to the back of Zimmerman's head and Martins clothes were not preserved properly it is quite possible Martins clothes could end up without proof of Zimmerman's blood on it.

No, you and I are not experts. We both are depending on the opinions of others.
I listened to a lot of them critique the prosecutions expert
I'm merely relating the critique of those other forensic experts and homicide detectives who cause me to question the defense 'expert'.

The defense expert is all some people have to hang their theory on so I understand not all people will agree with the sources of my conclusions. I submit those sources seem to be much more credible than the defense expert who had to resubmit some findings opposite of his original testimony, had to refer to notes that he shouldn't have needed and at the least should have been introduced into evidence but were not...
He wasn't very impressive.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Now, for the 15 seconds the witness watched the struggle. Go watch a lightweight fight and count the blows that are thrown! You might get the impression in only 15 seconds that people are engaged in violence....yea, I'm pretty sure of that. Now imagine one of those guy jumping on the other and straddling him and the referee lets him continue to attack...no rules... It might resemble an MMA beating....hmmm, that's a familiar phrase!

Will, I've witnessed a few street and bar fights, and have owned shares in a couple of professional boxers over the years, so I've been to a prizefight or three. Comparing a couple of amateurs with trained fighters is laughable. Even more laughable is that you think you can sell this **** to the rest of us by way of defending your bizarre assumptions.

I'm not comparing them I'm merely illustrating that 15 seconds is way more than enough time to hurt someone...to hurt someone continuously until they die....or until they panic and pull a pistol. And amatures more likely to reach that tipping point of panic than professionals!

And without ANY DOUBT it was long enough for the witness to think someone was getting hurt bad enough to call the police and report it!! How you can try to debate that absolute fact is laughable! The man sat there on the witness stand and testified to it. It was his opinion in question and he verified that, in fact, that is what he saw and what he thought!

That is not bizarre to believe and I seriously doubt any but the most dogmatic Zimmerman-self defense deniers will agree with you! Certainly not anyone who has been on the ground losing a street fight!

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:The witness heard cries for help, went outside where he discovered the struggle taking place quite close to his back door, he observed one guy on top dominating the other and shouted at them to stop, they didnt and so he had determined he saw enough violence to make him want call the police!
So your attempt to diminish the witnesses ability to asses the potential for danger is ridiculous!

but, the same witness wasn't absolutely sure about who was doing what to whom, and wasn't sure who was crying for help. Still more uncertainty in a situation about which you and CUDA and others claim absolute certainty.......and what neither of you seem to grasp is that(at least for myself and Foil in this thread, as I read it)it is THIS VERY THING that is being objected to.

Total bull★■◆●! I call complete bovine feces!

That witness said that, at the time they were struggling, he couldn't have identified the faces of who was wearing the grey hoodie and who was wearing the red coat...but he knew for sure that the guy in the grey hoodie was on top raining down blows at the head of the guy in the red coat who he is sure was on bottom!!! And he saw the face of the guy in the red coat right after the shooting and testified that it was Zimmerman!

So unless you want to now suggest we don't know who was wearing what clothing you need to revisit who is unable to grasp what and how silly your objection is on this point!

You make me wonder just how much of the evidence and testimony you really saw and how much you are just relying on 'other sources' for your opinion. Or are you just this blatantly dishonest?

You know, now that I stop and think about it, the really fun part about Will's "race pimps" bull★■◆● is the insinuation that black people need to be told by someone external that their community leaders are theoretically harming them. Because, y'know, they're not intelligent enough to figure it out themselves or something.

I’m sure Louis Farrakhan would agree with you.

Trying your own hand at race-pimping/"race-mongering", there, TG? Yeah, when we know that the black community in general is a veritable super-charged, self-correcting think-tank... Which explains the socially progressive messages behind popular hip-hop music, a single motherhood epidemic, and a host of other problems which could be laid at their feet. Grow up. That was lame.

On a rational note, I'm sure there are plenty of black people who see Al Sharpton et al for exactly what they are. They are a sorry lot who's popularity/relevance compels them to see any potentially racial angle in the worst light. Kind of like the way TV evangelists are motivated to see everything in a light which leads to them receiving lots of money.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous, animals and you know it." -Tommy Lee Jones in Men in Black

Top Gun wrote:You know, now that I stop and think about it, the really fun part about Will's "race pimps" **** is the insinuation that black people need to be told by someone external that their community leaders are theoretically harming them. Because, y'know, they're not intelligent enough to figure it out themselves or something.

I never said they don't reject it because they aren't smart enough to see it. That is your mind at work to serve whatever reason you have for saying it.
I'm confident race doesn't have any determination on ones ability to know bullshiz when they see it but go and teach a few generations in a row to 'know' something that includes rejection of a contrary message and they sure will 'know' it to the exclusion of reality.

Human nature is human nature and mob mentality is mob mentality. I see every year the week long invasion of hundreds of thousands of Harley riders in my town for an annual bike rally...two weeks later a similar Black Biker Week rally. The contrast in behavior between the two groups is monumental and the contrast in each groups mob mentality makes for a very interesting study.

The chip on the shoulder during black bike week is quite prevalent. The chip is largely unfounded but that doesn't prevent most of them from using it as justification for anti-social behavior that I doubt most of them would exhibit any other time.

what's odd, Will, is that we have the same pair of events down on the VA shore, one 4 weeks apart from the other. Yet, I notice no such 'monumental' contrast, and my little town is one of the host towns for Bike Week events in both cases. One is left to wonder if South Carolina has such a different populace or perhaps, just perhaps, you see what you wish to see. By way of my view, both groups are actually far better behaved than any 'biker' stereotypes, some of them(especially the older guys) are damned nice to hang with(both black and white), and some of the younger ones have issues with self-control(both black and white). Neither group exhibits anything near 'mob behavior', and both are FAR preferable to Senior Week attendees.

Will Robinson wrote:The chip on the shoulder during black bike week is quite prevalent. The chip is largely unfounded...

This is one of the spots where you lose me, Will. What makes you say it's unfounded? Personal experience as a black rider, or is this that lens of yours again?

Note: I've seen white bikers act like pricks to riders of other ethnicities, or who don't ride their kind of bike (and, yes, vice versa as well). I'm not saying having that anger is okay, but it's far from "unfounded".

Will Robinson wrote:
I was talking about how people wanted to ignore the law and convict Zimmerman in spite of the law and evidence and I was scolded by self righteous leftwing kneejerks that their desire was to be accepted because we white people don't understand their anger due to our 'white privilege'.
So I asked just how much of an exemption and to what laws, are we supposed to build in to the system because they are underprivileged compared to whites.

I have pointed to a despicable effort to to stir up black peoples emotions to the breaking point by so called leaders of the community based on fabricated offenses. It is that effort to gin up outrage that gives birth to such ill-logical desires and harms race relations.

I never said 'remove that source of horrible agita and "all our problems would magically go away'! It sure will help though!

Why do you insist on misrepresenting my position instead of dealing with what I actually said?
Is it because you found the truth was in the way of sustaining the left wing narrative so you simply revise it until your story sounds reasonable. What does that say about your audience?

Just like NBC and ABC found Zimmerman to be too Hispanic and his actual words on the 911 call too racially neutral and his head too bloody so they edited him to be 'white' and 'racist' and to look like he 'had no injuries'?

Or is my noticing things like that some how wrong due to my 'white privilege? Or is it OK to notice things like that but I should let it go because I'm a privileged white man?
How will letting those kind of tactics go unchallenged move us toward equality?!?

Maybe instead of creating a false narrative for blacks you should share some of that privilege that lets us see such phony tactics for what they are!
Tell them they are being played and letting it happen just to empower the race-pimps diminishes the real struggle! That is a great privilege to share with them. The privilege of the truth! Instead of withholding the truth and feeding them lies to manipulate their outrage so you can send them into battle for the likes of frikken Sharpton, et al!!

And yet, you keep defending Zimmerman like he's the most innocent non-racist saint out there who was just defending himself against an aggressor. You're making a whole bunch of blanket black and white assumptions about Zimmerman's innocence from a viewpoint that whites-are-usually-not-wrong when it comes to dealing with any black people. I'm postulating Zimmerman is probably a racist because that's still prevalent in our society, not very innocent in this mess, and went after Martin because of his preconceptions about all black teenager being criminals. Here's a sampling of what he actually said on the 911 tapes.

Right out of the gate talking to the dispatcher, Zimmerman says this:

"This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about."

Doesn't sound suspicious to me, unless one assumes all black teenagers are up to no good in the first place.

When asked the about the race of the individual, Zimmerman says:

"He looks black."

So Zimmerman knows that Martin is black. Then Martin sees that Zimmerman is following him and is probably is getting suspicious as to the "why" at this point. Zimmerman then tells the dispatcher:

"Now he’s staring at me."

Then Martin decides to turn and maybe confront the guy following him. Zimmerman again states that Martin is a black male, like that fact alone means a threat.

"Yeah, now he’s coming toward me. He’s got his hands in his waist band.
And he’s a black male."

Yet Martin still hasn't attacked and Zimmerman still hasn't identified himself to Martin.

"Something’s wrong with him. Yep, he’s coming to check me out.
He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is."

At one point, Zimmerman says:

"These assholes. They always get away."

So why was he calling Martin an ★■◆●? He hadn't DONE anything yet, or even confronted Zimmerman at this point, other than walk around being a black teenager holding candy. Zimmerman has already decided Martin is a bad, black teenager, who may have a weapon and who's up to no good.

Later on, Zimmerman says that Martin is now running away from him. Wouldn't you at this point?

"He's running."

Then Zimmerman admits to the dispatcher that he's following Martin at a run also, at which point the dispatcher says:

"We don’t need you to do that."

Right there, Zimmerman could have kept his distance, stopped a confrontation and saved a life, but he forged ahead, because he had the gun with which to defend himself if he needed.

And then, this part is conjecture because Zimmerman says this under his breath and it's not very audible:

"F**king coons."

Now I can't prove he actually said that slur. It's too inaudible. But even if he didn't say that, Zimmerman is a racist just from he earlier comments. AND you're totally ignoring the point of view of things from Martin's side. You keep on looking at things from your white, superior viewpoint. It was dark, it was raining, some suspicious white looking guy was following Martin. How would you react in that situation? You're a male, think long and hard about it. You don't seem to see that blacks can have a fear of whites when the situation is in reverse. Make no mistake, Zimmerman chased Martin against the advice of the police and he did not identify himself as security, LIKE THE POLICE WOULD HAVE. He is NOT totally inculpable in the death of Martin and he is not free of the racist charge in my book and his actions stuck another blow to the still unsteady race relations in the U.S. This isn't something to do with lefty ideals, it's more of a making peace ideal.

tunnelcat wrote:Zimmerman has already decided Martin is a bad, black teenager, who may have a weapon and who's up to no good.

Oh, but you said Zimmerman only confronted Martin because he knew he had the advantage.

Thanks a lot for making the point, that slick was unable to understand…give me your E-Mail, and I’ll zip over your payment via PayPal.

And there you go using those known facts to create a story that doesn’t exist….

When Zimmerman said “ And he’s a black male” he was simply clearing up the information that he gave previously…that was “ I ‘think’ he’s black”…because he now has a better look.

Spidey wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Zimmerman has already decided Martin is a bad, black teenager, who may have a weapon and who's up to no good.

Oh, but you said Zimmerman only confronted Martin because he knew he had the advantage.

Thanks a lot for making the point, that slick was unable to understand…give me your E-Mail, and I’ll zip over your payment via PayPal.

And there you go using those known facts to create a story that doesn’t exist….

When Zimmerman said “ And he’s a black male” he was simply clearing up the information that he gave previously…that was “ I ‘think’ he’s black”…because he now has a better look.

ummmm....'slick was unable to understand'? Seriously, read closer. What I said was that a kid walking down a rainy sidewalk with a bag of skittles and a drink was NOT LIKELY to be armed, and Zimmerman thus had no reason to jump to a conclusion otherwise.

You are bordering on sick TC.
You have some key stuff very, very, wrong there. You are repeating stuff that was proven to be untrue and not just that last coon reference either.
I am having a hard time believing you don't really know that but if you truly don't know it by now, with all the data and evidence out there, it can only be due to your own willful ignorance.

I'm done discussing this with you for those reasons. Nothing good can come from engaging you as far as I can see. Have a good life, you are sometimes a funny and witty person, may you find yourself in a good place always.

Foil wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:The chip on the shoulder during black bike week is quite prevalent. The chip is largely unfounded...

This is one of the spots where you lose me, Will. What makes you say it's unfounded? Personal experience as a black rider, or is this that lens of yours again?

Note: I've seen white bikers act like pricks to riders of other ethnicities, or who don't ride their kind of bike (and, yes, vice versa as well). I'm not saying having that anger is okay, but it's far from "unfounded".

It isnt biker to other biker attitude I'm talking about. It is black person on bike toward the locals and tourists. I'll find some time to show you police reports of the two rallies. Then you can decide.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Trying your own hand at race-pimping/"race-mongering", there, TG? Yeah, when we know that the black community in general is a veritable super-charged, self-correcting think-tank... Which explains the socially progressive messages behind popular hip-hop music, a single motherhood epidemic, and a host of other problems which could be laid at their feet. Grow up. That was lame.

I work with what people give me, and Will's pattern of thinking throughout this entire thread produces some pretty unavoidable conclusions. The whole "pimping" concept is so batshit stupid in the first place that it deserves calling out, but he's gone beyond that. And looool, blaming rap music.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Yeah, when we know that the black community in general is a veritable super-charged, self-correcting think-tank...

As opposed to which racial community that is a super-charged, self-correcting think tank? I can't think of one. As far as I know it's not rap artists who overwhelmingly deny the existence of climate change and sing about it in their songs. That seems more like an ignorant white politician thing to me.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Which explains the socially progressive messages behind popular hip-hop music, a single motherhood epidemic, and a host of other problems which could be laid at their feet.

Wait, did I miss something? How is "hip-hop music" a problem? I suspect you don't actually know enough about music to make this statement. My guess is you don't like how it sounds and see "blacks" looking all "black" and dismiss it as something below your consideration. That's fine if you don't like it, but it isn't a "problem" anymore than the Beatles or Elvis was a problem. Catch my drift? Hip-hop culture is dynamic and complex like the culture it comes from. Sorry, I studied music in school and I'm well versed in music and it's cultural impacts from Bach to Biggie Smalls, from Mozart to Jay-Z. There are dozens and dozens of hip-hop artists that write about real social issues. That won't matter to you though because you are focused on the "blackness" of it.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:On a rational note, I'm sure there are plenty of black people who see Al Sharpton et al for exactly what they are.

And this quote let's me know you are smart enough to not make blanket statements about blacks, but then...

Sergeant Thorne wrote:"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous, animals and you know it." -Tommy Lee Jones in Men in Black

... You clumsily choose a quote that is supposed to be taken generally about people, but unfortunately reads like you think blacks are dumb, panicky, dangerous, animals because of the context of the post. I'm going to chalk it up to sloppy, sloppy writing, so don't take offense.

Will Robinson wrote:You are bordering on sick TC.
You have some key stuff very, very, wrong there. You are repeating stuff that was proven to be untrue and not just that last coon reference either.
I am having a hard time believing you don't really know that but if you truly don't know it by now, with all the data and evidence out there, it can only be due to your own willful ignorance.

I'm done discussing this with you for those reasons. Nothing good can come from engaging you as far as I can see. Have a good life, you are sometimes a funny and witty person, may you find yourself in a good place always.

actually, TC's narrative is very, very close to the actual facts. Far more so, for instance, than the narrative you and others have focused on. That narrative is why I felt that Zimmerman should be responsible, legally for some wrongdoing, as his irresponsiibility led to a death. That he wasn't found so, though, is alright with me....that is the beauty of our legal system, making the bar to cross to convict a high one. Still, if one wished to sue Zimmerman for wrongful death, I suspect you have a slam-dunk case in civil court. Why one would bother, though, is beyond me....it's not like the OJ case, where money could be gotten.

vision wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Yeah, when we know that the black community in general is a veritable super-charged, self-correcting think-tank...

As opposed to which racial community that is a super-charged, self-correcting think tank? I can't think of one.

Beats the heck out of me. Some little country somewhere maybe?

vision wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Which explains the socially progressive messages behind popular hip-hop music, a single motherhood epidemic, and a host of other problems which could be laid at their feet.

Wait, did I miss something? How is "hip-hop music" a problem?

That's where your paragraph should have stopped. I singled-out hip-hop because it is violent and anti-social as a rule--more-so than any other genre I know of.

vision wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous, animals and you know it." -Tommy Lee Jones in Men in Black

... You clumsily choose a quote that is supposed to be taken generally about people, but unfortunately reads like you think blacks are dumb, panicky, dangerous, animals because of the context of the post. I'm going to chalk it up to sloppy, sloppy writing, so don't take offense.

If this quote applies to the whole of humanity, then there's no reason it shouldn't apply to blacks in context. The assumption at work is that I'm excluding anyone... As an aside, I think the quote is funny but a little clumsy.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:...

vision wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous, animals and you know it." -Tommy Lee Jones in Men in Black

... You clumsily choose a quote that is supposed to be taken generally about people, but unfortunately reads like you think blacks are dumb, panicky, dangerous, animals because of the context of the post. I'm going to chalk it up to sloppy, sloppy writing, so don't take offense.

If this quote applies to the whole of humanity, then there's no reason it shouldn't apply to blacks in context. The assumption at work is that I'm excluding anyone... As an aside, I think the quote is funny but a little clumsy.

The way it works:
If you are a conservative, and you talk about people, you are a racist. Unless there is no way anyone could apply what you said negatively to black people. And even in that case you are still a racist if a liberal says so.