Trayvon Martin Pt. 2 'The Legacy'

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

You are being dishonest or dumb.

State law is what governs us. Not Neighborhood Watchman law.

I can break all kinds of rules without breaking any laws.

Your prejudice is blinding you to reality. As usual.

So, Red Herrings or temper tantrums, which was this? Little of both? [/quote]

You haven’t answer my questions.

I said, before you barged in, that a watchman is not a policeman, nor a vigilante. A watchman fucking watches and observes and reports. You’re telling me otherwise.

I’m going to make it simple to you and ask you again, prior zimcunt’s trial and him walking scot free, (since it seems to me you base your argument on the verdict of this case), did State law state that watchmen have the same authorities, duties of cops or vigilantes? Yes or no?

Will the next watchman killing someone ‘‘up to no good’’ in his/he neighbourhood will walk free because he/she didn’t break the law by acting as a vigilantes or a cop?

Simple questions. Answer them. [/quote]

No, DN. So far as I know, State law doesn’t have anything at all to say about neighborhood watchmen. If it did, this would have been used against Zimmerman in the trial. It’s just more of your spouting off guttermouthed, emotionally emetic, racist claptrap, as usual.

In the simplest terms I can muster: It doesn’t MATTER because he was not acting as a POLICE OFFICER. He was acting as a citizen.

Again, if this is such an important point, why was it not used to crowbar a conviction out of this trial?

*edited

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:

However, I absolutely and completely believe from the depths of my intellect, that the jurors made the best decision possible…for maintaining a white supremacist infrastructure where black’s lives have historically been devalued and are still, to this day.
[/quote]

You honestly think those 5 women were concerned about white supremacy?[/quote]

I believe that all but one of the women on the jury were Mothers. As such, there was reportedly a LOT of crying during parts of the trial. No one ever wants to even think about losing their sons or daughters. Still, they had to reach their verdict based on actual evidence, no matter how saddened they were by the whole ordeal.

S

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:

However, I absolutely and completely believe from the depths of my intellect, that the jurors made the best decision possible…for maintaining a white supremacist infrastructure where black’s lives have historically been devalued and are still, to this day.
[/quote]

You honestly think those 5 women were concerned about white supremacy?[/quote]

I believe that all but one of the women on the jury were Mothers. As such, there was reportedly a LOT of crying during parts of the trial. No one ever wants to even think about losing their sons or daughters. Still, they had to reach their verdict based on actual evidence, no matter how saddened they were by the whole ordeal.

S[/quote]

Ya, that’s basically what I was driving at. I seriously doubt any of those women thought, “Jee we better not convict this guy or the Black will be on equal footing with us…”

It’s non-sense.

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:

However, I absolutely and completely believe from the depths of my intellect, that the jurors made the best decision possible…for maintaining a white supremacist infrastructure where black’s lives have historically been devalued and are still, to this day.
[/quote]

You honestly think those 5 women were concerned about white supremacy?[/quote]

I believe that all but one of the women on the jury were Mothers. As such, there was reportedly a LOT of crying during parts of the trial. No one ever wants to even think about losing their sons or daughters. Still, they had to reach their verdict based on actual evidence, no matter how saddened they were by the whole ordeal.

S[/quote]

Stu, stop being rational. As many have pointed out in the last few pages, they HAD to be racist, because they are white & American.

[quote]thehebrewhero wrote:
Thanks Myosin thats a very well put statement. Its nice to see someone see it that way. Weather people want to agree or disagree on how race was used in Travons case will be forever debated. Im kinda done dealing with it now. And have come to the conclusion that there is such a gigantic divide on race perceptions and gun control that you will be on one side of the fence or the other no matter what.

That is how it is but for black people and fathers of black & brown kids it?s a much more complex and fucked up situation then what most white people can grasp. Which is how can I protect my son from a world where non-trained, un-identified, gun packing citizens have the ability to do their own police work based on their non trained non professional assessments Thats where race is a MEGA issue…

So as a father of a brown or black kid how do we train them to deal with that world? I now have to introduce my son to the neighborhood watch guy not only in my neighborhood but the neighborhoods of friends he could possibly go? WTF!! I have to make sure his clothing is up to the standards of middle age white people? WTF! How do I teach him whats suspicious walking? If hes too slow its suspicious if hes running will someone will chase him. If someone chases him does he freeze, or does he try to defend himself? Is something going to happen if hes at a new friends house and people dont recognize him.

White people with white sons for the most part wont have that fear. Im not a Navy seal with a law degree so how fuck am I supposed to make sure my son lives to see me die? Its hard enough having to worry about the police shooting an unarmed black or brown kid. Now we have to worry about everyone else. My father never had to teach me how to deal with police so I dont get shot, as a white man thats a non issue. For that matter he sure as shit didnt bring up armed citizens.

For black fathers teaching their kids about police is pretty normal. The perception of being safe because of police is not shared by all. Things like street sweeps, and corruption do exist but largely not in suburban or rural communities which are predominantly white. Add in the now fear of average possibly uniformed want to be cops and the fear level has just gone red alert for all parents of black & brown kids. Worst of all we have no way to protect them.

In regards to race on this matter?When everyones packing that?s why race tolerance, understanding, and reason are so god damn important.
[/quote]

Even if black parents opt to turn their children into some Carlton Banks clones, those children will still be vilified. It will not matter whether the kid goes to an Ivy league school or is from the ghetto. As I said in some of my previous posts, I know of, and have witnessed, wealthy, intelligent, well spoken and articulate, black men dressed in expensive suits and, driving expensive cars, racially profiled by the cops, stopped and searched for no reason whatsoever. Why? The cops assumed the car was fucking stolen. Or there was drugs inside. Or the owner was part of a gang. Fucking hell. Really?

And, it’s funny how some people will tell you, ‘‘Oh, just teach your kid to be polite and respectful toward authority… yada yada…’’ as if that will be enough to stop my son, nephew, father, uncle or cousin being stopped,frisked, beaten or killed in the street by some racist pigs or wannabe pigs on a power trip. It’s as if blacks kids are a bunch of unruly, disrespectful animals, with a lack of core values, who need to be kept in check, because an inherent fear of the ‘‘violent, criminal, big black man’’ has been ingrained into white people’s mind.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
It was discussed X. I wrote a reply that you didn’t read detailing exactly why there exists the possibility that a cop would make them less pissed than walking up yourself. Ryan’s right. [/quote]

Then I apologize as I am clearly wrong…but that still doesn’t explain why he would see that as IDIOTIC like he wrote.

Can YOU maybe explain that?[/quote]

No worries. Messy thread. The way I read it, ryan was responding to the assertion that a lone unarmed person should walk up to a group of 5 men (not loitering–on your personal property, directly by your front porch, and parked on your own driveway blocking your car, and the race is unimportant) in a low-light situation to initiate contact as idiotic. I’m not sure what more I could say, it seems self evident to me and I responded earlier on the reasons why. It breaks every rule of tactical engagement, several rules of group behavior, and most all rules of situational awareness to voluntarily place yourself in an outnumbered situation because it is “your property”. It also goes against several tenets of the psychology of violence. The fact that you don’t know if they are violently prone, drunk or not is irrelevant at this stage.
[/quote]

Uh, yeah…all of this ignores the fact that:

THEY KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE

CALLING THE POLICE ESCALATED THE SITUATION

YOU NEED TO EXLAIN WHAT YOU WILL DO WHEN COPS LEAVE.

Seriously, like I said, to think your perception is all there is is ludicrous and part of the problem.

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
The fact that Zimms was not automatically arrested immediately following KILLING a human being[/quote]
That’s what happens in cases of self-defense. This is dictated by standard police procedure.

[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
the fact that the murderer walked free, acquitted by a jury of HIS PEERS, the fact that his white privilege allowed him to wiggle right out of his punishment from behind the scene point out how Amerikkka’s history of institutional racism promotes injustice.
[/quote]
He went free because the only people to actually witness the event take place said Trayvon was on top of him beating him. Thus strengthening the self defense case. You’re not allowed to convict someone of murder if you have reasonable doubt as to the legitimacy of this accusation, no matter how much someone may want to kill whitey to get back at him for his perceived racism.

I like how no one sees the irony in “the majority of white people don’t understand” posts because “they judge minorities based on false narratives and the glorified actions of the few in those communities.”

But I’m white so I guess I’m not different than a Hispanic guy from Florida.

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

Let’s be real (realtalk.) Sagging pants where your whole ass is hanging out and you literally have to hold your pants up is thuggish plain and simple. [/quote]

This is incorrect. It is a STYLE of wearing clothes no different than Joedci sagging in the 90’s.

[quote]

If someone walks around with their whole ass hanging out and walking like a duck holding the crotch area of their pants to keep from falling, they are telling everyone they are a thug. Whether they are or not. [/quote]

Actually all they are doing is wearing their pants like most people in that age group and cultural background.

[quote]

No different than a chick walking around public with her ass hanging out and tits about to bust out of her shirt being perceived as a slut.[/quote]

Wow…so now any woman dressed provacatively is a slut?

You really want to keep arguing this?

[quote]

Or someone with a shaved head, long shorts, high socks, and SS tats being perceived as a skinhead.[/quote]

Uh, the SS tat is what states that…nothing else you just wrote.

[quote]

If a millionaire that doesn’t shower for a year or cut his hair or toenails and walks around with ripped jeans and a dirty sweatshirt? He’ll be perceived as a bum no matter how much money he really has. [/quote]

Uh, you can sag your pants and where million dollar cologne. Not sure why sagging equals “dirty” to you.

Wow.

Some people actually understand different cultures and don’t label everything they don’t personally understand as a NEGATIVE.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
It was discussed X. I wrote a reply that you didn’t read detailing exactly why there exists the possibility that a cop would make them less pissed than walking up yourself. Ryan’s right. [/quote]

Then I apologize as I am clearly wrong…but that still doesn’t explain why he would see that as IDIOTIC like he wrote.

Can YOU maybe explain that?[/quote]

No worries. Messy thread. The way I read it, ryan was responding to the assertion that a lone unarmed person should walk up to a group of 5 men (not loitering–on your personal property, directly by your front porch, and parked on your own driveway blocking your car, and the race is unimportant) in a low-light situation to initiate contact as idiotic. I’m not sure what more I could say, it seems self evident to me and I responded earlier on the reasons why. It breaks every rule of tactical engagement, several rules of group behavior, and most all rules of situational awareness to voluntarily place yourself in an outnumbered situation because it is “your property”. It also goes against several tenets of the psychology of violence. The fact that you don’t know if they are violently prone, drunk or not is irrelevant at this stage.
[/quote]

Uh, yeah…all of this ignores the fact that:

THEY KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE

CALLING THE POLICE ESCALATED THE SITUATION

YOU NEED TO EXLAIN WHAT YOU WILL DO WHEN COPS LEAVE.

Seriously, like I said, to think your perception is all there is is ludicrous and part of the problem.[/quote]

they wouldnt KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE if you confronted them about being on your property? thats amazine!

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

Let’s be real (realtalk.) Sagging pants where your whole ass is hanging out and you literally have to hold your pants up is thuggish plain and simple. [/quote]

This is incorrect. It is a STYLE of wearing clothes no different than Joedci sagging in the 90’s.

[quote]

If someone walks around with their whole ass hanging out and walking like a duck holding the crotch area of their pants to keep from falling, they are telling everyone they are a thug. Whether they are or not. [/quote]

Actually all they are doing is wearing their pants like most people in that age group and cultural background.

[quote]

No different than a chick walking around public with her ass hanging out and tits about to bust out of her shirt being perceived as a slut.[/quote]

Wow…so now any woman dressed provacatively is a slut?

You really want to keep arguing this?

[quote]

Or someone with a shaved head, long shorts, high socks, and SS tats being perceived as a skinhead.[/quote]

Uh, the SS tat is what states that…nothing else you just wrote.

[quote]

If a millionaire that doesn’t shower for a year or cut his hair or toenails and walks around with ripped jeans and a dirty sweatshirt? He’ll be perceived as a bum no matter how much money he really has. [/quote]

Uh, you can sag your pants and where million dollar cologne. Not sure why sagging equals “dirty” to you.

Wow.

Some people actually understand different cultures and don’t label everything they don’t personally understand as a NEGATIVE.[/quote]

All that went straight over your head I will let maiden respond. But maybe the reason it did stems from the fact you can’t even use the correct where/wear. Maybe try crayons next time :wink:

[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:

they wouldnt KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE if you confronted them about being on your property? thats amazine![/quote]

Why do you assume a CONFRONTATION is necessary?

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

All that went straight over your head I will let maiden respond. But maybe the reason it did stems from the fact you can’t even use the correct where/wear. Maybe try crayons next time :wink:
[/quote]

This is nothing but a personal attack and added nothing to the discussion.

Wait…so people here really can’t comprehend asking someone to move without calling police?

Jesus.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

Let’s be real (realtalk.) Sagging pants where your whole ass is hanging out and you literally have to hold your pants up is thuggish plain and simple. [/quote]

This is incorrect. It is a STYLE of wearing clothes no different than Joedci sagging in the 90’s.

[quote]

If someone walks around with their whole ass hanging out and walking like a duck holding the crotch area of their pants to keep from falling, they are telling everyone they are a thug. Whether they are or not. [/quote]

Actually all they are doing is wearing their pants like most people in that age group and cultural background.

[quote]

No different than a chick walking around public with her ass hanging out and tits about to bust out of her shirt being perceived as a slut.[/quote]

Wow…so now any woman dressed provacatively is a slut?

You really want to keep arguing this?

[quote]

Or someone with a shaved head, long shorts, high socks, and SS tats being perceived as a skinhead.[/quote]

Uh, the SS tat is what states that…nothing else you just wrote.

[quote]

If a millionaire that doesn’t shower for a year or cut his hair or toenails and walks around with ripped jeans and a dirty sweatshirt? He’ll be perceived as a bum no matter how much money he really has. [/quote]

Uh, you can sag your pants and where million dollar cologne. Not sure why sagging equals “dirty” to you.

Wow.

Some people actually understand different cultures and don’t label everything they don’t personally understand as a NEGATIVE.[/quote]

Evidently i am the only motherfucker that grew up in the 90s and dressed like that.

The thuggish persona is EXACTLY what we were going for. So yes, we dressed like thugs and wanted to be regarded as such so we would be motherfuckin g’s. we also acted like a bunch of punk thugs, as did every single other person i ever met that dressed like that.

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

Maybe, but what either individual was like or acted like before the night in question, it’s all irrelevant when you weigh what actually occurred between TM and GZ one that one night, within just a short stretch of time. What the media portrayed was NOT what was presented and considered by the members of the jury. People seem to be overlooking that fact.

Whether TM was a ‘thug’ with a history of drug use, well known perchance for fighting, stealing etc AND whether GZ was ever in good shape, ever wanted to be a cop, ever called 911 before concerning unidentified people in his gated community, ever was arrested but not charged himself for domestic issues, it all means nothing when all physical evidence, eyewitness testimony, detailed forensic reports and a recorded contemporaneous conversation between the 911 dispatcher and GZ describing how TM disappeared (the only reason Z got out of his car) and then came back towards him and started the physical confrontation, as well as forensic evidence support a very open and shut exchange.

Neither man knew who the other was, nor their background histories, and just as no one, pillar of the community or not, deserves to be shot, no one deserves to be jumped and pummeled into the ground simply for alerting the authorities to your concerns about what you are worried might be yet another in a series of crimes in your neighborhood. Following someone is not a crime, physically striking someone is. Nothing can change these facts, no matter how we might feel emotionally, or dare I say it, racially about the tragedy itself.

S[/quote]

I will agree with you that both Martin and Zim’s past history had nothing to do with the trial, nor had to do with what happened that nigh. The violence, the ‘‘thuggery’’ were never brought up in the court anyway. My main issue was with the portrayal of a dead kid by the media and on here, and the fact that many stated Trayvon Martin had it coming, because he was a ‘‘thug’’.

You’re also talking as if what Zimms said was FACT or the absolute truth. We weren’t there. No one knows who attacked first apart from Zimkilla and his victim, who sadly is no longer alive to testify. Furthermore, according to the ME, Trayvon’s body parts showed no signs that he had hit nor touched FatBastard. Had Martin suffocated FatmanKilla, bashed his head on the concrete, there would have been BLOOD (on the concrete and on Trayvon) or DNA, anything to suggest Trayvon Martin assaulted him.

Anyway, we can go round and round about this. This has been debated ad nauseaum. You’ve decided to believe Zimfuck did nothing wrong, but, I believe he killed an innocent kid and got away with it, and he will pay for it, one way or another.

RIP Trayvon Martin.

Viewpoint A:

Calling the police is the safer option

Viewpoint B:

Calling police escalates a situation that could be over with, “Hey guys, that’s my house”.

Option A now means you need to have constant police surveillance if these really are “real thugs”.

Gee, the intellect.

[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:

Evidently i am the only motherfucker that grew up in the 90s and dressed like that.

The thuggish persona is EXACTLY what we were going for. So yes, we dressed like thugs and wanted to be regarded as such so we would be motherfuckin g’s. we also acted like a bunch of punk thugs, as did every single other person i ever met that dressed like that.[/quote]

Uh, I dressed like that and made good grades and went to a school that was well known for having great students in it that entered the medical field.

Why do you think everyone in the world thinks like you?

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:

they wouldnt KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE if you confronted them about being on your property? thats amazine![/quote]

Why do you assume a CONFRONTATION is necessary?[/quote]

kind of the definition of the word- from merriam-webster:
Definition of CONFRONT
1
: to face especially in challenge : oppose
2
a : to cause to meet : bring face-to-face
b : to meet face-to-face : encounter
â?? con·front·al noun
â?? con·front·er noun

you would need to be face to face to speak to them. Unless you just yelled at them from a distance.
You would also be challenging/opposing their choice of locations. Unless you decided to ignore them and go inside. Then they WOULD KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE anyway…

an other questions?

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:

Evidently i am the only motherfucker that grew up in the 90s and dressed like that.

The thuggish persona is EXACTLY what we were going for. So yes, we dressed like thugs and wanted to be regarded as such so we would be motherfuckin g’s. we also acted like a bunch of punk thugs, as did every single other person i ever met that dressed like that.[/quote]

Uh, I dressed like that and made good grades and went to a school that was well known for having great students in it that entered the medical field.

Why do you think everyone in the world thinks like you?[/quote]

i had a 4.0 until my junior year of college. what is your point?