Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

[squeaks_is_mine]

If I'm forced to go back to America I will carry a concealed weapon. The law will be on my side, lucky for me I will never put said foot on any god forsaken soil again. Been there seen America, great Country but too many problems. Happy to live in China or Australia.

Australia too hot, but I like Chinese food! More than anything in America you just have to know where to go, you can grow up here and easily live a "normal" non-violent life.

[Jdsizzleslice]

You need to learn how to read. I did not say that. In fact, it seems painfully clear to me on re-reading it that there shouldn't even be any confusion about the fact that I did not say that. It's really pretty clear.

You need to learn how to post, and think about what you said. "Like women who wear those types of clothes." referring to the women who do. Which means all of them. Wow not a hard concept to grasp.

That's not even what I said. If you're going to snip out my statements and then re-insert them into the discussion, could you AT LEAST PLEASE do so accurately? Frankly, this just looks like you're intentionally trying to twist my words to make me look bad. So stop being a dishonest f*ck, jackass.

Women is plural. I think you need a dictionary. By saying "Women who dress..." You are saying women in general, which is all of them. Be careful how you post next time. I'm not dishonest. I'm not twisting your words. I'll even pull the last few quotes.

I don't think anybody thinks someone should be killed for being blatantly disrespectful and purposefully agitating. Yet, it is being disrespectful that is the cause of so many confrontations and fights and even shootings. Being disrespectful like that is begging for a confrontation, something I feel disrespectful people are looking for, because hey, they don't have any respect!

Just like women who dress provocatively are begging to be raped.

Nice comparison..... "could you please turn your music down" = physical rape.

you have a sick mind

Perhaps you can point out the problem with the analogy based on teh statements you made, because I believe it's a perfectly valid one. Go ahead...if the analogy is that bad, it should be easy to do.

"Just like women..." Plural. Therefore meaning them as a group or whole.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/women?s=t


wom·en
[wim-in] plural of woman.

Do you believe the kid who had his music playing too loudly wanted to be killed? THAT'S THE FREAKING POINT of the analogy.

Spock showing a little emotion? You're not fit for the job. The kid wasn't just playing his music. The confrontation was there, and you can't deny that.

What? The whole problem from the shooter's perspective and the reason he got involved was kids playing their music too loudly in another car at the gas station. Are you even following the conversation at all?

No I agree he could have gone to another gas station... There are plenty of gas stations out there. BUT, the reasonable thing would have been to contact the manager of the store and politely ask them to turn it down. But still, confrontation is still there. IT's everywhere, you're trying to make it sound like you can avoid it whenever you want to.

I'm curious as to your statistics in determining that Massachusetts is "the most liberal state". How was that determined? Was it determined by how long it's been since they've had a Republican Governor, perhaps?

Blah Blah Blah "Statistics" It's the most liberal-minded state. I said nothing about political parties. I said it was the most liberal state. And you say I can't read?

You say it's the most liberal state, but you're providing no actual evidence for it being the most liberal state. It's just you saying it. So I'm asking you for the evidence showing that it's the most liberal state. And you said nothing of political parties, but I asked because I thought perhaps that was your measuring stick.

Oh you "thought" yes, make sure next time to read right before you say something.

But whatever. Just stop trolling and maybe you will be respected more.

Funny you should say that, given that you just admitted to trying to troll me. But then again, based on your posts, it's unlikely that you're too concerned about anyone respecting you.

So when did this become about me?

Well I could ask the same question...when did it become about me? When you made it about me by claiming I was trolling. A statement you made about me followed up by an admission on your part of trying to troll me. Fascinatingly ironic, isn't it?

You made it about you... Lol. I didn't talk about you at all but then you said things "You need to..." And fill in the blank with learn how to read, calling me names, etc. And that claim, is 100% true.

I do have respect bud. You're just known a the common forum troll.

Oh, you only listen to Phatscotty. Now everything becomes apparent...the twisting of the words, the claims of trolling, the inability or UNWILLINGNESS to follow a discussion. Well, at least you let me know how seriously to take you, finally.

I don't listen to anyone. Especially people like you who curse and swear at me. How is that going to make me be any nicer to you in the first place?

I love how you like to turn things on others and forget the main issue. Like most good trolls, you never break the rules but bend them so far as to make others break them. You'd better watch the trolling from now on, Spock, better not let those emotions show.

Thanks, Phatscotty.

I'm not his drone... This is the Definition of a troll out of the Moderator handbook. You want me to get you the quote, taken directly from there?

Low-level Trolls

What is it
Low-level Trolls are users who manage to piss people off within the explicit Community Guidelines. This may include:

• Being snotty, combative, complaint happy, using insults in a "friendly manner," deliberately or indeliberately ignorant, etc.

The best trolls never break the rules, they just push them and let other people break them and the only way to catch them is by looking at the intent behind their posts. Low-level Trolls are those who interact with the Community in a primarily negative way and bring down the overall Community Atmosphere.

[Phatscotty]

certain kinds of profiling are wrong. Like if you are picking someone up at the airport, and they say "look for me I'll be wearing a big red hat" and then you immediately dismiss people who are wearing no hat. PROFILER!!!!!

Political correctness is going way to far to the point of insanity and completely ignoring common sense, but at least I am glad to see that the only ones trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes are the people who clearly are not operating with the facts and solely operate on emotions.

[Lootifer]

- I find it interesting that you don't care how another, with a culture very similar - with subtle differences - to you own, operates. Is that how you really feel? Because I get involved in these discussions not to cause trouble or poke fun, but to genuinely get a better understanding of the world (not that you are a representative sample at the individual level, but you are mostly smart cookies and you do at least sometimes use facts etc ). This in turn shapes my outlook to a certain, limited*, extent.

Oh, I'm sure you've got a fabulous culture, rich in heritage and all the other platitudes. When I say I don't care, that's not to mean I look down upon your culture, I'm just not all that interested is all. Some people are interested in such things, others are not. It's no big deal.

There are all kinds of cultures out there. Just because they are out there doesn't make them interesting or admirable. I believe there are cultures out there that promote clitoral mutilation, bondage, slavery and all kinds of other nasty (from my POV) habits that I really have zero interest in learning more about for none other than the simple fact it will just disgust me.

Not saying your culture goes anywhere near that you understand. I'm just not a blind follower of multi culturalism. It's over rated IMO.

If I by chance ever visit your country, I'm sure I'd have a good time and get along just fine. And I'd learn what I needed to learn.

Now let's see, what do I know about New Zealand culture? You guys like sheep, agriculture I think. Got a nice amount of wild life (which is cool in my book). I guess you are part of the Queen's Empire or whatever it is that's called. Your navy ships are like HMS this or that? I dunno, I guess you live like you want to live, which is all I really need to know I guess.

I remember, a year or so ago, an Australian teenager sailed around the world. On another forum an Australian member of the forum went and made a post about the trip. It was a great source of national pride for him and the land of Oz, was my impression.
Well, a few of my countrymen couldn't help themselves, began criticizing the teen. Said she was stupid, what were her parents thinking, I mean it was pretty bad.
I couldn't help myself. I had to step in and remind my fellow American forum members that this girl was Australian, they look at the world differently. I stated that for my part I was proud of the young woman and that I hoped my own daughter would have as much courage, skill and confidence in herself that she could do such a thing. It would make me proud as well, despite the dangers.

This forum member later thanked me, told me how pissed he'd gotten at some of the responses from my countrymen. They were assholes I told him. Don't hold it against all of us Americans.

Now, I may not go out and actively explore other cultures as some other people might think I should, but dang if I can tell if something is a good thing or not, despite whatever culture it comes from.

I think that serves me well enough, and if not, I don't give a rat's ass! Haha, not being disrespectful there at the end, you said you don't understand my culture and it doesn't even occur to me to try and explain it to you. If you want to understand you will. If you can't understand it, I'm not going to offer any insights. If you can't figure out that American's aren't gun toting racist maniacs who live for nothing more than to gun someone or some minority down in the street, then nothing I can say will convince you.

We aren't as bad as you may think we are. Not anywhere close. Americans, the vast majority, just want to live in peace, raise our families as we see fit and make a living. Pretty much like everyone else in the world.

We're operating on a different definition of culture.

But that's all good.

[Phatscotty]

and btw, about that music conversation, if my wife and children were present and someone nearby was blaring music talking about women being bitches and murdering people and using drugs and only living for the moment, I would walk right over to them and firmly ask they turn the music down, and give the reason there are women and children present.

I can see how that could easily escalate into a situation, but we should be able to agree up front that blaring that kind of music in other people's faces is disrespectful, intrusive, and infringing everyone else's peace. On the other hand there is nothing in the world wrong with asking someone to stop being disrespectful,intrusive, and ruining everyone else's peace, and to turn the music down.

Now given that we already know the person blaring the music is disrespectful, the odds are not very good you will get a respectful answer or response from the music blarer. The person playing the music is in the wrong. Now I understand, with a certain crowd, I will need to point out of course that does not mean they should be shot. But it does mean that the person playing the music is in the wrong, and we should be putting pressure on that person and people like it to join the rest of us in civilization, not putting pressure on the people who have the guts to ask them to turn the profanity laced music down.

And another fantastically stupid mistake certain stupid people keep making. Just because every a-hole is going to try to use whatever defense they can to keep their butts out of jail, does not mean there is something wrong with the laws the killer will try to use to save his own butt. In fact, the person we are talking about who shot the music blarer is rotting in a cell right now. You guys act like this guy used the stand your ground defense and got off scott-free, when in reality the stand your ground law was not even remotely qualified for in this case. So people who keep going on and on and on about it, all you are doing is announcing to the rest of us that you don't know chit about chit and are zombied into the political-media complex created narrative in order to control you and your fears and steer them into a construct where they can be used to gain power.

[Lootifer]

I really don't know, don't care and don't comment on how Loot and the people on His island do things.

Interesting comment for two reasons:

- I like how I have my own island! Goooood times!

- I find it interesting that you don't care how another, with a culture very similar - with subtle differences - to you own, operates. Is that how you really feel? Because I get involved in these discussions not to cause trouble or poke fun, but to genuinely get a better understanding of the world (not that you are a representative sample at the individual level, but you are mostly smart cookies and you do at least sometimes use facts etc ). This in turn shapes my outlook to a certain, limited*, extent.

* this is, after all, an internet forum.

Loot, I love you, so that's my caveat here, but seriously? I don't see you posting in threads or creating threads on any other countries around our fine world. I'm fine with you commenting on American crap, mostly because there is more discussion. But you're kind of taking a high and mighty "I want to learn about the world for the sake of learning" approach that is simply an exaggeration.

It was in response to Patches saying he doesn't care.

Sure it comes across wanky; but I do find it odd that many around here (and forgive me for saying it is typically americans, that could simply be because you guys are the majority) are very inward looking.

Also, I would happily comment on all the other countries threads... /looksaround...

Also for what its worth I have learned more from the Comics thread than nearly every other thread combined (f*ck you abtrusegoose for talking about stuff I dont know and making me google it).

Final also, screw you; I look to learn something from every fucking thread I look at; and it genuinely boggles my mind that Patches only gives a crap about only his little back yard. Maybe thats what is wrong with ur country, people dont like fucking learning. "1+1=2, maths: tick, job done".

[Woodruff]

Ok Woody, who was stalking who?

Initially, it seems clear that Zimmerman was following Martin. However, we don't know how the situation changed after that. If Martin became aware of Zimmerman without Zimmerman accosting him, then Martin may very well have become "the stalker", turning the tables on him. In that case, Zimmerman may well have been "the defender". If, on the other hand, Zimmerman accosted Martin first, then obviously Martin wouldn't have been the stalker.

Essentially, we don't know the complete answer to your question.

[Woodruff]

1. Zimmerman could have decided not to follow/profile Taryvon Martin, he needs to accept responsibility for his own negligence
2. Zimmerman could have listened to the 911 operator and not followed Trayvon Martin
3. If Zimmerman had not been secretly armed, he probably wouldn't have followed Trayvon Martin; Zimmerman knew that he had an advantage in any possible confrontation: He was concealing a weapon.
4. Zimmerman could have not shot and killed Trayvon Martin; I'm sorry but how are you 50lbs bigger and go through 18 months of MMA training and lose in a fight to a kid? Weak...

I generally agree with your statements here except for #3 and #4, where I have quibbles. I think it's just as likely that Zimmerman would have followed him without a weapon given that he was participating in a Neighborhood Watch. I also think that it's POSSIBLE that Zimmerman felt he had no option but to shoot Martin at some point...and in that situation, the law basically makes it so that you should shoot to kill in order to assist in avoiding future lawsuits. It's sad, but it seems to be true.

Zimmerman should have been found Guilty of Manslaughter

Yes, I tend to agree. But the prosecutor is the one to blame for that, not the jury or judge or Zimmerman.

The sad part is, this means if you are losing a fight you can shoot the victor even if he's unarmed. Eye for an eye, self-defense to self-defense. If you lose a fist fight move on and get better, people so afraid to take a ass-whooping now-a-days.

You do realize that it's possible to kill someone in a fistfight, right? It's not even particularly rare.

[Woodruff]

I spent quite a few years driving cab on the night shift, and it's truly frightening what I would see. Routine bar fights that in my day would have ended with a bloody nose and somebody falling down, now end with somebody lying unconscious on the sidewalk while three or four people jump up and down on him. Add to that the fact that many of them are cranking anabolic steroids and are more like Minotaurs than humans. So, your folksy wisdom about how Zimmerman might have avoided being killed or mutilated by indicating submission is sadly out of date.

Unfortunately, I agree.

[Phatscotty]

Ok Woody, who was stalking who?

Initially, it seems clear that Zimmerman was following Martin. However, we don't know how the situation changed after that. If Martin became aware of Zimmerman without Zimmerman accosting him, then Martin may very well have become "the stalker", turning the tables on him. In that case, Zimmerman may well have been "the defender". If, on the other hand, Zimmerman accosted Martin first, then obviously Martin wouldn't have been the stalker.

Essentially, we don't know the complete answer to your question.

But we do know that a jury unanimously judged that Martin did indeed become the stalker, and that Zimmerman was indeed the defender.

[Woodruff]

You need to learn how to read. I did not say that. In fact, it seems painfully clear to me on re-reading it that there shouldn't even be any confusion about the fact that I did not say that. It's really pretty clear.

You need to learn how to post, and think about what you said. "Like women who wear those types of clothes." referring to the women who do. Which means all of them. Wow not a hard concept to grasp.

That's not even what I said. If you're going to snip out my statements and then re-insert them into the discussion, could you AT LEAST PLEASE do so accurately? Frankly, this just looks like you're intentionally trying to twist my words to make me look bad. So stop being a dishonest f*ck, jackass.

Women is plural. I think you need a dictionary. By saying "Women who dress..." You are saying women in general, which is all of them. Be careful how you post next time. I'm not dishonest. I'm not twisting your words. I'll even pull the last few quotes.

I don't think anybody thinks someone should be killed for being blatantly disrespectful and purposefully agitating. Yet, it is being disrespectful that is the cause of so many confrontations and fights and even shootings. Being disrespectful like that is begging for a confrontation, something I feel disrespectful people are looking for, because hey, they don't have any respect!

Just like women who dress provocatively are begging to be raped.

Nice comparison..... "could you please turn your music down" = physical rape.

you have a sick mind

Perhaps you can point out the problem with the analogy based on teh statements you made, because I believe it's a perfectly valid one. Go ahead...if the analogy is that bad, it should be easy to do.

"Just like women..." Plural. Therefore meaning them as a group or whole.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/women?s=t


wom·en
[wim-in] plural of woman.

Do you believe the kid who had his music playing too loudly wanted to be killed? THAT'S THE FREAKING POINT of the analogy.

Spock showing a little emotion? You're not fit for the job. The kid wasn't just playing his music. The confrontation was there, and you can't deny that.

What? The whole problem from the shooter's perspective and the reason he got involved was kids playing their music too loudly in another car at the gas station. Are you even following the conversation at all?

No I agree he could have gone to another gas station... There are plenty of gas stations out there. BUT, the reasonable thing would have been to contact the manager of the store and politely ask them to turn it down. But still, confrontation is still there. IT's everywhere, you're trying to make it sound like you can avoid it whenever you want to.

I'm curious as to your statistics in determining that Massachusetts is "the most liberal state". How was that determined? Was it determined by how long it's been since they've had a Republican Governor, perhaps?

Blah Blah Blah "Statistics" It's the most liberal-minded state. I said nothing about political parties. I said it was the most liberal state. And you say I can't read?

You say it's the most liberal state, but you're providing no actual evidence for it being the most liberal state. It's just you saying it. So I'm asking you for the evidence showing that it's the most liberal state. And you said nothing of political parties, but I asked because I thought perhaps that was your measuring stick.

Oh you "thought" yes, make sure next time to read right before you say something.

But whatever. Just stop trolling and maybe you will be respected more.

Funny you should say that, given that you just admitted to trying to troll me. But then again, based on your posts, it's unlikely that you're too concerned about anyone respecting you.

So when did this become about me?

Well I could ask the same question...when did it become about me? When you made it about me by claiming I was trolling. A statement you made about me followed up by an admission on your part of trying to troll me. Fascinatingly ironic, isn't it?

You made it about you... Lol. I didn't talk about you at all but then you said things "You need to..." And fill in the blank with learn how to read, calling me names, etc. And that claim, is 100% true.

I do have respect bud. You're just known a the common forum troll.

Oh, you only listen to Phatscotty. Now everything becomes apparent...the twisting of the words, the claims of trolling, the inability or UNWILLINGNESS to follow a discussion. Well, at least you let me know how seriously to take you, finally.

I don't listen to anyone. Especially people like you who curse and swear at me. How is that going to make me be any nicer to you in the first place?

I love how you like to turn things on others and forget the main issue. Like most good trolls, you never break the rules but bend them so far as to make others break them. You'd better watch the trolling from now on, Spock, better not let those emotions show.

Thanks, Phatscotty.

I'm not his drone... This is the Definition of a troll out of the Moderator handbook. You want me to get you the quote, taken directly from there?

Low-level Trolls

What is it
Low-level Trolls are users who manage to piss people off within the explicit Community Guidelines. This may include:

• Being snotty, combative, complaint happy, using insults in a "friendly manner," deliberately or indeliberately ignorant, etc.

The best trolls never break the rules, they just push them and let other people break them and the only way to catch them is by looking at the intent behind their posts. Low-level Trolls are those who interact with the Community in a primarily negative way and bring down the overall Community Atmosphere.

You've managed to completely twist everything in this discussion. And as with Phatscotty, you've proven an unwillingness to admit that you screwed up and mis-read something. When you'd like to actually have a discussion based on reality and true interest in the exchange of information, get back with me. Until then...thanks, Phatscotty.

[Woodruff]

Ok Woody, who was stalking who?

Initially, it seems clear that Zimmerman was following Martin. However, we don't know how the situation changed after that. If Martin became aware of Zimmerman without Zimmerman accosting him, then Martin may very well have become "the stalker", turning the tables on him. In that case, Zimmerman may well have been "the defender". If, on the other hand, Zimmerman accosted Martin first, then obviously Martin wouldn't have been the stalker.

Essentially, we don't know the complete answer to your question.

But we do know that a jury unanimously judged that Martin did indeed become the stalker, and that Zimmerman was indeed the defender.

No, we don't actually know that. We know that the jury judged that Zimmerman made a reasonable decision to shoot Martin under the circumstances. That doesn't in any way indicate whether Martin was the stalker or if Zimmerman accosted Martin at which time Martin became the aggressor or even if Martin actually attacked Martin and then was overwhelmed by Martin. We simply do not know those things, and I don't believe the jury declared that they did either. How could they? The only one who actually knows what happened was Zimmerman, and he wouldn't exactly be motivated to provide a story different from one that would help his case.

[patrickaa317]

Ok Woody, who was stalking who?

Initially, it seems clear that Zimmerman was following Martin. However, we don't know how the situation changed after that. If Martin became aware of Zimmerman without Zimmerman accosting him, then Martin may very well have become "the stalker", turning the tables on him. In that case, Zimmerman may well have been "the defender". If, on the other hand, Zimmerman accosted Martin first, then obviously Martin wouldn't have been the stalker.

Essentially, we don't know the complete answer to your question.

Trayvon told his girlfriend he was being followed thus bringing the fact that Martin was aware of Zimmerman without Zimmerman accosting him. Seeing as Martin only had offensive wounds and Zimmerman only had defensive wounds, your presumption of Martin becoming "the stalker" seems very plausible, would you not agree?

[Woodruff]

Ok Woody, who was stalking who?

Initially, it seems clear that Zimmerman was following Martin. However, we don't know how the situation changed after that. If Martin became aware of Zimmerman without Zimmerman accosting him, then Martin may very well have become "the stalker", turning the tables on him. In that case, Zimmerman may well have been "the defender". If, on the other hand, Zimmerman accosted Martin first, then obviously Martin wouldn't have been the stalker.

Essentially, we don't know the complete answer to your question.

Trayvon told his girlfriend he was being followed thus bringing the fact that Martin was aware of Zimmerman without Zimmerman accosting him.

Good point - I had forgotten about that.

Seeing as Martin only had offensive wounds and Zimmerman only had defensive wounds

Uh..."offensive wounds"? I'm not sure what you're referring to there...his knuckles being bruised or something along those lines (honest question, I'm not trying to be snarky)?

your presumption of Martin becoming "the stalker" seems very plausible, would you not agree?

I'm not sure I agree with the offensive-wounds/defensive-wounds idea (awaiting further info on that), but yes given that we do know that Martin was aware of Zimmerman following him lends SOME MORE credence to that theory. I can agree with that. However, just because he was aware of it doesn't NECESSARILY mean he took offensive action because of it. It's still a reasonable theory that Zimmerman could have accosted Martin initially and THEN Martin reacted or that Martin was later able to gain control in the fight.

[Phatscotty]

Ok Woody, who was stalking who?

Initially, it seems clear that Zimmerman was following Martin. However, we don't know how the situation changed after that. If Martin became aware of Zimmerman without Zimmerman accosting him, then Martin may very well have become "the stalker", turning the tables on him. In that case, Zimmerman may well have been "the defender". If, on the other hand, Zimmerman accosted Martin first, then obviously Martin wouldn't have been the stalker.

Essentially, we don't know the complete answer to your question.

But we do know that a jury unanimously judged that Martin did indeed become the stalker, and that Zimmerman was indeed the defender.

No, we don't actually know that. We know that the jury judged that Zimmerman made a reasonable decision to shoot Martin under the circumstances. That doesn't in any way indicate whether Martin was the stalker or if Zimmerman accosted Martin at which time Martin became the aggressor or even if Martin actually attacked Martin and then was overwhelmed by Martin. We simply do not know those things, and I don't believe the jury declared that they did either. How could they? The only one who actually knows what happened was Zimmerman, and he wouldn't exactly be motivated to provide a story different from one that would help his case.

But we do know that a jury unanimously judged that Martin did indeed become the stalker, and that Zimmerman was indeed the defender.

If Zimmerman was not the defender in the eyes the jury, as you suggest, then how is it even possible for the jury to judge Zimmerman was defending himself?? And since the jury did find he was defending himself, that also means that the jury believed based on all the evidence that Trayvon was the attacker, since you need that spelled out for ya.

Not to mention, the jury believed Zimmerman's story added up.

[patrickaa317]

Ok Woody, who was stalking who?

Initially, it seems clear that Zimmerman was following Martin. However, we don't know how the situation changed after that. If Martin became aware of Zimmerman without Zimmerman accosting him, then Martin may very well have become "the stalker", turning the tables on him. In that case, Zimmerman may well have been "the defender". If, on the other hand, Zimmerman accosted Martin first, then obviously Martin wouldn't have been the stalker.

Essentially, we don't know the complete answer to your question.

Trayvon told his girlfriend he was being followed thus bringing the fact that Martin was aware of Zimmerman without Zimmerman accosting him.

Good point - I had forgotten about that.

Seeing as Martin only had offensive wounds and Zimmerman only had defensive wounds

Uh..."offensive wounds"? I'm not sure what you're referring to there...his knuckles being bruised or something along those lines (honest question, I'm not trying to be snarky)?

your presumption of Martin becoming "the stalker" seems very plausible, would you not agree?

I'm not sure I agree with the offensive-wounds/defensive-wounds idea (awaiting further info on that), but yes given that we do know that Martin was aware of Zimmerman following him lends SOME MORE credence to that theory. I can agree with that. However, just because he was aware of it doesn't NECESSARILY mean he took offensive action because of it. It's still a reasonable theory that Zimmerman could have accosted Martin initially and THEN Martin reacted or that Martin was later able to gain control in the fight.

Yep, not much info on the exact damage. Most media places don't mention it, some say 'small abrasions', others say 'knuckles definitely bruised'; not sure why there is not more definitive info on the exact wounds and the extent of them; though we know they are there as there is no media source that has said 'no wounds on knuckles'. And I have found no reports or info showing any defensive wounds from Martin (other than the unfortunate gunshot wound).

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/autopsy-results-show-trayvon-martin-had-injuries-h/nN6gs/
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional/autopsy-results-show-trayvon-martin-had-injuries-t/nPKPd/

[Phatscotty]

Woodruff, concerning you being unaware of Trayvon's only injury being on his knuckles, as well as "forgetting" that Trayvon called his girlfriend to tell her he was being followed, I'm stumped as to how you can have such a strong opinion on this matter and be constantly posting it without even the most basic facts and evidence. Did you even follow the story? I hope it's the case, because then once you get caught up, your opinion can be a valid one and not based on your emotions.

[Woodruff]

Ok Woody, who was stalking who?

Initially, it seems clear that Zimmerman was following Martin. However, we don't know how the situation changed after that. If Martin became aware of Zimmerman without Zimmerman accosting him, then Martin may very well have become "the stalker", turning the tables on him. In that case, Zimmerman may well have been "the defender". If, on the other hand, Zimmerman accosted Martin first, then obviously Martin wouldn't have been the stalker.

Essentially, we don't know the complete answer to your question.

But we do know that a jury unanimously judged that Martin did indeed become the stalker, and that Zimmerman was indeed the defender.

No, we don't actually know that. We know that the jury judged that Zimmerman made a reasonable decision to shoot Martin under the circumstances. That doesn't in any way indicate whether Martin was the stalker or if Zimmerman accosted Martin at which time Martin became the aggressor or even if Martin actually attacked Martin and then was overwhelmed by Martin. We simply do not know those things, and I don't believe the jury declared that they did either. How could they? The only one who actually knows what happened was Zimmerman, and he wouldn't exactly be motivated to provide a story different from one that would help his case.

But we do know that a jury unanimously judged that Martin did indeed become the stalker, and that Zimmerman was indeed the defender.

If Zimmerman was not the defender in the eyes the jury, as you suggest, then how is it even possible for the jury to judge Zimmerman was defending himself??

I've already covered this, and it's simple. Zimmerman approached Martin and started accosting him (verbally or physically), and then Martin became offensive (thus putting Zimmerman on the defensive). Note I'm NOT saying that's how it went down...but I am saying that the jury did not in any way judge that Martin "became the stalker".

And since the jury did find he was defending himself, that also means that the jury believed based on all the evidence that Trayvon was the attacker, since you need that spelled out for ya.

The jury didn't find that Zimmerman was defending himself, the jury found him not guilty of murder.

Not to mention, the jury believed Zimmerman's story added up.

Given that the only other witness to the situation was dead, big deal.

[Woodruff]

Woodruff, concerning you being unaware of Trayvon's only injury being on his knuckles

I wasn't unaware of it. I didn't understand the reference to "offensive wounds" and "defensive wounds", so I asked for clarification. This isn't difficult, Phatscotty.

as well as "forgetting" that Trayvon called his girlfriend to tell her he was being followed

I simply forgot about it. I don't think that's a big deal. Unlike you, I'm willing to admit to making mistakes here. Don't judge me by your own buffoonery, Phatscotty.

I'm stumped as to how you can have such a strong opinion on this matter and be constantly posting it without even the most basic facts and evidence. Did you even follow the story? I hope it's the case, because then once you get caught up, your opinion can be a valid one and not based on your emotions.

Says the guy who simply refuses to answer any question he doesn't like. Yeah, you've got a lot of credibility there, pumpkin. It always gets hilarious when you try to character-assassinate, because you're just so shitty at it despite what would appear to be plenty of practice.

[Jdsizzleslice]

You need to learn how to read. I did not say that. In fact, it seems painfully clear to me on re-reading it that there shouldn't even be any confusion about the fact that I did not say that. It's really pretty clear.

You need to learn how to post, and think about what you said. "Like women who wear those types of clothes." referring to the women who do. Which means all of them. Wow not a hard concept to grasp.

That's not even what I said. If you're going to snip out my statements and then re-insert them into the discussion, could you AT LEAST PLEASE do so accurately? Frankly, this just looks like you're intentionally trying to twist my words to make me look bad. So stop being a dishonest f*ck, jackass.

Women is plural. I think you need a dictionary. By saying "Women who dress..." You are saying women in general, which is all of them. Be careful how you post next time. I'm not dishonest. I'm not twisting your words. I'll even pull the last few quotes.

I don't think anybody thinks someone should be killed for being blatantly disrespectful and purposefully agitating. Yet, it is being disrespectful that is the cause of so many confrontations and fights and even shootings. Being disrespectful like that is begging for a confrontation, something I feel disrespectful people are looking for, because hey, they don't have any respect!

Just like women who dress provocatively are begging to be raped.

Nice comparison..... "could you please turn your music down" = physical rape.

you have a sick mind

Perhaps you can point out the problem with the analogy based on teh statements you made, because I believe it's a perfectly valid one. Go ahead...if the analogy is that bad, it should be easy to do.

"Just like women..." Plural. Therefore meaning them as a group or whole.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/women?s=t


wom·en
[wim-in] plural of woman.

Do you believe the kid who had his music playing too loudly wanted to be killed? THAT'S THE FREAKING POINT of the analogy.

Spock showing a little emotion? You're not fit for the job. The kid wasn't just playing his music. The confrontation was there, and you can't deny that.

What? The whole problem from the shooter's perspective and the reason he got involved was kids playing their music too loudly in another car at the gas station. Are you even following the conversation at all?

No I agree he could have gone to another gas station... There are plenty of gas stations out there. BUT, the reasonable thing would have been to contact the manager of the store and politely ask them to turn it down. But still, confrontation is still there. IT's everywhere, you're trying to make it sound like you can avoid it whenever you want to.

I'm curious as to your statistics in determining that Massachusetts is "the most liberal state". How was that determined? Was it determined by how long it's been since they've had a Republican Governor, perhaps?

Blah Blah Blah "Statistics" It's the most liberal-minded state. I said nothing about political parties. I said it was the most liberal state. And you say I can't read?

You say it's the most liberal state, but you're providing no actual evidence for it being the most liberal state. It's just you saying it. So I'm asking you for the evidence showing that it's the most liberal state. And you said nothing of political parties, but I asked because I thought perhaps that was your measuring stick.

Oh you "thought" yes, make sure next time to read right before you say something.

But whatever. Just stop trolling and maybe you will be respected more.

Funny you should say that, given that you just admitted to trying to troll me. But then again, based on your posts, it's unlikely that you're too concerned about anyone respecting you.

So when did this become about me?

Well I could ask the same question...when did it become about me? When you made it about me by claiming I was trolling. A statement you made about me followed up by an admission on your part of trying to troll me. Fascinatingly ironic, isn't it?

You made it about you... Lol. I didn't talk about you at all but then you said things "You need to..." And fill in the blank with learn how to read, calling me names, etc. And that claim, is 100% true.

I do have respect bud. You're just known a the common forum troll.

Oh, you only listen to Phatscotty. Now everything becomes apparent...the twisting of the words, the claims of trolling, the inability or UNWILLINGNESS to follow a discussion. Well, at least you let me know how seriously to take you, finally.

I don't listen to anyone. Especially people like you who curse and swear at me. How is that going to make me be any nicer to you in the first place?

I love how you like to turn things on others and forget the main issue. Like most good trolls, you never break the rules but bend them so far as to make others break them. You'd better watch the trolling from now on, Spock, better not let those emotions show.

Thanks, Phatscotty.

I'm not his drone... This is the Definition of a troll out of the Moderator handbook. You want me to get you the quote, taken directly from there?

Low-level Trolls

What is it
Low-level Trolls are users who manage to piss people off within the explicit Community Guidelines. This may include:

• Being snotty, combative, complaint happy, using insults in a "friendly manner," deliberately or indeliberately ignorant, etc.

The best trolls never break the rules, they just push them and let other people break them and the only way to catch them is by looking at the intent behind their posts. Low-level Trolls are those who interact with the Community in a primarily negative way and bring down the overall Community Atmosphere.

You've managed to completely twist everything in this discussion. And as with Phatscotty, you've proven an unwillingness to admit that you screwed up and mis-read something. When you'd like to actually have a discussion based on reality and true interest in the exchange of information, get back with me. Until then...thanks, Phatscotty.

I'm sorry you think truth is twisting. IS this the best response you could come up with, to troll me again? It won't work bro. You manage to turn the tables on everything, and even talk to Phats when he wasn't even in this discussion between me and you. I am not Phatscotty. When you want to actually talk about the topic and stop talking about other people and defaming them, let me know, because it was obvious you changed the shift of the discussion. Go troll somewhere else.

And no I do not admit to mis-read anything when you said yourself..... Lol how can I misread the word "women." It's plural. Or do you not believe the dictionary and consider your own logic as the answer? Spock, logic isn't always the answer.

[Woodruff]

I'm sorry you think truth is twisting.

Your outright lies are not "truth". You have outright lied a couple of times regarding things I said. The stupid thing about that is that it's too easy to see what I actually said. Yet, you continue trying to pound out those lies.

IS this the best response you could come up with, to troll me again?

Again with the trolling bullshit? Please...you have yet to say anything reasonable in this thread. Stop using the Phatscotty defense.

I am not Phatscotty.

It's difficult to tell that, to be honest.

When you want to actually talk about the topic and stop talking about other people and defaming them, let me know, because it was obvious you changed the shift of the discussion. Go troll somewhere else.

Thanks, Phatscotty.

[Jdsizzleslice]

I'm sorry you think truth is twisting.

Your outright lies are not "truth". You have outright lied a couple of times regarding things I said. The stupid thing about that is that it's too easy to see what I actually said. Yet, you continue trying to pound out those lies.

IS this the best response you could come up with, to troll me again?

Again with the trolling bullshit? Please...you have yet to say anything reasonable in this thread. Stop using the Phatscotty defense.

I am not Phatscotty.

It's difficult to tell that, to be honest.

When you want to actually talk about the topic and stop talking about other people and defaming them, let me know, because it was obvious you changed the shift of the discussion. Go troll somewhere else.

Thanks, Phatscotty.

Are you getting mad? I can see your anger coming out by the consistent swearing. Where have I lied? I am an honest person. Your pathetic efforts to change the subject again are worthless. If you point out the specific posts I will respond. I'm not impartial, I give everyone a chance.

[oVo]

Interesting but irrelevant to the verdict, is Martin being labelled a "thug" by some while Zimmerman's previous history of domestic violence and arrest for assaulting a police officer never came up.

Profiling, race, excessive force and 'stand your ground' are all issues here. Much of the animosity over this outcome is displaced anger lingering from decades of injustice where --even though it isn't-- this verdict feels like the 60's revisited.

[Phatscotty]

Interesting but irrelevant to the verdict, is Martin being labelled a "thug" by some while Zimmerman's previous history of domestic violence and arrest for assaulting a police officer never came up.

Profiling, race, excessive force and 'stand your ground' are all issues here. Much of the animosity over this outcome is displaced anger lingering from decades of injustice where --even though it isn't-- this verdict feels like the 60's revisited.

All of that came up. It's just that the media blew the wad on Zimmerman right off the bat in the beginning in order to gin up all the outrage against "white-hispanic" Zimmerman. Trayvon's thuggery (theft/brawling) is only being talked about just recently because the truth has only recently just been made known.

The lies were so bad that we are still ironing out with Trayvon supporters that Zimmerman is Latino and not white and that he did not use the stand your ground defense.

Stand your ground is not an issue here. The force is officially self defense and officially justified. Profiling is not always a bad thing, Zimmerman was not racially profiling, and race has nothing to do with it. Much of the animosity is coming from people repeating the lies. You feel like it's the 60's because without a doubt it is you who is living in the past, and your own views on racism, you think everyone has them and that's why you think everyone is as racist as your imagination, but that isn't true. It's just people like you.