Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

[Woodruff]

Anyways, this is turning into a freak show. I barely want to bother continuing to follow the story with this new juror who found Zimmerman not guilty, but "feels" like he is guilty.

Juror says Zimmerman 'got away with murder'

Yeah, I saw that too. The ONLY thing I can think of as to why this juror is saying these things is because perhaps she's worried about reactions from within her family/community and she's trying to stave them off? Otherwise, it really doesn't make a lot of sense.

Is that the only way you could think of why this juror said those things? You are aware that this was based on interviews on air with Good Morning America. You are aware that the taped interview is edited?

The below link is from slate.com, part of Slate magazine, and leans toward the liberal POV. They bring up some interesting points about the interview with juror B29. And considering how the media likes to stir things up and use editing to get the reactions and quotes they want to drum up sales and viewership, one may be able to start seeing a certain trend when it comes to the media and this particular case.
Decide for yourself I guess.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ramed.html

Needless to say, juror B29 stands by the verdict. Something I don't know if was made clear in her GMA interview.

Great post! No, I certainly didn't know this. Sadly, I'm not surprised at all. It's really getting disgusting the way the media is essentially allowed to lie-via-editing. Thank you for pointing this out.

[Woodruff]

And PS, how woodruff sees it is (as I understand) that:
Zimmerman is an idiot who largely is responsible for the death of trayvon martin, and let the situation develop into what it did.
However Zimmerman did not break any laws by defending himself from Martin who was assaulting him and put him in fear of his life, thus justifying the self defense.
If Woodruff feels like anything in this statement is wrong he is more than welcome to correct it.

That is a VERY BRIEF but reasonably accurate statement of my opinion, though certainly some details are left out due to the brevity.

Then again, if Phatscotty actually gave a shit about accurately representing my viewpoints, he would have read and responded to the fifteen quotes I provided him. Unsurprisingly, he has ignored them because he's nothing more than a forum troll.

[rishaed]

In other news I think this describes Woodruffs argument perfectly:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/trayvon_martin_verdict_racism_hate_crimes_prosecution_and_other_overreactions.html
fp'd

[loutil]

Anyways, this is turning into a freak show. I barely want to bother continuing to follow the story with this new juror who found Zimmerman not guilty, but "feels" like he is guilty.

Juror says Zimmerman 'got away with murder'

Yeah, I saw that too. The ONLY thing I can think of as to why this juror is saying these things is because perhaps she's worried about reactions from within her family/community and she's trying to stave them off? Otherwise, it really doesn't make a lot of sense.

Is that the only way you could think of why this juror said those things? You are aware that this was based on interviews on air with Good Morning America. You are aware that the taped interview is edited?

The below link is from slate.com, part of Slate magazine, and leans toward the liberal POV. They bring up some interesting points about the interview with juror B29. And considering how the media likes to stir things up and use editing to get the reactions and quotes they want to drum up sales and viewership, one may be able to start seeing a certain trend when it comes to the media and this particular case.
Decide for yourself I guess.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ramed.html

Needless to say, juror B29 stands by the verdict. Something I don't know if was made clear in her GMA interview.

For a left leaning magazine I applaud them on that article. I needed a break from all the "phony scandal" comments

[Woodruff]

In other news I think this describes Woodruffs argument perfectly:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/trayvon_martin_verdict_racism_hate_crimes_prosecution_and_other_overreactions.html
fp'd

That is a wonderful article.

[Phatscotty]

[Phatscotty]

Did ABC News Deceptively Edit Zimmerman Juror’s Controversial Interview? An Unlikely Source Is Calling Them Out

ABC News is being accused of deceptively editing, or at least misrepresenting (intentionally or not), some of the comments made by Juror B29, the lone “nonwhite” juror in the George Zimmerman murder trial. Further, the media as a whole are being accused of manipulating some of her statements.

These allegations come not from a conservative news source, but rather from Slate.com.

The key phrase latched onto by most media outlets, due to its sensational nature, was “George Zimmerman got away with murder” — words that were, in fact, said by Juror B29. But the full unedited video of the comment, in context, tells a different story, claims Slate’s William Saletan.

Here’s his case (emphasis added):

ABC News hasn’t posted a full unedited video or transcript of the interview. The video that has been broadcast—on World News Tonight, Nightline, and Good Morning America—has been cut and spliced in different ways, often so artfully that the transitions appear continuous. So beware what you’re seeing. But the video that’s available already shows, on closer inspection, that Maddy has been manipulated and misrepresented. Here are the key points.

[...]

The phrase “got away with murder” was put in her mouth. Nightline shows ABC interviewer Robin Roberts asking Maddy: “Some people have said, ‘George Zimmerman got away with murder. How do you respond to those people who say that?’ ” Maddy appears to reply promptly and confidently: “George Zimmerman got away with murder. But you can’t get away from God.” But that’s not quite how the exchange happened. In the unedited video, Roberts’ question is longer, with words that have been trimmed from the Nightline version, and Maddy pauses twice, for several seconds, as she struggles to answer it. “… George Zimmerman … That’s—George Zimmerman got away with murder. But you can’t get away from God.”

You have to watch her, not just read her words, to pick up her meaning. As she struggles to answer, she looks as though she’s trying to reconcile the sentiment that’s been quoted to her—that Zimmerman “got away with murder”—with her own perspective. So she repeats the quote and adds words of her own, to convey what she thinks: that there’s a justice higher than the law, which Zimmerman will have to face. She thinks he’s morally culpable, not legally guilty.

Anti-Zimmerman media personalities, like Al Sharpton and essentially anyone else at MSNBC, have pointed to the interview as proof that Zimmerman actually got away with murder — even the juror is admitting it! One MSNBC guest even personally attacked the juror, yelling “shame on you!” while reacting to the ABC interview.

Saletan goes on to note a number of other key portions of Juror B29′s much-talked about sit-down with ABC. His points include:

• She stands by the verdict: “ABC’s online story about the interview ends with Maddy asking, “Did I go the right way? Did I go the wrong way?” But that’s not the whole quote. In the unedited video, she continues: “I know I went the right way, because by the law and the way it was followed is the way I went. But if I would have used my heart, I probably would have [gone for] a hung jury.”

Saletan also explains that the juror making the distinction that Zimmerman was guilty of “killing” Trayvon Martin, but that’s not the same thing as murder or manslaughter, which requires evidence proving it was malicious and/or intentional.

• She thinks the case should have never gone to trial: At one point, Roberts asked the juror “whether the case should have gone to trial,” she replied, “I don’t think so. … I felt like this was a publicity stunt.”

• Race wasn’t discussed, and she didn’t focus on it: “When the verdict was announced and she was released from sequestration, she was dismayed to discover the national outrage. ‘I didn’t know how much importance’ was attached to the trial, she says, ‘because I never looked at color. And I still don’t look at color.’”

Saletan goes on to debate the “value of colorblindness,” but correctly concludes that the juror stayed focused on the evidence in the case, not on what race and other factors meant to the general public.

Saletan makes several other interesting points on why he feels “Juror B29 is being framed.” To be clear, the Slate writer does not appear to take a position defending Zimmerman or supporting the anti-Zimmerman position in his analysis.

The full, unedited video or transcript of the Juror B29 interview had yet to be released on Friday afternoon, Slate notes. Here is the most complete version available.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07 ... -them-out/

[Juan_Bottom]

It's the John Brown question.

The question wasn't necessarily "Did John Brown free slaves in an attempt to stir up rebellion?"
Yeah, he did, but:
To him the issue was "Is it really legal to enslave people?"
No, it's not. The law of conscience is more important than that of the laws of Virginia, therefor it cannot be wrong to free enslaved people. That was his train of thought.

Hayward Shepherd, the first man killed by John Brown's raiders. Was it right to kill Mr Shepherd?

John Brown never gave a confession of a crime; what he gave was a point-by-point retelling of a courageous act of pre-planned martyrdom. His belief was that the law was what was in the wrong, not that he was in the wrong. Because of his reasoning, he believed that his courtroom retelling wasn't a confession; it was an attack on the law and the people hiding behind it.

Which justified the murder of Hayward Shepherd? He was just a baggage handler, never owned a slave in his life.

If you put me on a jury, my first duty will be to my conscience.

Wow....that's just...wow.

Hayward was (correct me if I'm wrong) the first person shot during the raid, and was shot by mistake. He was also the only person JB's men killed who wasn't shooting at them. JB's men were simply unprepared and startled, and they shot him rather than let him escape to warn Virginia. Given the actual details of his shooting it's easy to see how many people could write him off as "collateral damage." Certainly all of JB's own dead were legally mutilated by Virginians, and at least one of them attempted to surrender only to be shot down instead, legally.

But what I really need to say is that your first duty in life is always to your conscience. Otherwise, you're almost the definition of a psychopath. Too many people are writing their conscience off as an inconvenience to their goals. You can see from this lady's personal story that violating your conscience will eat you up. This is going to be on her mind everyday for the rest of her life, and it's not going to be a good feeling. She's going to have a little sh*tty depressed feeling every day for the rest of her life.
This isn't some new philosophy either, it's been around for three thousand years and was used to prosecute Nazis for war crimes, where their defense was often "I knew it was wrong but I was just following the law." Or still another example is that here in Illinois we have a sheriff in Cook County who refuses to evict families in bad weather. He feels like sh*t when he's tossing people's family pictures out into the rain and snow.

[Juan_Bottom]

This post makes sense at first, but I must disagree here. John Brown had many options to go about freeing slaves. The ends do not justify the means. If I lie, steal, and cheat to win a court case my "victory" is tainted, and the end result is worthless. John Brown did not have to kill to achieve black freedom. There were many other ways to achieve passive resistance (as shown by Ghandi) than to take force with violence and murder. The Underground Railroad freed more slaves than John Brown ever did, and not only did it in violation of the laws of the time, they did not break another law to do so. (Murder).
The juror, found it very much the same way Woodruff does.
Is Zimmerman responsible in some way, either largely or in a minor case, of the death of Trayvon Martin? Yes.
Did Zimmerman break the law to defend himself? No.
The law does not legalize shooting unarmed black teenagers you ignorant idiot. If you would actually read this thread and stop inserting race in here, you would have realized that race had nothing to do with it.
The LAW legalizes, base on Castle Law, (Your home is your castle), that you may defend yourself, even lethally, if you feel that you are in danger of Death, a/o are having severe bodily harm being inflicted upon you.
Things like death threats fall under a different law, and are not justifiably by themselves reason to defend yourself, though you may call the police, or defend yourself if there are actions that prove that they are not threats, but an immediate danger. (Laws do vary by state, and I'm not quoting verbatim. Its common sense. (These are things paraphrased in my own words, I did not bother to look up the sections of the law on these so don't use it as a defense.)

Well, first of all John Brown lived in a violent age, and was himself, a very violent man. And he was the terrifying kind of hardened killer who pointed a gun at you one-handed while quoting Biblical passages from memory and praising God Almighty for the honor of killing you. He drug people from their beds at night and murdered them with a sabre, and was called "hero" for doing it.
He was also more likely than not, very mentally ill. His family had a strong history of mental illness, and several doctors attempted to testify that he was insane, but Virginia needed to hang him before winter, so they didn't allow the defense.

John Brown's writing from both before and after the raid explain his plans in detail. He was attempting, while armed, to free slaves and incubate a slave rebellion. He had no plans to kill anyone except for those who tried to stop him. He took several hostages, but refused to harm them, even when he was told that his own captured men were being tortured. The hostages agreed that he treated them as best as he could, even requesting a meal for them from the local cafe during negotiations.
Harriet Tubman had an entirely different goal in mind than John Brown did. She was escorting those slaves who were insane enough, or brave enough, to run away for themselves. John Brown on the other hand, was attempting to free all of slaves. People said that he was crazy at the time too, and that he didn't have to kill anyone to achieve his goals. Yet, we still had to fight the Civil War to the tune of John Brown's Body, didn't we?


Why doesn't race have something to do with this, you dumb moron stupid idiot person?
Zimmerman pursued and stopped someone he suspected of breaking the law. What did he base that assumption upon? How was he profiling this person?
Age, build, race, clothing. Zimmerman called the police and told them that this kid "was up to no good, or on drugs." The police told him to stop following him.
"He is responsible for the death of someone, but didn't break the law by killing him."
Welp, the juror in the video said that she had to acquit because the law requires the impossible proof of intentional murder. Her intelligence lead her to know that he was guilty of murder, but she could not circumvent that legal definition of guilt. Yeah he profiled this kid, and yeah he chased him down after the police told him not to. But did he wake up in the morning and say to himself "I'm going to Kill Trayvon today." No, he didn't, and that was what she said was stuck with.
So then yeah, the law must legalize the killing of black teenagers. Because as you said, it happened, legally. Pretending that we are all colorblind in this country is just dumb. Do you know when legal segregation ended in this country? The 1970s. Think on it.

[rishaed]

This post makes sense at first, but I must disagree here. John Brown had many options to go about freeing slaves. The ends do not justify the means. If I lie, steal, and cheat to win a court case my "victory" is tainted, and the end result is worthless. John Brown did not have to kill to achieve black freedom. There were many other ways to achieve passive resistance (as shown by Ghandi) than to take force with violence and murder. The Underground Railroad freed more slaves than John Brown ever did, and not only did it in violation of the laws of the time, they did not break another law to do so. (Murder).
The juror, found it very much the same way Woodruff does.
Is Zimmerman responsible in some way, either largely or in a minor case, of the death of Trayvon Martin? Yes.
Did Zimmerman break the law to defend himself? No.
The law does not legalize shooting unarmed black teenagers you ignorant idiot. If you would actually read this thread and stop inserting race in here, you would have realized that race had nothing to do with it.
The LAW legalizes, base on Castle Law, (Your home is your castle), that you may defend yourself, even lethally, if you feel that you are in danger of Death, a/o are having severe bodily harm being inflicted upon you.
Things like death threats fall under a different law, and are not justifiably by themselves reason to defend yourself, though you may call the police, or defend yourself if there are actions that prove that they are not threats, but an immediate danger. (Laws do vary by state, and I'm not quoting verbatim. Its common sense. (These are things paraphrased in my own words, I did not bother to look up the sections of the law on these so don't use it as a defense.)

Why doesn't race have something to do with this, you dumb moron stupid idiot person?
Because of This:

45. Did you ever hear any of the following facts?
Residents in the said gated community said there had been dozens of reports of attempted break-ins and would-be burglars casing homes
7 months before the incident a black teenager stole a bicycle off the Zimmermans' porch
5 months before the Trayvon incident two young black men broke into the house of Olivia Bertalan, Zimmerman's neighbor, while she was in the house. She hid upstairs and called the police while the two men tried to steal her TV. When the police arrived, they fled. One of them ran through the Zimmermans' yard.
The next month, because of all the burglaries, several residents of the neighborhood asked the neighborhood association to create a neighborhood watch and Zimmerman was asked to run it.
The next month, two more houses in the neighborhood were robbed.
3 weeks before the incident, Zimmerman spotted a young black man looking into the windows of a neighbor's house. He called the police and said "I don't know what he's doing. I don't want to approach him, personally." By the time the police finally arrived, the man was gone.
4 days later another house was burglarized. Witnesses said two of the robbers were black teenagers. One of them was soon caught with a laptop stolen from the house. He turned out to be the same man Zimmerman had previously reported looking in windows.
Zimmerman's black neighbor was quoted as saying "Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK? There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood. That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."
Many of the perpetrators of the prior burglaries and thefts were apparently never caught.

Zimmerman pursued and stopped someone he suspected of breaking the law. What did he base that assumption upon? How was he profiling this person?
This is where the assumption on. Did you even bother to read the survey I posted? Or how about half of this thread?
Age, build, race, clothing.
Might as well call the police racist as well as sexist then as well because they use gender as well. You give me one good police officer pursuing a suspect who says, "The suspect was last seen on 1st street, uh he was male, and uh i have more things to use to define him but can't because I'd be racially profiling him." Nope, I bet you the cop is gonna say, " Suspect on 1st, 6-2 white wearing a black hoodie and dark jeans, mid 20's and roughly 180lbs last seen heading towards Maryland Avenue."
Why should Zimmerman who is calling the cops give them any other details than what they would normally use?
Zimmerman called the police and told them that this kid "was up to no good, or on drugs." The police told him to stop following him.
On the recording of Zimmerman's call to the police, just before he gets out of his car, Zimmerman tells the dispatcher "he started running" and the dispatcher says "He's running? Which way is he running?" Zimmerman then gets out of the car (the door chime can be heard) while he tells the dispatcher where Martin is heading.

Do you think the dispatcher's question could reasonably be interpreted as an instruction to follow him and find out?
On the recording of Zimmerman's call to the police, just before he gets out of his car, Zimmerman tells the dispatcher "he started running" and the dispatcher says "He's running? Which way is he running?" Zimmerman then gets out of the car (the door chime can be heard) while he tells the dispatcher where Martin is heading.

Do you think the dispatcher's question could reasonably be interpreted as an instruction to follow him and find out?
31. Have you ever seen this map (or any similar map) of the area where the confrontation took place?

32. Were you aware that the total distance Zimmerman walked after leaving his truck was around 300 feet (assuming he went along the path he described from his truck to the point of the confrontation)?

If Rachel Jeantel's testimony that Martin said he was "by the back of his father's fiancee's house" means he was actually by the house, that would mean Martin ran home and then decided to go back up the walkway (while talking quietly to Jeantel) to confront Zimmerman (see map below). Have you ever heard any mention of this?

(There is about a 4 minute gap between the time Martin started running (and Zimmerman lost sight of him) and his confrontation with Zimmerman, based on the time of the 911 calls from neighbors. Jeantel says Martin was talking to her in a low "almost whisper" on the phone for the last couple of minutes after he called her back.)

"He is responsible for the death of someone, but didn't break the law by killing him."
Welp, the juror in the video said that she had to acquit because the law requires the impossible proof of intentional murder.
I hardly call having to prove intentional murder impossible, otherwise we wouldn't have anyone sitting on death row for first degree murder......
Her intelligence lead her to know that he was guilty of murder, but she could not circumvent that legal definition of guilt.
No, her intelligence led her to know that he was guilty of killing trayvon Martin, not that he was guilty of murder. There is a very clear definition of murder in the law, and is time tested and proven.
Yeah he profiled this kid, and yeah he chased him down after the police told him not to. But did he wake up in the morning and say to himself "I'm going to Kill Trayvon today." No, he didn't, and that was what she said was stuck with.
If that were so the jury still could have convicted him of manslaughter. Stop being ignorant already. If I run over a person while drunk and driving even though I didn't wake up that morning and say "Hey I'm going to kill so and so!" Im still guilty of manslaughter. And can be convicted as such.
So then yeah, the law must legalize the killing of black teenagers. Because as you said, it happened, legally. Pretending that we are all colorblind in this country is just dumb. Do you know when legal segregation ended in this country? The 1970s. Think on it.

Sure I think on it, I think how we all segregate ourselves into rich communities, and poor communities, white, black, and hispanic communities. And do you know what? It doesn't stop anyone from changing communities or not. Racism isn't a one way street all the time. Segregation isn't a one way street all the time.
We have already proven over and over in this thread that the law does not legalize the killing of black teenagers, or that race was an issue. Wake up and read the thread all ready with out your faulty glasses, and take what is written as what they mean.
All Sources are at the site listed in the quote. Or if your brave enough go find the survey on pg. 109/110.

[patches70]

It's the John Brown question.

The question wasn't necessarily "Did John Brown free slaves in an attempt to stir up rebellion?"
Yeah, he did, but:
To him the issue was "Is it really legal to enslave people?"
No, it's not. The law of conscience is more important than that of the laws of Virginia, therefor it cannot be wrong to free enslaved people. That was his train of thought.

Hayward Shepherd, the first man killed by John Brown's raiders. Was it right to kill Mr Shepherd?

John Brown never gave a confession of a crime; what he gave was a point-by-point retelling of a courageous act of pre-planned martyrdom. His belief was that the law was what was in the wrong, not that he was in the wrong. Because of his reasoning, he believed that his courtroom retelling wasn't a confession; it was an attack on the law and the people hiding behind it.

Which justified the murder of Hayward Shepherd? He was just a baggage handler, never owned a slave in his life.

If you put me on a jury, my first duty will be to my conscience.

Wow....that's just...wow.

Hayward was (correct me if I'm wrong) the first person shot during the raid, and was shot by mistake. He was also the only person JB's men killed who wasn't shooting at them. JB's men were simply unprepared and startled, and they shot him rather than let him escape to warn Virginia. Given the actual details of his shooting it's easy to see how many people could write him off as "collateral damage." Certainly all of JB's own dead were legally mutilated by Virginians, and at least one of them attempted to surrender only to be shot down instead, legally.

But what I really need to say is that your first duty in life is always to your conscience. Otherwise, you're almost the definition of a psychopath. Too many people are writing their conscience off as an inconvenience to their goals. You can see from this lady's personal story that violating your conscience will eat you up. This is going to be on her mind everyday for the rest of her life, and it's not going to be a good feeling. She's going to have a little sh*tty depressed feeling every day for the rest of her life.
This isn't some new philosophy either, it's been around for three thousand years and was used to prosecute Nazis for war crimes, where their defense was often "I knew it was wrong but I was just following the law." Or still another example is that here in Illinois we have a sheriff in Cook County who refuses to evict families in bad weather. He feels like sh*t when he's tossing people's family pictures out into the rain and snow.

You didn't answer the simple questions I asked.

Was it right of John Brown's raiders to murder Mr Shepherd? Did John Brown's aims justify the murdering of Mr Shepherd?

Now, according the history, Shepherd (a free black who was a baggage handler), confronted the raiders as they took over the train Mr Shepherd was working, so the raiders shot him. It was no accident.

John Brown murdered people in Kansas 5 years or so before his raid in Harper's ferry. He allegedly murdered 5 people a few years before the Pottawatomie massacre, the massacre that was the gas on the fire that ignited the border war between Kansas and Missouri. A lot of people died, some of whom had never done anything wrong to anyone. Died because people were "following their conscience" (or maybe just bloodlust, self preservation or vile hatred).

How many people are murdered and killed in the name of some nutbag "following their conscience"even to this very day?
As if one's conscience will lead them on a truly righteous path.

Your idea of following one's conscience is subjective to the hilt and in no way is rational. How many people, especially those who are innocent of whatever it is, should have to die for one's "conscience"?

Your belief that the juror is "going to have a little sh*tty depressed feeling every day for the rest of her life" is also nothing more than your imagination. Juror B29 will be just fine most likely, so long as someone who is "following their conscience" doesn't murder her in her home and say "This is for Trayvon".

That's conscience for ya!
You are really grasping here, JB.

Conscience or no, it's tough for human beings to kill other human beings. There were plenty of GI's from WWII who suffered for killing Nazis. Hell, if there is one group of people that one should feel no guilt over killing, it's Nazis. Yet, plenty of our soldiers had problems of their own, even though they were following their conscience. That's ok, because that just means they are human.
John Brown on the other hand, had no problems with murdering people, even those who were murdered that never did anything wrong in regards to the slave trade, and none of that bothered John Brown in the slightest. And you say those who don't put their conscience above all else are the psychopaths.
Zimmerman will suffer for his actions, suffer in his own mind. Because he's human. And Zimmerman was following his own conscience that night one could easily argue, what he thought was right at the time. Even the jurors acknowledge that fact, that Zimmerman's heart was in the right place. In other words, his conscience led him into a horrible tragedy. And so it goes when one "follows their heart (conscience) instead of using their brain and thinking rationally and having empathy.

News flash for ya, John Brown was a psychopath. His "conscience" was nothing more than an excuse. Just as people to this day try to appeal to other's conscience in order to coerce them. If you had spouted this stuff to juror B29's face as she was trying to come to a decision, that would be a form of coercion, and it's base, unethical and immoral. But so long as you're following your "conscience", things like moral and immoral, ethical and unethical, are not worth considering. Because you think your conscience is of a higher authority.

That's just nuts.

[patches70]

Or still another example is that here in Illinois we have a sheriff in Cook County who refuses to evict families in bad weather. He feels like sh*t when he's tossing people's family pictures out into the rain and snow.

Classic empathy. Hey! That sheriff is human! Too bad both Martin and Zimmerman didn't take a second to consider about what the other was thinking. Had either of them acted rationally then things might have turned out different, but we'll never know I guess.

But kudos to the sheriff. He might want to consider another line of work though, because cops have shitty jobs. Throwing out people from the homes they've defaulted on is the least of the bad things cops have to deal with. On occasion cops get to actually help someone, but for the most part their job involves maintaining the status quo. That's why sociopaths gravitate to working in law enforcement (it's #7 on the list of most desirable jobs for those who suffer from sociopathy, oh you'll love that list, JB)**.

And since the term "psychopath" isn't a real diagnosis (sociopath is the correct term, psychopath is a movie term*), the fact that large numbers of our police are actually sociopaths, that should be of some concern, especially if they go "following their conscience". Guess where that'll lead? (We've seen where it leads plenty of times I'd bet).

** https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 4469,d.eWU

*From Wiki-"While no psychiatric or psychological organization has sanctioned a diagnosis titled "psychopathy", assessments of psychopathy characteristics are widely used in criminal justice settings in some nations, and may have important consequences for individuals.[4] The term is also used by the general public, in popular press, and in fictional portrayals.[10]"

[Juan_Bottom]

Sure I think on it, I think how we all segregate ourselves into rich communities, and poor communities, white, black, and hispanic communities. And do you know what? It doesn't stop anyone from changing communities or not. Racism isn't a one way street all the time. Segregation isn't a one way street all the time.
We have already proven over and over in this thread that the law does not legalize the killing of black teenagers, or that race was an issue. Wake up and read the thread all ready with out your faulty glasses, and take what is written as what they mean.
All Sources are at the site listed in the quote. Or if your brave enough go find the survey on pg. 109/110.

Why are you taking such a vain and hypocritical stance? Think on it.
You're quoting multiple sources why say that race was a factor here, because of all these black criminals who were looting all this white property for months. But then you say that it's therefor not racist to profile Trayvon as one of those criminals. Hence, the profiling of Trayvon as a skittles eating "up to no good" drug addict based on his age, build, race, and gender. Yet I never said anything about racist profiling in this thread. You're all rather desperately trying to pretend that this is entirely an issue of reading the law as it's written and has nothing to do with race or conscience. I'm sorry for you, but African American history is full of other Americans profiling and killing their children with no consequences. And that's what this is about. I actually don't know much about this case aside from what you've been saying these last 4 pages, as that's all the further back that I've gone. But you're actually convincing me that there is a lot more to this racism argument.

Zimmerman pursued and stopped someone he suspected of breaking the law. What did he base that assumption upon? How was he profiling this person?
This is where the assumption on. Did you even bother to read the survey I posted? Or how about half of this thread?
Age, build, race, clothing.
Might as well call the police racist as well as sexist then as well because they use gender as well. You give me one good police officer pursuing a suspect who says, "The suspect was last seen on 1st street, uh he was male, and uh i have more things to use to define him but can't because I'd be racially profiling him." Nope, I bet you the cop is gonna say, " Suspect on 1st, 6-2 white wearing a black hoodie and dark jeans, mid 20's and roughly 180lbs last seen heading towards Maryland Avenue."
Why should Zimmerman who is calling the cops give them any other details than what they would normally use?

This is pretty much the definition of Racism. You're terribly wrapping all the facts together to make it even more racist than it might have been.

>allegedly black criminals in the area months ago
>see a black teenager
>decide that because he's black he's obviously one of those criminals
>follow him and confront him after the police tell you not to

Who's side are you on? You're making this argument for me. It's not racist to describe an alleged criminal based on their race or build or whatever. In such cases you're trying to capture someone who you know committed a crime. You're punishing someone who is guilty.
It is racist to profile an entire race of people as criminals. Duh. It's very racist for you to profile black Trayvon as a criminal because there are black criminals. Duh.

Welp, the juror in the video said that she had to acquit because the law requires the impossible proof of intentional murder.
I hardly call having to prove intentional murder impossible, otherwise we wouldn't have anyone sitting on death row for first degree murder......
Her intelligence lead her to know that he was guilty of murder, but she could not circumvent that legal definition of guilt.
No, her intelligence led her to know that he was guilty of killing trayvon Martin, not that he was guilty of murder. There is a very clear definition of murder in the law, and is time tested and proven.
Yeah he profiled this kid, and yeah he chased him down after the police told him not to. But did he wake up in the morning and say to himself "I'm going to Kill Trayvon today." No, he didn't, and that was what she said was stuck with.
If that were so the jury still could have convicted him of manslaughter. Stop being ignorant already. If I run over a person while drunk and driving even though I didn't wake up that morning and say "Hey I'm going to kill so and so!" Im still guilty of manslaughter. And can be convicted as such.
So then yeah, the law must legalize the killing of black teenagers. Because as you said, it happened, legally. Pretending that we are all colorblind in this country is just dumb. Do you know when legal segregation ended in this country? The 1970s. Think on it.

The juror in the video said that she wanted to convict, but they were told that they had to believe that he had intended/pre-meditated to kill Trayvon in order to convict. She said it was an issue of the law, and not an issue of guilt. Everyone is hiding behind the language of law to justify the shooting.

[john9blue]

But what I really need to say is that your first duty in life is always to your conscience. Otherwise, you're almost the definition of a psychopath.

> that moment when juan realizes that most people's "consciences" are mostly the religious morals that they were instilled with as children

[Night Strike]

The juror in the video said that she wanted to convict, but they were told that they had to believe that he had intended/pre-meditated to kill Trayvon in order to convict. She said it was an issue of the law, and not an issue of guilt. Everyone is hiding behind the language of law to justify the shooting.

So how do you throw someone in jail for 25-to-life if the law doesn't allow it?

[patches70]

The juror in the video said that she wanted to convict, but they were told that they had to believe that he had intended/pre-meditated to kill Trayvon in order to convict. She said it was an issue of the law, and not an issue of guilt. Everyone is hiding behind the language of law to justify the shooting.

So how do you throw someone in jail for 25-to-life if the law doesn't allow it?

Screw the law! Because my conscience says so!

Hahahah!

[Woodruff]

Sure I think on it, I think how we all segregate ourselves into rich communities, and poor communities, white, black, and hispanic communities. And do you know what? It doesn't stop anyone from changing communities or not. Racism isn't a one way street all the time. Segregation isn't a one way street all the time.
We have already proven over and over in this thread that the law does not legalize the killing of black teenagers, or that race was an issue. Wake up and read the thread all ready with out your faulty glasses, and take what is written as what they mean.
All Sources are at the site listed in the quote. Or if your brave enough go find the survey on pg. 109/110.

Why are you taking such a vain and hypocritical stance? Think on it.
You're quoting multiple sources why say that race was a factor here, because of all these black criminals who were looting all this white property for months. But then you say that it's therefor not racist to profile Trayvon as one of those criminals. Hence, the profiling of Trayvon as a skittles eating "up to no good" drug addict based on his age, build, race, and gender. Yet I never said anything about racist profiling in this thread. You're all rather desperately trying to pretend that this is entirely an issue of reading the law as it's written and has nothing to do with race or conscience. I'm sorry for you, but African American history is full of other Americans profiling and killing their children with no consequences. And that's what this is about. I actually don't know much about this case aside from what you've been saying these last 4 pages, as that's all the further back that I've gone. But you're actually convincing me that there is a lot more to this racism argument.

Just because race is involved does not mean that racism is involved.

Zimmerman pursued and stopped someone he suspected of breaking the law. What did he base that assumption upon? How was he profiling this person?
This is where the assumption on. Did you even bother to read the survey I posted? Or how about half of this thread?
Age, build, race, clothing.
Might as well call the police racist as well as sexist then as well because they use gender as well. You give me one good police officer pursuing a suspect who says, "The suspect was last seen on 1st street, uh he was male, and uh i have more things to use to define him but can't because I'd be racially profiling him." Nope, I bet you the cop is gonna say, " Suspect on 1st, 6-2 white wearing a black hoodie and dark jeans, mid 20's and roughly 180lbs last seen heading towards Maryland Avenue."
Why should Zimmerman who is calling the cops give them any other details than what they would normally use?

This is pretty much the definition of Racism. You're terribly wrapping all the facts together to make it even more racist than it might have been.

Just because race is involved does not mean that racism is involved. You're the one that seems desperate here.

[rishaed]

Why are you taking such a vain and hypocritical stance? Think on it.
You're quoting multiple sources why say that race was a factor here, because of all these black criminals who were looting all this white property for months. But then you say that it's therefor not racist to profile Trayvon as one of those criminals. Hence, the profiling of Trayvon as a skittles eating "up to no good" drug addict based on his age, build, race, and gender. Yet I never said anything about racist profiling in this thread. You're all rather desperately trying to pretend that this is entirely an issue of reading the law as it's written and has nothing to do with race or conscience. I'm sorry for you, but African American history is full of other Americans profiling and killing their children with no consequences. And that's what this is about. I actually don't know much about this case aside from what you've been saying these last 4 pages, as that's all the further back that I've gone. But you're actually convincing me that there is a lot more to this racism argument.

You remain content in your ignorance. Despite my best efforts otherwise I cannot remove the willful ignorance on the subject you display. And read more than the last four pages please? Even then I don't see anywhere in the last four pages anyone arguing that this was a race issue?! (by your definition that must mean racism was involved)

Just because race is involved does not mean that racism is involved.
^This

Zimmerman pursued and stopped someone he suspected of breaking the law. What did he base that assumption upon? How was he profiling this person?
This is where the assumption on. Did you even bother to read the survey I posted? Or how about half of this thread?
Age, build, race, clothing.
Might as well call the police racist as well as sexist then as well because they use gender as well. You give me one good police officer pursuing a suspect who says, "The suspect was last seen on 1st street, uh he was male, and uh i have more things to use to define him but can't because I'd be racially profiling him." Nope, I bet you the cop is gonna say, " Suspect on 1st, 6-2 white wearing a black hoodie and dark jeans, mid 20's and roughly 180lbs last seen heading towards Maryland Avenue."
Why should Zimmerman who is calling the cops give them any other details than what they would normally use?

This is pretty much the definition of Racism. You're terribly wrapping all the facts together to make it even more racist than it might have been.

..... I have nothing left to say to you, because you refuse to look at things objectively and away from the "oh that's racist!" point of view.
Just because race is involved does not mean that racism is involved. You're the one that seems desperate here.

Woodruff you pretty much hit the nail on the head here.....
Note: comments in bold are mine not Woodruff's the lol at the top is also mine Also the bricks.... gotta have fun with the quoting

[rishaed]

Oh and explain to me how profiling everyone the same way is racism-otherwise known as showing prejudice: This is from Webster's.
rac·ism
noun \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Definition of RACISM
1
: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2
: racial prejudice or discrimination .
Please prove to me in my examples how either of them fall into the category of racism, or are a perfect definition of racism.
and this is the definition fo prejudice:
1prej·u·dice
noun \ˈpre-jə-dəs\
1
: injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2
a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge.
3b. for Discrimination is the Definition you would have to use, I just don't see how it fits here.
dis·crim·i·na·tion
noun \dis-ˌkri-mə-ˈnā-shən\
Definition of DISCRIMINATION
1
a : the act of discriminating
b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2
: the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3
a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>
All of these are from Websters Dictionary. Now please give me a decent response explaining your viewpoint.

[Juan_Bottom]

You didn't answer the simple questions I asked.

Was it right of John Brown's raiders to murder Mr Shepherd? Did John Brown's aims justify the murdering of Mr Shepherd?

Now, according the history, Shepherd (a free black who was a baggage handler), confronted the raiders as they took over the train Mr Shepherd was working, so the raiders shot him. It was no accident.

I didn't answer because it has nothing to do with anything, and nobody cares. It's not even related to the historical parallel that I drew, which was of morality and conscience. But if you want to argue history with me, so be it motherf*cker!
Because that's not what happened. Hayward wasn't killed "confronting" John Brown's men on any train, he was shot while running away from the raiders stationed on the town's bridge. He was trying to warn the townspeople/train, and the raiders shot him to keep the telegraphs silent. Guess where the train was? He probably just assumed, as many did, that these men were simply bandits.

John Brown's men needed to hold the town's bridge, which I believe was covered at the time, and also had a railroad guard posted around the clock. And that's all because it was the best and only escape route from the town. The sentries posted on the bridge were confronted by Hayword, who then turned and ran to warn the townspeople/train. The sentries shouted for him to stop, but he kept running and that's when he was shot. So when I told you that it was understandable why he could have been written off as collateral damage, that was a pretty reasonable answer. Certainly the Union wrote him off. And as I said, he was the only person shot during the raid who wasn't firing at the raiders. If he had stopped, he would have been captured and treated very very well, just like the others. I don't know how justifiable it was. It's not a yes or no question, is it? I never called this an accident, I said that John Brown's sentries were unprepared, otherwise he never could have gotten away.
After the fight got underway, and the bridge was lost, JB's men were entirely trapped in the two armory buildings. When JB's lieutenant John Henry Kagi tried to swim across the river, he was shot down by those militia on the bridge. His body rested on a rock and everyone used it as target practice.
All of this is why the bridge was so important, and also why the first shots were fired there.

How many people are murdered and killed in the name of some nutbag "following their conscience"even to this very day?
As if one's conscience will lead them on a truly righteous path.

Your idea of following one's conscience is subjective to the hilt and in no way is rational. How many people, especially those who are innocent of whatever it is, should have to die for one's "conscience"?

Erm,... None... at least not since the end of the Colonial days.
Multiple studies across the board have shown that around the world we all have the same conscience, excepting the rare crazy or psychopath. We all want to live and work together. While Hitler, to follow your argument for the moment, was one of those rarer beings who had no empathy or conscience. The men in the trenches who were fighting in his German Army did, so when he told them that they were fighting for their people's very survival; they fought to the death. They were following their consciences, which Hitler was manipulating. I can't find fault with them. I can however, blame those that let Hitler lie. They followed the law, instead of following their consciences.
Most of the proxy wars and conflicts throughout history were caused by greed though, which violates a typical conscience. But that's something that you learn about much later in history books, not in the day's newspapers.

Your belief that the juror is "going to have a little sh*tty depressed feeling every day for the rest of her life" is also nothing more than your imagination. Juror B29 will be just fine most likely, so long as someone who is "following their conscience" doesn't murder her in her home and say "This is for Trayvon".

That's conscience for ya!
You are really grasping here, JB.

Bullshit I am. She said that she feels partially responsible for Trayvon's death, because she felt forced to let Zimmerman go. How is she supposed to magically forget about this giant trial, it's attention on her, or the fact that she feels complicit in murder? How? Even cops who've killed criminals in the line of duty say that they think about the killing every day of their life. All of them do. Google it. I think about my crime every day, and it was an accident that I didn't even know happened. Only a Psychopathic can switch off their empathy and feel no remorse.

News flash for ya, John Brown was a psychopath. His "conscience" was nothing more than an excuse. Just as people to this day try to appeal to other's conscience in order to coerce them. If you had spouted this stuff to juror B29's face as she was trying to come to a decision, that would be a form of coercion, and it's base, unethical and immoral. But so long as you're following your "conscience", things like moral and immoral, ethical and unethical, are not worth considering. Because you think your conscience is of a higher authority.

That's just nuts.

While John Brown seems to have almost certainly been mentally ill, as I said, I don't think that anyone who knew him labeled him as a Psychopath. I don't really believe that he was one either, rather that he believed in his interpretation of the Bible as the truth of how to live your life. A Psychopath is someone who is socially inert, has little control over their actions, and has no empathy. John Brown wrote 10,000 letters, traveled the country raising money and socializing, made friends with famous politicians, and was known as a loving (but stern) father. I rather believe that he objectified evil doers or switched off his empathy when dealing with those that he believed lived in violation of his God's will. If southern slavers had never pressed Kansas, I don't believe that John Brown would have pushed back. I can't fault him for fighting back either, but his methods were not good. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

[Juan_Bottom]

But what I really need to say is that your first duty in life is always to your conscience. Otherwise, you're almost the definition of a psychopath.

> that moment when juan realizes that most people's "consciences" are mostly the religious morals that they were instilled with as children

Well, I don't believe that, but I do know a lot of people who do. I believe that morality and empathy are part of evolution and cannot be dislodged by indoctrination. You can re-program someone, but that doesn't mean that they will be internally at ease with it. That wiring will be intact underneath. And this is something that I've learned through a crapload of reading, not from personal experiences.

So how do you throw someone in jail for 25-to-life if the law doesn't allow it?

1950s.
You couldn't just jail a white man for shooting a Native American to death, and hanging him from a tree, even though we all know it's murder. So what is the law but what we make of it? My great-uncle's killers were never even investigated.

That jury was put in the position to decide, and they went with the law as written. To me, if the law says that men have to wear dresses, I still wont wear one.

Screw the law! Because my conscience says so!

Hahahah!

Yeah, essentially.
What happens when the law says that all black people have to sit on the back of the bus? Think on it. You guys all sound like automatons to me.

Just because race is involved does not mean that racism is involved. You're the one that seems desperate here.

Actually when I made the first post, before Rish dragged race into this, this was kind-of my opinion, though it was more complex. But it's changed now. As rishaed points out for us all, Zimmerman profiled this kid based on the fact that other black people had broken the law in the area. That's racist. Trayvon was not a suspect in any crimes.
And furthermore, as I do more reading, Zimmerman's cousin, who he molested, also testified that he hates black people 'unless they act like white people.' Race is definitely important here.

Oh and explain to me how profiling everyone the same way is racism-otherwise known as showing prejudice: This is from Webster's.

All of these are from Websters Dictionary. Now please give me a decent response explaining your viewpoint.

I already went over this, based on what you told me.
How many other people came forward to say that Zimmerman followed them or confronted them? Any white kids?
You got one black kid who was shot for walking in Zimmerman's neighborhood while being black, because some other black people had allegedly committed crimes in the area. Zimmerman never observed Trayvon committing a crime, yet he profiled him as a criminal and told the cops that he was on drugs. so
Assuming that Trayvon is a drug-popping criminal because he is black is the definition of racism. He was not a suspect in any crimes, yet Zimmerman treated him like one.
And getting out of your car to follow someone who you believe is a criminal on drugs is the definition of stupidity. I mean, c'mon.

[john9blue]

But what I really need to say is that your first duty in life is always to your conscience. Otherwise, you're almost the definition of a psychopath.

> that moment when juan realizes that most people's "consciences" are mostly the religious morals that they were instilled with as children

Well, I don't believe that, but I do know a lot of people who do. I believe that morality and empathy are part of evolution and cannot be dislodged by indoctrination. You can re-program someone, but that doesn't mean that they will be internally at ease with it. That wiring will be intact underneath. And this is something that I've learned through a crapload of reading, not from personal experiences.

culture itself is part of human evolution and influences our biology. you're correct that morality has evolved... but religions have evolved as (among other things) ways to express morality.

besides, i think the biological predisposition towards empathy is not as strong as you would think. the amount of influence a person's environment (as opposed to their genetics) has on their behavior is immense.

[Night Strike]

So how do you throw someone in jail for 25-to-life if the law doesn't allow it?

1950s.

Try 2010s.

[BigBallinStalin]

and this is the definition fo prejudice:
1prej·u·dice
noun \ˈpre-jə-dəs\
1
: injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2
a (a) : preconceived judgment or opinion (b) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge.

I understand #1, but #2 is kinda weird.

Everyone holds "adverse opinions" or "leans a certain way" without sufficient knowledge. We hold adverse opinions or lean a certain way about whether or not life exists beyond our solar system. Therefore, we're all prejudiced toward life in the universe--excluding Earth? People do this all the time with economics; therefore, they're all prejudiced against markets/government?

"Preconceived judgment or opinion" is an opinion conceived before one conceived it. Hmm.... Same with judgment. There's this story where one walks into a room and sees a tiger on their bed. Immediately, they leave the room. Why? Because they're prejudiced against tigers. Wouldn't even give that tiger a chance! "Just" grounds and "sufficient" knowledge are wondrously vague standards too.


"Prejudice" is a crappy word. It's too normative, which makes understanding more difficult. A better framework is holding priors and posteriors. For example, a prior would be my belief/opinion on something based on my current evidence. After further evidence, I'd get a posterior. That's pretty simple, scientific, and cannot be mangled by people with agendas, e.g. Juan_Bottom. For more, see this blog post on derp.

[BigBallinStalin]

But what I really need to say is that your first duty in life is always to your conscience[/. Otherwise, you're almost the definition of a psychopath.

> that moment when juan realizes that [u]most people's "consciences" are mostly the religious morals that they were instilled with as children

Well, I don't believe that, but I do know a lot of people who do. I believe that morality and empathy are part of evolution and cannot be dislodged by indoctrination. You can re-program someone, but that doesn't mean that they will be internally at ease with it. That wiring will be intact underneath. And this is something that I've learned through a crapload of reading, not from personal experiences.

culture itself is part of human evolution and influences our biology. you're correct that morality has evolved... but religions have evolved as (among other things) ways to express morality.

besides, i think the biological predisposition towards empathy is not as strong as you would think. the amount of influence a person's environment (as opposed to their genetics) has on their behavior is immense.

Agreed. Look at children who were lost and then raised by animals. They hardly exhibit the typical behavioral traits of humans--other than those of human who was raised by animals ("barbaric"). The biological disposition toward empathy is nonexistent (short of having a mouth and eyes to communicate). Empathy is learned through interacting with other humans**, and everyone has a varied capacity for it (e.g. some people simply don't understand social cues; others study nonverbal language intensely, thus greatly improve their ability to empathize).


**So religion is influential for some, but not at all for others. There's other sources for moral guidance (e.g. philosophy), and even less formal sources (e.g. other people, trial-and-error, etc.). That's all we can say, which is why I can't agree with the underlined--especially the parts in bold, until of course empirical evidence is brought to the table.