Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

[AAFitz]

instead of drooling all over the evidence, why don't you bring it to the table.

Show me the evidence RIGHT NOW!

All of the facts are evidence Phatscotty. All of them. The fact that one person sees it as evidence of guilt and one of innocence does not mean it is not evidence.

If you want just one piece of evidence that I feel suggests he was guilty of manslaughter its that he was advised essentially not to approach Martin, and he ignored that advice of law enforcement, and it resulted in Martins death, at his hand no less.

He created the situation, exasperated it, brought a weapon to it, and no one, but him ever did anything wrong. Personally, I think Martin was defending himself from an armed stalker, and was unjustly killed.

I understand you view the evidence differently, but that just means you view it differently, not that its not evidence. I even undertand your opinion while I disagree with it completely.

You however are either ignorant or actually stupid by repeatedly suggesting that because he was aqcuited that there was no evidence. Though really, as always, is probably more likely that its just pointless trolling, which is why I hardly ever bother to put any real time into these discussions.

Again though....in the OJ Simpson case...

Guilty?
Was there evidence?
Did the innocent verdict mean the evidence was fantasy?

[AAFitz]

You guys are still fighting about this?

There are more important racial issues, like the whole one punch knockout thing.

Fighting really does more justice to this conversation than it deserves.

I wouldn't call it fighting either. For them, it's venting; they need someone to blame and yell at.

For me its dunkin on foos

Now there's some fantasy for ya.

[thegreekdog]

You guys are still fighting about this?

There are more important racial issues, like the whole one punch knockout thing.

Make a thread dude. Your respectibility will bring good conversation

I would name it "Racism in America" If you make it I will provide all the videos

Realclear had a link to a Thomas Sowell article. I read it and the first thing I thought was, "Why didn't Phatscotty post this yet?" And then I was like, "Maybe he put it in the Zimmerman thread." But you didn't.

It is funny that no one will talk about the racial make-up of the attackers, but after that is where Sowell and I part ways. I don't find any solution in calling this "black on white" or "black on Asian" or "black on Jewish" crime. Ultimately, it's not a racial issue. Some group of kids (color doesn't matter) punches a bystander (color doesn't matter). That seems problematic.

[Phatscotty]

that's because strength prevents attacks, and weakness encourages attacks. Political correctness is as weak as it gets, and those who worship politically correctness will not survive.

They can say "you can't say that! That offends me!!!" and then the other person walks right up to you and knocks you on your ass and says "is that offensive? oh, sorry then" and political correctness allows it to be swept under the rug since nobody can talk about what is plainly in front of their face, which shows extreme weakness, which gets you attacked.

This is the result of "progress"

[BigBallinStalin]

You guys are still fighting about this?

There are more important racial issues, like the whole one punch knockout thing.

Are you saying that black people are better at boxing???

[AAFitz]

You guys are still fighting about this?

There are more important racial issues, like the whole one punch knockout thing.

Make a thread dude. Your respectibility will bring good conversation

I would name it "Racism in America" If you make it I will provide all the videos

Realclear had a link to a Thomas Sowell article. I read it and the first thing I thought was, "Why didn't Phatscotty post this yet?" And then I was like, "Maybe he put it in the Zimmerman thread." But you didn't.

It is funny that no one will talk about the racial make-up of the attackers, but after that is where Sowell and I part ways. I don't find any solution in calling this "black on white" or "black on Asian" or "black on Jewish" crime. Ultimately, it's not a racial issue. Some group of kids (color doesn't matter) punches a bystander (color doesn't matter). That seems problematic.

Well, I agree that race doesn't necessarily matter, and that any group attacking another is problematic. However if race was the primary reason for the punch in the first place, it certainly is an important factor in the case.

[AAFitz]

that's because strength prevents attacks, and weakness encourages attacks. Political correctness is as weak as it gets, and those who worship politically correctness will not survive.

They can say "you can't say that! That offends me!!!" and then the other person walks right up to you and knocks you on your ass and says "is that offensive? oh, sorry then" and political correctness allows it to be swept under the rug since nobody can talk about what is plainly in front of their face, which shows extreme weakness, which gets you attacked.

This is the result of "progress"

You just better hope the guy you don't punch doesn't bitch out and shoot you. And I believe, you've argued quite a bit that shooting you, would be quite justifiable.

[thegreekdog]

that's because strength prevents attacks, and weakness encourages attacks. Political correctness is as weak as it gets, and those who worship politically correctness will not survive.

They can say "you can't say that! That offends me!!!" and then the other person walks right up to you and knocks you on your ass and says "is that offensive? oh, sorry then" and political correctness allows it to be swept under the rug since nobody can talk about what is plainly in front of their face, which shows extreme weakness, which gets you attacked.

This is the result of "progress"

I don't think that way. I think "a group of people committed assault and battery and should be arrested." That's pretty much it for me.

However if race was the primary reason for the punch in the first place, it certainly is an important factor in the case.

Well in "group v. Jews" it wasn't race, but, ignoring that, I do not pretend to know the motivations of fuckfaces who would punch some random person in the face just for fun. That being said, I'm sure it has something to do with pea-brained morons thinking "Hey, this is cool. Let's do this because we're bad ass and awesome" and that race factors into it in a minor way.

[AAFitz]

that's because strength prevents attacks, and weakness encourages attacks. Political correctness is as weak as it gets, and those who worship politically correctness will not survive.

They can say "you can't say that! That offends me!!!" and then the other person walks right up to you and knocks you on your ass and says "is that offensive? oh, sorry then" and political correctness allows it to be swept under the rug since nobody can talk about what is plainly in front of their face, which shows extreme weakness, which gets you attacked.

This is the result of "progress"

I don't think that way. I think "a group of people committed assault and battery and should be arrested." That's pretty much it for me.

However if race was the primary reason for the punch in the first place, it certainly is an important factor in the case.

Well in "group v. Jews" it wasn't race, but, ignoring that, I do not pretend to know the motivations of fuckfaces who would punch some random person in the face just for fun. That being said, I'm sure it has something to do with pea-brained morons thinking "Hey, this is cool. Let's do this because we're bad ass and awesome" and that race factors into it in a minor way.

You might be right, but obviously every case is different, and certainly many cases absolutely had only one real reason for the attack and that was race.

[thegreekdog]

that's because strength prevents attacks, and weakness encourages attacks. Political correctness is as weak as it gets, and those who worship politically correctness will not survive.

They can say "you can't say that! That offends me!!!" and then the other person walks right up to you and knocks you on your ass and says "is that offensive? oh, sorry then" and political correctness allows it to be swept under the rug since nobody can talk about what is plainly in front of their face, which shows extreme weakness, which gets you attacked.

This is the result of "progress"

I don't think that way. I think "a group of people committed assault and battery and should be arrested." That's pretty much it for me.

However if race was the primary reason for the punch in the first place, it certainly is an important factor in the case.

Well in "group v. Jews" it wasn't race, but, ignoring that, I do not pretend to know the motivations of fuckfaces who would punch some random person in the face just for fun. That being said, I'm sure it has something to do with pea-brained morons thinking "Hey, this is cool. Let's do this because we're bad ass and awesome" and that race factors into it in a minor way.

You might be right, but obviously every case is different, and certainly many cases absolutely had only one real reason for the attack and that was race.

I detest hate crime laws for that very reason, but I understand why it's attractive to assume that a crime committed for a racial reason is more important than a crime committed for something not racially related. Unfortunately, I think hate crime laws perpetuate racism.

[Symmetry]

I detest hate crime laws for that very reason, but I understand why it's attractive to assume that a crime committed for a racial reason is more important than a crime committed for something not racially related. Unfortunately, I think hate crime laws perpetuate racism.

Can you elaborate?

[AAFitz]

that's because strength prevents attacks, and weakness encourages attacks. Political correctness is as weak as it gets, and those who worship politically correctness will not survive.

They can say "you can't say that! That offends me!!!" and then the other person walks right up to you and knocks you on your ass and says "is that offensive? oh, sorry then" and political correctness allows it to be swept under the rug since nobody can talk about what is plainly in front of their face, which shows extreme weakness, which gets you attacked.

This is the result of "progress"

I don't think that way. I think "a group of people committed assault and battery and should be arrested." That's pretty much it for me.

However if race was the primary reason for the punch in the first place, it certainly is an important factor in the case.

Well in "group v. Jews" it wasn't race, but, ignoring that, I do not pretend to know the motivations of fuckfaces who would punch some random person in the face just for fun. That being said, I'm sure it has something to do with pea-brained morons thinking "Hey, this is cool. Let's do this because we're bad ass and awesome" and that race factors into it in a minor way.

You might be right, but obviously every case is different, and certainly many cases absolutely had only one real reason for the attack and that was race.

I detest hate crime laws for that very reason, but I understand why it's attractive to assume that a crime committed for a racial reason is more important than a crime committed for something not racially related. Unfortunately, I think hate crime laws perpetuate racism.

I'm not sure its done to be attractive as much as its been done to be a deterrent.

Its obviously a complex subject, but certainly one could argue that attacking a person because he is Irish for example is more of a crime than just attacking someone randomly.

You must agree that on some level motive does absolutely change the nature of some crimes, especially on an individual basis.

I believe you are arguing that every punch to the face is just a punch to the face, but I think its pretty easy to argue that is hardly the case, and certainly a racially motivated one, should be more harshly punished in some cases, and even less harshly punished compared to others.

[Phatscotty]

that's because strength prevents attacks, and weakness encourages attacks. Political correctness is as weak as it gets, and those who worship politically correctness will not survive.

They can say "you can't say that! That offends me!!!" and then the other person walks right up to you and knocks you on your ass and says "is that offensive? oh, sorry then" and political correctness allows it to be swept under the rug since nobody can talk about what is plainly in front of their face, which shows extreme weakness, which gets you attacked.

This is the result of "progress"

You just better hope the guy you don't punch doesn't bitch out and shoot you. And I believe, you've argued quite a bit that shooting you, would be quite justifiable.

Don't go Nazi, not yet...

[AAFitz]

Hey Scotty...I answered your question and asked some of you.

Keep on dunkin the foos and reply when you get a chance, will ya?

[AAFitz]

that's because strength prevents attacks, and weakness encourages attacks. Political correctness is as weak as it gets, and those who worship politically correctness will not survive.

They can say "you can't say that! That offends me!!!" and then the other person walks right up to you and knocks you on your ass and says "is that offensive? oh, sorry then" and political correctness allows it to be swept under the rug since nobody can talk about what is plainly in front of their face, which shows extreme weakness, which gets you attacked.

This is the result of "progress"

You just better hope the guy you don't punch doesn't bitch out and shoot you. And I believe, you've argued quite a bit that shooting you, would be quite justifiable.

Don't go Nazi, not yet...

What does this have to do with Nazi? Again with the fantasies???

But again...you seem to be ignoring some questions....

[thegreekdog]

I detest hate crime laws for that very reason, but I understand why it's attractive to assume that a crime committed for a racial reason is more important than a crime committed for something not racially related. Unfortunately, I think hate crime laws perpetuate racism.

Can you elaborate?

Sure. I think that hate groups like hate crime laws. They call attention to hate groups and, if hate groups can point out how horrible a hate crime law is ("They gave Jimbo 10 years for beating up that [insert racial/sexual orientation/religious group here]. That's bullshit. We now have our recruiting ad."). If the government treats it like a regular crime, it loses its luster for hate groups. The trade-off, obviously, is it loses it's importance to the general public. The general public cares a lot more if a teenager is beaten because he/she is [insert racial/sexual orientation/religious group here] than they do about "teenager is beaten for a reason other than his or her [race/sexual orientation/religiou]."

I will probably butcher the saying, but... "Bad press is better than no press at all."

[thegreekdog]

I'm not sure its done to be attractive as much as its been done to be a deterrent.

Its obviously a complex subject, but certainly one could argue that attacking a person because he is Irish for example is more of a crime than just attacking someone randomly.

You must agree that on some level motive does absolutely change the nature of some crimes, especially on an individual basis.

I believe you are arguing that every punch to the face is just a punch to the face, but I think its pretty easy to argue that is hardly the case, and certainly a racially motivated one, should be more harshly punished in some cases, and even less harshly punished compared to others.

First, I don't think it deters anything.

I think from the victim's point of view, getting attacked for any reason is "more of a crime." If I'm attacked today, I'm not sure I care that the motive of the attacker was my race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or it was because he wanted money or because he was a psychopath or because he wanted revenge for some perceived slight. That being said, I can see how people close to the victim would see some benefit to the crime being called a "hate crime" rather than just a crime.

But, at the same time, as I indicated above, the people committing the hate crime are getting the same kind of thrill. So, I'm anti calling things hate crimes.

[AAFitz]

I detest hate crime laws for that very reason, but I understand why it's attractive to assume that a crime committed for a racial reason is more important than a crime committed for something not racially related. Unfortunately, I think hate crime laws perpetuate racism.

Can you elaborate?

Sure. I think that hate groups like hate crime laws. They call attention to hate groups and, if hate groups can point out how horrible a hate crime law is ("They gave Jimbo 10 years for beating up that [insert racial/sexual orientation/religious group here]. That's bullshit. We now have our recruiting ad."). If the government treats it like a regular crime, it loses its luster for hate groups. The trade-off, obviously, is it loses it's importance to the general public. The general public cares a lot more if a teenager is beaten because he/she is [insert racial/sexual orientation/religious group here] than they do about "teenager is beaten for a reason other than his or her [race/sexual orientation/religiou]."

I will probably butcher the saying, but... "Bad press is better than no press at all."

I hear what you're saying, and its possible you are right, but if you could wipe out all race induced crimes, do you honestly think the crime rate would stay the same, and people would just be attacked randomly just as much?

And for the record, I dont even know how Id answer that without some thought.

[thegreekdog]

I detest hate crime laws for that very reason, but I understand why it's attractive to assume that a crime committed for a racial reason is more important than a crime committed for something not racially related. Unfortunately, I think hate crime laws perpetuate racism.

Can you elaborate?

Sure. I think that hate groups like hate crime laws. They call attention to hate groups and, if hate groups can point out how horrible a hate crime law is ("They gave Jimbo 10 years for beating up that [insert racial/sexual orientation/religious group here]. That's bullshit. We now have our recruiting ad."). If the government treats it like a regular crime, it loses its luster for hate groups. The trade-off, obviously, is it loses it's importance to the general public. The general public cares a lot more if a teenager is beaten because he/she is [insert racial/sexual orientation/religious group here] than they do about "teenager is beaten for a reason other than his or her [race/sexual orientation/religiou]."

I will probably butcher the saying, but... "Bad press is better than no press at all."

I hear what you're saying, and its possible you are right, but if you could wipe out all race induced crimes, do you honestly think the crime rate would stay the same, and people would just be attacked randomly just as much?

And for the record, I dont even know how Id answer that without some thought.

No, I don't believe the crime rate would stay the same (or go down). I think the best way to deal with race is to not call negative attention to it. Obviously, I need to think about it some more.

[Symmetry]

I detest hate crime laws for that very reason, but I understand why it's attractive to assume that a crime committed for a racial reason is more important than a crime committed for something not racially related. Unfortunately, I think hate crime laws perpetuate racism.

Can you elaborate?

Sure. I think that hate groups like hate crime laws. They call attention to hate groups and, if hate groups can point out how horrible a hate crime law is ("They gave Jimbo 10 years for beating up that [insert racial/sexual orientation/religious group here]. That's bullshit. We now have our recruiting ad."). If the government treats it like a regular crime, it loses its luster for hate groups. The trade-off, obviously, is it loses it's importance to the general public. The general public cares a lot more if a teenager is beaten because he/she is [insert racial/sexual orientation/religious group here] than they do about "teenager is beaten for a reason other than his or her [race/sexual orientation/religiou]."

I will probably butcher the saying, but... "Bad press is better than no press at all."

Hmm, an interesting argument. It's one that I think is kinda wrong because I don't see much evidence of it working like that at all. Still, the logic behind it is something I've applied to harsh legal penalties in other cases- that it might exacerbate the problem it's meant to fix.

Will have to have a think.

Cheers dude.

[AAFitz]

I'm not sure its done to be attractive as much as its been done to be a deterrent.

Its obviously a complex subject, but certainly one could argue that attacking a person because he is Irish for example is more of a crime than just attacking someone randomly.

You must agree that on some level motive does absolutely change the nature of some crimes, especially on an individual basis.

I believe you are arguing that every punch to the face is just a punch to the face, but I think its pretty easy to argue that is hardly the case, and certainly a racially motivated one, should be more harshly punished in some cases, and even less harshly punished compared to others.

First, I don't think it deters anything.

I think from the victim's point of view, getting attacked for any reason is "more of a crime." If I'm attacked today, I'm not sure I care that the motive of the attacker was my race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or it was because he wanted money or because he was a psychopath or because he wanted revenge for some perceived slight. That being said, I can see how people close to the victim would see some benefit to the crime being called a "hate crime" rather than just a crime.

But, at the same time, as I indicated above, the people committing the hate crime are getting the same kind of thrill. So, I'm anti calling things hate crimes.

Its possible you are right, that calling them hate crimes creates more hate crimes, and that punishing them more severely does not deter them one bit, but, its not like there weren't a hell of a lot of hate crimes before they were labeled hate crimes, and you would need some incredible figures and stats to show that its the hate crime label that causes them in the first place.

To be perfectly honest, it seems a little convoluted. I'm not trying to be insulting here. I understand how you got there, but I think you've made quite a few assumptions along the way, and maybe forgot the basic fact that hate crimes happened quite often before they were hate crimes. I wont guess if it was more or less because I cant even imagine, but I have my suspicions hate crimes did not start increasing simply because we stared calling them hate crimes and increasing prison terms for them. I accept its possible, but to me it seems past improbable.

[AAFitz]

I detest hate crime laws for that very reason, but I understand why it's attractive to assume that a crime committed for a racial reason is more important than a crime committed for something not racially related. Unfortunately, I think hate crime laws perpetuate racism.

Can you elaborate?

Sure. I think that hate groups like hate crime laws. They call attention to hate groups and, if hate groups can point out how horrible a hate crime law is ("They gave Jimbo 10 years for beating up that [insert racial/sexual orientation/religious group here]. That's bullshit. We now have our recruiting ad."). If the government treats it like a regular crime, it loses its luster for hate groups. The trade-off, obviously, is it loses it's importance to the general public. The general public cares a lot more if a teenager is beaten because he/she is [insert racial/sexual orientation/religious group here] than they do about "teenager is beaten for a reason other than his or her [race/sexual orientation/religiou]."

I will probably butcher the saying, but... "Bad press is better than no press at all."

I hear what you're saying, and its possible you are right, but if you could wipe out all race induced crimes, do you honestly think the crime rate would stay the same, and people would just be attacked randomly just as much?

And for the record, I dont even know how Id answer that without some thought.

No, I don't believe the crime rate would stay the same (or go down). I think the best way to deal with race is to not call negative attention to it. Obviously, I need to think about it some more.

I dont know, I am almost sure the areas with less racial tension would have less crime. I realize that is racist on some level as well, though not towards any given race as much as the human being who clearly, can become racist and act on it, often, and tragically, violently.

I certainly accept that its possible that not calling as much attention to race might be the best way to do it, but in all fairness, I think thats what they used to do, which almost undoubtedly, allowed more hate crimes to go unpunished.

I think that you are perhaps ignoring the fact that on some level, showing people that hate crimes are bad, is an education of sorts. Certainly, in history, crimes against entire races were not even considered crimes, and making them crimes was obviously the only way to ever stop them.

I believe your theory, is almost based on the hope that people are not racist anymore and are not actually acting out on their hatred as much as they do.....and perhaps, because I suspect you cant imagine doing something like that yourself.

[AAFitz]

Scooter....

Was OJ Guilty?

Was there no evidence?

A Jury found him not guilty, too.

[Phatscotty]

Scooter....

Was OJ Guilty?

Was there no evidence?

A Jury found him not guilty, too.

I'm still waiting for you. Show me the evidence of the Zimmerman case, and I'll play with your OJ

[patches70]

Again though....in the OJ Simpson case...

Guilty?
Was there evidence?
Did the innocent verdict mean the evidence was fantasy?

I'm not really sure why you bring up OJ, but since you did, OJ was rightfully acquitted.
-Guilty? I have no idea, but after what the cops did with the evidence it became quite impossible to convict OJ on those charges.
-Was there evidence? There was some, but the most important evidence was so badly tainted and mishandled by the cops, even if were I on that jury I would have acquitted him. Cops can't do that type of shit.
-Was the evidence fantasy? The most important evidence in the case was the blood evidence. Namely that OJ's blood was found at the scene, was that fantasy? What the cops did, it sure as hell could very well have been.

Some blood was supposedly found at the scene (not the victims). The samples were collected, and supposed to be immediately entered and turned into evidence (as per proper chain of evidence rules). It wasn't. The detective took the sample, put them in his pocket and it was more than 24 hours later when those samples were actually taken in. Before that blood evidence was turned in properly, a sample of OJ's blood was taken from him.
Because of the detective not following procedure and keeping the chain of evidence on the up and up, it's quite possible that the supposed blood evidence found at the scene was actually taken from OJ himself and then entered as found at the scene. We can't know for sure because the stupid cops screwed up so badly.

How would you like it if someone accused you of a crime, claim that blood evidence was found at the scene and ask you for a sample of your blood to compare. You give the sample and then find out your blood was found at the scene, and then find out that the blood evidence collected placing you at the scene was turned in after you gave your blood to the cops?
Do you see how bad that looks?
I bet you'd be pissed. I bet your lawyer would have a field day with that. I bet you'd get that evidence throw right out of court. I'd bet you'd claim that the police's evidence was indeed fantasy, no, scratch that, corrupt as hell and a lie.
And any reasonable person would agree with you.


So I suppose the OJ case and the Zimmerman case are similar in only that the authorities grossly screwed up.
In Zimmerman's case, it was the prosecution who screwed the pooch, over charging (which in unethical and immoral), misrepresented evidence, lied, changed the charges at the last minute without giving the defense any time to argue against and expected the jury to base their judgment on emotion rather than on duty and actual evidence.

And as for evidence of a hate crime in the Zimmerman case, there is no evidence of that. Was there evidence of such a thing that was simply not discovered? I have no idea, but it was a rather intense investigation and since no evidence of such nature was found it's not very logical or fair to assume there must have been evidence. Hate crime really has not a thing to do with the Zimmerman case at all.

But who ever killed Nicole Simpson and Goldman sure as hell had a lot of hate in their hearts to butcher two human beings like that. Might not have been a racial hate, but one would need to have a lot of hate built up inside themselves to do what was done to those two.

But these things tend to work themselves out in the long run. OJ is in jail now, and will be pretty much until the day he dies. Zimmerman, he's on the same road it seems. If he really was guilty of a crime then he will face the justice one way or another, in this life or the next.

I'm with TGD, hate crime legislation is wrong. I'm against said legislation because it puts more value on one person's life over another.

If a white guy shoots another white guy while screaming "Die Mother F*cker!" would get less of a sentence than a white guy shooting a black guy while screaming "Die N******!"
Both of them should face the exact same jail time. Both had hate in their hearts, and since most violent crime involves some degree of hate one way or another, well, what's the point in saying one type of hate is worse than another type of hate? It's all hatred. IMO.