Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

[Phatscotty]

Bizarre argument- it's precisely why this case has gained prominence that the shooter wasn't arrested, or tried. I'm a little surprised as to how you missed that. There were protests and everything.

Which similar killings (that obviously you have been investing time in) would you suggest I look in to?

Any unsolved murders in the United States. Any unprosecuted muders in the United States.

The case gained prominence because the initial reports indicated that a young black child was killed by a white man in an unprovocated fashion and because the president and prominent African American leaders commented on it and then conservatives commented on it.

The first part of this happens often and happens often in my area of the United States. People are murdered with startingly high regularity in Philadelphia and Camden (my area). Young black children are murdered in my area. The president doesn't comment on it. The national news media doesn't comment on it. African American leaders don't comment on it. Conservative news media doesn't comment on it.

As I've indicated any number of times in this thread, this story should not have received any national press at all. Maybe it should have, but then so do all these other cases and stories.

[natty dread]

The guy wasn't arrested, muchless tried, because the law specifically states that if law enforcement has reason to believe the Stand Your Ground was appropriately applied, they cannot arrest the person. The police do not have the power to go around arresting people without also charging them for a crime, and preliminary investigations did not provide conclusive enough information to lead to an immediate arrest. The prosecutor has not charged Zimmerman, so he can't just be arrested. If the grand jury decides there is enough evidence to press charges, he can then be arrested. It is against his constitutional rights to arrest him before then (even though Al Sharpton's mob wants to deny him his rights).

What, you mean you can't bring people in for questioning? You can't arrest people if you suspect them of a crime?

Weird.

[Night Strike]

The guy wasn't arrested, muchless tried, because the law specifically states that if law enforcement has reason to believe the Stand Your Ground was appropriately applied, they cannot arrest the person. The police do not have the power to go around arresting people without also charging them for a crime, and preliminary investigations did not provide conclusive enough information to lead to an immediate arrest. The prosecutor has not charged Zimmerman, so he can't just be arrested. If the grand jury decides there is enough evidence to press charges, he can then be arrested. It is against his constitutional rights to arrest him before then (even though Al Sharpton's mob wants to deny him his rights).

What, you mean you can't bring people in for questioning? You can't arrest people if you suspect them of a crime?

Weird.

Actually, they DID take him in for questioning (hence the police video where people claim it shows that he didn't have any injuries). And, in the US, the police can only hold a person up to 24 hours without charging them.

[BigBallinStalin]

"Bad" neighborhood, guy in civilian/street clothes is following me, I lose him, then approach him (based on the stories) and ask him, "why are you following me?" He asks, "what are you doing?", and then reaches for something in his jacket...?

If I'd have lost the guy following me and had thought he meant me harm, I sure as hell would then approach him.

Just wondering: have you ever been in one of these situations? Specifically, would you approach a threat with a bag of Skittles!? (*not Skittles! -- it's too difficult to keep him in a bag).

If I was in that situation, I'd assume the person was reaching for a gun. That's the most reasonable assumption to make, according to me.

And right about that time I'd be thinking it was pretty stupid of me to have come to confront the guy after I'd lost him.

Which is why Martin's behavior seems irrational from my perspective.

I wouldn't attack though; I'd let him take whatever. But, I'd have very likely noticed that I'm being followed, and I'd try to lose him and keep it that way. I don't want anyone getting killed if I can avoid it by running.


As an aside thought, it's strange that Martin approached Zimmerman after Zimmerman briefly lost him.

yeah, it is strange, but we'll never know what happened for sure. Even after an investigation and court case is long over and done with.
For Zimmerman, it's his story and it's up to the prosecution to show otherwise. If indeed Zimmerman can show the court that Martin was on top of him and beating him, then Zimmerman will have a very good chance of beating any charges (if he's even charged with anything).
The court might think that Zimmerman was using the best of judgment during the whole thing, but once it came to blows, Zimmerman certainly has a right to defend himself.

This whole case seems more like a surreal case of a complete misunderstanding that went beyond bad. Strange things go on in people's minds when adrenaline starts pumping.....

As far as not knowing for sure, interrogation methods (not torture) can work wonders.

Regarding the rest, sure, I agree. What bothers me is that Martin "irrationally" responded by approaching the bigger guy following him at night. Either Martin has a habit of thinking he's a big tough guy or Zimmerman egged him on. If I was extremely interested in this event, I'd try to find an interview with Martin's girlfriend and have her recount everything that Martin said and responded to.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm so excited. More people are joining the extremes in this thread!

It's such an interesting story. The reactions from people are more interesting.

This kind of event happens often (white guy killing a black guy, and vice versa); however, if the stories conflict or if information is missing, then people fill in the gaps with their own preferred stories.

You know the guy isn't white right?

The reactions are definitely more interesting. I posted a link in this thread (page 15?, who knows) about some white UK guy murdered in the US by a black guy. Not only didn't the president comment on the incident, but no one here has commented. Natty and Symm haven't commented on how the black guy was racist. Phatscotty hasn't commented on how the black guy was using appropriate force.

I stand corrected. The "white" Hispanic rhetoric has just been exterminated with extreme prejudice from my mind.

Re: your story, I know, right? It's weird. What explains the variance in reactions? I'd say mainstream media, which is very effective at framing the topics of controversy of the day. If that's true, then it shows how much influence the mainstream, and any media for certain groups, can exert on shaping our thoughts.

Then again, the lack of clear enough information may explain this variance, but I don't think this influence is as strong as the mainstream media effect.

[Phatscotty]

"Bad" neighborhood, guy in civilian/street clothes is following me, I lose him, then approach him (based on the stories) and ask him, "why are you following me?" He asks, "what are you doing?", and then reaches for something in his jacket...?

If I'd have lost the guy following me and had thought he meant me harm, I sure as hell would then approach him.

Just wondering: have you ever been in one of these situations? Specifically, would you approach a threat with a bag of Skittles!? (*not Skittles! -- it's too difficult to keep him in a bag).

If I was in that situation, I'd assume the person was reaching for a gun. That's the most reasonable assumption to make, according to me.

And right about that time I'd be thinking it was pretty stupid of me to have come to confront the guy after I'd lost him.

Which is why Martin's behavior seems irrational from my perspective.

I wouldn't attack though; I'd let him take whatever. But, I'd have very likely noticed that I'm being followed, and I'd try to lose him and keep it that way. I don't want anyone getting killed if I can avoid it by running.


As an aside thought, it's strange that Martin approached Zimmerman after Zimmerman briefly lost him.

yeah, it is strange, but we'll never know what happened for sure. Even after an investigation and court case is long over and done with.
For Zimmerman, it's his story and it's up to the prosecution to show otherwise. If indeed Zimmerman can show the court that Martin was on top of him and beating him, then Zimmerman will have a very good chance of beating any charges (if he's even charged with anything).
The court might think that Zimmerman was using the best of judgment during the whole thing, but once it came to blows, Zimmerman certainly has a right to defend himself.

This whole case seems more like a surreal case of a complete misunderstanding that went beyond bad. Strange things go on in people's minds when adrenaline starts pumping.....

As far as not knowing for sure, interrogation methods (not torture) can work wonders.

Regarding the rest, sure, I agree. What bothers me is that Martin "irrationally" responded by approaching the bigger guy following him at night. Either Martin has a habit of thinking he's a big tough guy or Zimmerman egged him on. If I was extremely interested in this event, I'd try to find an interview with Martin's girlfriend and have her recount everything that Martin said and responded to.

George Zimmerman has been spotted around 5'5, Trayvon is 6'2. I don't think Zimmerman was the bigger guy, and it might have something to do with Z possibly getting his ass whipped.

[BigBallinStalin]

What was it? Skinny tall guy at 150 versus somewhat short but not really guy at 220?

It's unlikely that Martin thinks he's a big tough guy in this situation--at night, in a bad neighborhood, with a stocky guy wearing a jacket following him...

Not sure about that one, Phatscotty. Seems more likely that Martin was egged on--perhaps by a racial slur?

[Borderdawg]

And now ABC is showing enhanced video that appears to show gashes on the back of Zimmermans head.

[natty dread]

And now ABC is showing enhanced video that appears to show gashes on the back of Zimmermans head.

"Enhanced video"?

What does that even mean? A video contains the data it contains. That thing they do on CSI and similar series, where they look at a video of a suspect and then they go "can you enhance it" and suddenly the resolution of the video grows like 900%? Yeah, that's actually impossible.

If you zoom in on a bitmap, all you get is huge pixels.

[Borderdawg]

And now ABC is showing enhanced video that appears to show gashes on the back of Zimmermans head.

"Enhanced video"?

What does that even mean? A video contains the data it contains. That thing they do on CSI and similar series, where they look at a video of a suspect and then they go "can you enhance it" and suddenly the resolution of the video grows like 900%? Yeah, that's actually impossible.

If you zoom in on a bitmap, all you get is huge pixels.

Don't yell at me, I didn't do it.

http://autos.yahoo.com/video/channel-26 ... 04579.html

[spurgistan]

I'm so excited. More people are joining the extremes in this thread!

It's such an interesting story. The reactions from people are more interesting.

This kind of event happens often (white guy killing a black guy, and vice versa); however, if the stories conflict or if information is missing, then people fill in the gaps with their own preferred stories.

You know the guy isn't white right?

The reactions are definitely more interesting. I posted a link in this thread (page 15?, who knows) about some white UK guy murdered in the US by a black guy. Not only didn't the president comment on the incident, but no one here has commented. Natty and Symm haven't commented on how the black guy was racist. Phatscotty hasn't commented on how the black guy was using appropriate force.

Was the black guy a cop (or "cop," really)? Was the white guy an unarmed kid? Was this a possible instance of profiling? Were there no legal ramifications from the death of said white guy? Even if Zimmerman was technically within his rights in Florida to shoot Trayvon, that just indicates that the law is totally out of whack. Even if GZ walks, as it appears he probably will, the law needs to get fixed.

[Symmetry]

I'm so excited. More people are joining the extremes in this thread!

It's such an interesting story. The reactions from people are more interesting.

This kind of event happens often (white guy killing a black guy, and vice versa); however, if the stories conflict or if information is missing, then people fill in the gaps with their own preferred stories.

You know the guy isn't white right?

The reactions are definitely more interesting. I posted a link in this thread (page 15?, who knows) about some white UK guy murdered in the US by a black guy. Not only didn't the president comment on the incident, but no one here has commented. Natty and Symm haven't commented on how the black guy was racist. Phatscotty hasn't commented on how the black guy was using appropriate force.

Was the black guy a cop (or "cop," really)? Was the white guy an unarmed kid? Was this a possible instance of profiling? Were there no legal ramifications from the death of said white guy? Even if Zimmerman was technically within his rights in Florida to shoot Trayvon, that just indicates that the law is totally out of whack. Even if GZ walks, as it appears he probably will, the law needs to get fixed.

No on all of those, and I don't really get why TGD is demanding that I comment on all unsolved murders in the US, with reference to a murder that has been solved, tried, and resulted in a conviction, before commenting on the Trayvon Martin case.

[thegreekdog]

I'm so excited. More people are joining the extremes in this thread!

It's such an interesting story. The reactions from people are more interesting.

This kind of event happens often (white guy killing a black guy, and vice versa); however, if the stories conflict or if information is missing, then people fill in the gaps with their own preferred stories.

You know the guy isn't white right?

The reactions are definitely more interesting. I posted a link in this thread (page 15?, who knows) about some white UK guy murdered in the US by a black guy. Not only didn't the president comment on the incident, but no one here has commented. Natty and Symm haven't commented on how the black guy was racist. Phatscotty hasn't commented on how the black guy was using appropriate force.

Was the black guy a cop (or "cop," really)? Was the white guy an unarmed kid? Was this a possible instance of profiling? Were there no legal ramifications from the death of said white guy? Even if Zimmerman was technically within his rights in Florida to shoot Trayvon, that just indicates that the law is totally out of whack. Even if GZ walks, as it appears he probably will, the law needs to get fixed.

The law does need to get fixed.

[Symmetry]

Bizarre argument- it's precisely why this case has gained prominence that the shooter wasn't arrested, or tried. I'm a little surprised as to how you missed that. There were protests and everything.

Which similar killings (that obviously you have been investing time in) would you suggest I look in to?

Any unsolved murders in the United States. Any unprosecuted muders in the United States.

The case gained prominence because the initial reports indicated that a young black child was killed by a white man in an unprovocated fashion and because the president and prominent African American leaders commented on it and then conservatives commented on it.

The first part of this happens often and happens often in my area of the United States. People are murdered with startingly high regularity in Philadelphia and Camden (my area). Young black children are murdered in my area. The president doesn't comment on it. The national news media doesn't comment on it. African American leaders don't comment on it. Conservative news media doesn't comment on it.

As I've indicated any number of times in this thread, this story should not have received any national press at all. Maybe it should have, but then so do all these other cases and stories.

And again you are incorrect. The initial reports were that Zimmerman killed Martin in self defence. You may note that he was released without charge. Are we really going to have to go all the way back to the basics?

National coverage, and indeed, international coverage, has resulted in the case being re-opened, and examined more thoroughly. I'm not sure what you're going for with this.

Are you arguing that every case of murder should gain this much attention, or that people should have ignored Trayvon's death entirely?

Both are irrational.

[thegreekdog]

I'm so excited. More people are joining the extremes in this thread!

It's such an interesting story. The reactions from people are more interesting.

This kind of event happens often (white guy killing a black guy, and vice versa); however, if the stories conflict or if information is missing, then people fill in the gaps with their own preferred stories.

You know the guy isn't white right?

The reactions are definitely more interesting. I posted a link in this thread (page 15?, who knows) about some white UK guy murdered in the US by a black guy. Not only didn't the president comment on the incident, but no one here has commented. Natty and Symm haven't commented on how the black guy was racist. Phatscotty hasn't commented on how the black guy was using appropriate force.

Was the black guy a cop (or "cop," really)? Was the white guy an unarmed kid? Was this a possible instance of profiling? Were there no legal ramifications from the death of said white guy? Even if Zimmerman was technically within his rights in Florida to shoot Trayvon, that just indicates that the law is totally out of whack. Even if GZ walks, as it appears he probably will, the law needs to get fixed.

No on all of those, and I don't really get why TGD is demanding that I comment on all unsolved murders in the US, with reference to a murder that has been solved, tried, and resulted in a conviction, before commenting on the Trayvon Martin case.

I'm not demanding anything. I'm not even really addressing you. I'm addressing the inconsistencies with the US media and its treatment of crime in the United States. I'm also addressing the inconsistencies with which our elected and wannabe elected officials deal with crime in the United States.

If the outcry is with respect to the law in Florida, then I would welcome that discussion. But it's not. The discussion in this thread and in the media and in politics is about race, not about the law in Florida. And I think that discussion is a moneymaker for the media and is helpful to politicians. That's it. The discussion in the US is not about the kid or Zimmerman or the law in Florida, and that's what it should be about (or else the discussion shouldn't occur at all - just as it doesn't occur for most other crimes that happen in the United States). I'm not sure why this is difficult for you to understand.

Do you remember the Terry Schiavo case? I don't recall all the details, but a woman's family wanted her to be taken off life support. Conservatives came out of the woodwork trying to stop the family. It became a fairly hot button issue (and I believe it was in Florida). Was it a case of people trying to respect the wishes of Terry Schaivo or to call attention to their own agendas? I think it was the latter and that's the unfortunate part of that situation and this current situation.

[Symmetry]

The reactions are definitely more interesting. I posted a link in this thread (page 15?, who knows) about some white UK guy murdered in the US by a black guy. Not only didn't the president comment on the incident, but no one here has commented. Natty and Symm haven't commented on how the black guy was racist. Phatscotty hasn't commented on how the black guy was using appropriate force.

Perhaps you were addressing no-one at all, maybe you're not even addressing me now.

Bizarre argument- it's precisely why this case has gained prominence that the shooter wasn't arrested, or tried. I'm a little surprised as to how you missed that. There were protests and everything.

Which similar killings (that obviously you have been investing time in) would you suggest I look in to?

Any unsolved murders in the United States. Any unprosecuted muders in the United States.

Were you addressing me then? It came across like you were.

[thegreekdog]

The reactions are definitely more interesting. I posted a link in this thread (page 15?, who knows) about some white UK guy murdered in the US by a black guy. Not only didn't the president comment on the incident, but no one here has commented. Natty and Symm haven't commented on how the black guy was racist. Phatscotty hasn't commented on how the black guy was using appropriate force.

Perhaps you were addressing no-one at all, maybe you're not even addressing me now.

Bizarre argument- it's precisely why this case has gained prominence that the shooter wasn't arrested, or tried. I'm a little surprised as to how you missed that. There were protests and everything.

Which similar killings (that obviously you have been investing time in) would you suggest I look in to?

Any unsolved murders in the United States. Any unprosecuted muders in the United States.

Were you addressing me then? It came across like you were.

Okay, here's a direct question to you - Why do you care about this case/instance and not others? I suppose there are plenty of motivations. Right now, I would propose that you care about this case for a few reasons (and correct me if I'm wrong): (1) It's getting a lot of airtime; (2) The president has commented on it; (3) Phatscotty has commented on it.

So, if those are you reasons, I suppose I'm indirectly questioning your reasons because I question why it's getting a lot of airtime, why the president commented on it, and why conservatives are commenting on it.

[spurgistan]

To speak for my boy Sym, the reasons [1] and [2] are happening is because this looks for all the world like a case of racial profiling by some sort of law enforcement officer gone totally unpunished. [3] only happens because there's a possibility liberals might be wrong. Also, you agree that the law deserves to be fixed. Does that usually happen in a media vacuum? I do agree with the Schiavo comparison somewhat, except that this seems a bit less personal, also, it involves legislators trying to change legislation as opposed to trying to offer medical advice.

[Symmetry]

The reactions are definitely more interesting. I posted a link in this thread (page 15?, who knows) about some white UK guy murdered in the US by a black guy. Not only didn't the president comment on the incident, but no one here has commented. Natty and Symm haven't commented on how the black guy was racist. Phatscotty hasn't commented on how the black guy was using appropriate force.

Perhaps you were addressing no-one at all, maybe you're not even addressing me now.

Bizarre argument- it's precisely why this case has gained prominence that the shooter wasn't arrested, or tried. I'm a little surprised as to how you missed that. There were protests and everything.

Which similar killings (that obviously you have been investing time in) would you suggest I look in to?

Any unsolved murders in the United States. Any unprosecuted muders in the United States.

Were you addressing me then? It came across like you were.

Okay, here's a direct question to you - Why do you care about this case/instance and not others? I suppose there are plenty of motivations. Right now, I would propose that you care about this case for a few reasons (and correct me if I'm wrong): (1) It's getting a lot of airtime; (2) The president has commented on it; (3) Phatscotty has commented on it.

So, if those are you reasons, I suppose I'm indirectly questioning your reasons because I question why it's getting a lot of airtime, why the president commented on it, and why conservatives are commenting on it.

Another great moderating job on this one TGD. Presumably you'll be asking the same questions of, say, Phatscotty and Nightstrike.

As to your question, I've commented elsewhere on other issues, and indeed other murders. I don't think you have even a shred of ground to stand on saying that I don't care about other cases.

Why are you suggesting that I have not? And indeed, why are you singling me out for posting on this topic?

[Night Strike]

To speak for my boy Sym, the reasons [1] and [2] are happening is because this looks for all the world like a case of racial profiling by some sort of law enforcement officer gone totally unpunished.

A neighborhood watchman is not a law enforcement officer. Heck, they're way below security companies, and security companies aren't law enforcement either. Claiming that it's racial profiling is speculation at this point, and the guy has thus far gone unpunished because the real law enforcement personal think that the case falls under Florida's Stand Your Ground law. The DA did not feel there was enough evidence to charge Zimmerman with a crime, but the special prosecutor is convening a grand jury to see if there is enough evidence as determined by a group of peers to warrant charges.

Another great moderating job on this one TGD. Presumably you'll be asking the same questions of, say, Phatscotty and Nightstrike.

I've only commented on the topic because of the racists (Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson) and dishonest media who have been trying to incite riots around the country through misinformation over this case. To be honest, I hate media attention on most of these random murders, missing people, etc. They're all a waste of time and coverup the real topics that need to be focused on, like the constant infringement of rights by the federal government through their ever-expanding power and refusal to reign in the debt. And don't even get me started about when the media fawns over celebrities who end up dying from their own drug abuse.

[AndyDufresne]

... like the constant infringement of rights by the federal government through their ever-expanding power and refusal to reign in the debt...

Damn right, let's get back to state-mandated ultrasound debating!


--Andy

[Night Strike]

... like the constant infringement of rights by the federal government through their ever-expanding power and refusal to reign in the debt...

Damn right, let's get back to state-mandated ultrasound debating!


--Andy

State =/= federal.

[thegreekdog]

The reactions are definitely more interesting. I posted a link in this thread (page 15?, who knows) about some white UK guy murdered in the US by a black guy. Not only didn't the president comment on the incident, but no one here has commented. Natty and Symm haven't commented on how the black guy was racist. Phatscotty hasn't commented on how the black guy was using appropriate force.

Perhaps you were addressing no-one at all, maybe you're not even addressing me now.

Bizarre argument- it's precisely why this case has gained prominence that the shooter wasn't arrested, or tried. I'm a little surprised as to how you missed that. There were protests and everything.

Which similar killings (that obviously you have been investing time in) would you suggest I look in to?

Any unsolved murders in the United States. Any unprosecuted muders in the United States.

Were you addressing me then? It came across like you were.

Okay, here's a direct question to you - Why do you care about this case/instance and not others? I suppose there are plenty of motivations. Right now, I would propose that you care about this case for a few reasons (and correct me if I'm wrong): (1) It's getting a lot of airtime; (2) The president has commented on it; (3) Phatscotty has commented on it.

So, if those are you reasons, I suppose I'm indirectly questioning your reasons because I question why it's getting a lot of airtime, why the president commented on it, and why conservatives are commenting on it.

Another great moderating job on this one TGD. Presumably you'll be asking the same questions of, say, Phatscotty and Nightstrike.

As to your question, I've commented elsewhere on other issues, and indeed other murders. I don't think you have even a shred of ground to stand on saying that I don't care about other cases.

Why are you suggesting that I have not? And indeed, why are you singling me out for posting on this topic?

I singled out Phatscotty elsewhere in this thread and on numerous occasions. I already know his angle - it's conservative mouthpiece.

And this has nothing to do with moderation of the forums.

[Symmetry]

And you haven't answered my other questions, why did you say that I didn't care about other murders, or cases? Are you seriously trying to make an argument that I don't? Or that I haven't in the past.

[thegreekdog]

And you haven't answered my other questions, why did you say that I didn't care about other murders, or cases? Are you seriously trying to make an argument that I don't? Or that I haven't in the past.

No. I'm saying why do you care about this particular case? I explained why I think you are in the most recent post I made. I don't know why this is so hard, unless you're just trolling me for some reason.