Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

by **Phatscotty** on Tue Apr 24, 2012 3:26 pm

bedub1 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
bedub1 wrote:we decided that if George get's off with anything less than Life in Prison, the blacks will riot.

What does CC think about the underlined? Is that an example of racism, prejudice, or "nope, nothing at all"?

I found the statement awkward, and attempted to revise it so it didn't sound so awkward, but I was unable to come up with a better way to say it. How would you say it?

Riots have been threatened already. We don't need to speculate when we already have the answer.

by **BigBallinStalin** on Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:14 pm

It's amazing that you guys know how an entire group of people, categorized by their skin color, will react to something.

by **bedub1** on Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:28 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:It's amazing that you guys know how an entire group of people, categorized by their skin color, will react to something.

It will only be a small minority that will riot. But I feel confident in my abilities to foresee the future based upon actions of the past.

by **kentington** on Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:31 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:It's amazing that you guys know how an entire group of people, categorized by their skin color, will react to something.

The appropriate and accurate way to describe the situation.
If the New Black Panther group and their supporters don't feel justice has been served, even if they are the only ones to see it, then they claim they will act. I don't know if they have said specifically how they would act, but I do remember the leader of the New Black Panthers speaking about doing something if justice isn't served.

Now that Zimmerman is in the system and cooperating with the courts, it is up to the judge and jury to figure out what they believe happened.

by **spurgistan** on Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:32 pm

"The blacks" pretty unambiguously refers to literally every black person.
Also, there are crazy white people who threatened to assassinate Barack Obama if he was elected president.
a)They didn't, and so people clearly sometimes say they'll do things that they actually don''t, and
b) Nobody said "the whites will kill Barack Obama if he is elected president."

Anybody who takes the New Black Panther Party seriously is doing a serious disservice to seriousness.

by **Nola_Lifer** on Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:56 pm

Night Strike wrote:Approximately 20 black men mob attack a white man in his driveway and say it's in support of Trayvon:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/04/mobile-man-clings-to-life-after-brutal-beating-by-black-mob-video/
http://twoguys2012.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/mobile-al-white-man-beaten-by-black-mob-as-justice-for-trayvon-race-riots-coming/
http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/apr/23/man-beaten-mob-critical-condition-ar-3659891/

So one person said that in a group. How do we know the racial tensions weren't already high in this neighborhood?

And of course, there's all the people who are trying to use Twitter to get people to kill Zimmerman. But the media and the national racists of Sharpton and Jackson are completely silent. Here is where REAL racists reside and what they say: http://twitchy.com/2012/04/23/twitter-lynch-mob-now-that-george-zimmerman-is-out-on-bail-lets-kill-him/

Your assuming that a black group or person was behind these tweets

http://www.examiner.com/article/zimmerman-released-on-bail-lynch-mob-issues-death-threats-on-twitter

The old man was the one to bring it up. Kids beat the f*ck out of an old dude. Shit happens. "Watts, it was worth noting, was the first to recall the name of Trayvon Martin. When he was initially surrounded, he said, "Why you picking on me? Remember Trayvon.”"

I like how you say that the media tried to build up tension and the racist card. Are these not examples of the same thing? Yet, you get sucked in on this end but why not the other?

by **Phatscotty** on Tue Apr 24, 2012 5:04 pm

Baron Von PWN wrote:
bedub1 wrote:
Baron Von PWN wrote:We knew they had a fight. I'm not sure what Zimmerman being bloodied is supposed to prove. Maybe the Martin put up a fight before being shot?

All we have is Zimmerman's word that he didn't start the fight, and his story doesn't jive with that of Martin's girlfriend. Let's see how the trial goes shall we?

Trayvon's girlfriend wasn't there. George was.

This also just goes to show that if you shoot somebody, it's best to kill them. Then there is only 1 side to the story.

I was talking to a buddy, and we decided that if George get's off with anything less than Life in Prison, the blacks will riot. The only way to avoid a riot is to give him Life in Prison. But that's not a just sentence, so under the radar, the feds will come in and take him out of jail, enter him into protective custody, change his name, features, and move him across the country. He will basically enter witness protection plan.

George is out on Bail, so the police won't protect him anymore, so he has to protect himself. But he can't have any guns. Does this seem odd? Since he doesn't have enough money for his own security detail, he and his family are accepting peoples donations of security.

Martin was talking to her on the phone before the fight started. Her testimony of the conversation contradicts Zimmerman's story on the chain of events.

link please

by **Phatscotty** on Tue Apr 24, 2012 5:08 pm

kentington wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:It's amazing that you guys know how an entire group of people, categorized by their skin color, will react to something.

The appropriate and accurate way to describe the situation.
If the New Black Panther group and their supporters don't feel justice has been served, even if they are the only ones to see it, then they claim they will act. I don't know if they have said specifically how they would act, but I do remember the leader of the New Black Panthers speaking about doing something if justice isn't served.

Now that Zimmerman is in the system and cooperating with the courts, it is up to the judge and jury to figure out what they believe happened.

You mean this...

Not a peep from the media. Maybe if they put targets on political districts..... :roll:

x a trillion

by **Night Strike** on Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:32 pm

Neoteny wrote:If you were interested in the facts of the case, you would have called for a trial. That's how our justice system works, for better or worse (by the way, I don't think it was a hate crime; I think it was an escalated situation based on certain prejudices both Zimmerman and Martin probably have).

If I wanted the facts, why would I have automatically called for a trial? If the facts show that a person acted in self-defense, why should they still have to face a trial? If the facts show that Zimmerman properly followed the Stand Your Ground law that specifically bars someone from being arrested, why would I call for a trial? Trials aren't always necessary to elicit the facts, and there are some facts that would preclude having a trial. Furthermore, this specific case could still be thrown out before it even gets to trial if the judge decides that it was self-defense or a proper application of Stand Your Ground.

Nola_Lifer wrote:
Night Strike wrote:And of course, there's all the people who are trying to use Twitter to get people to kill Zimmerman. But the media and the national racists of Sharpton and Jackson are completely silent. Here is where REAL racists reside and what they say: http://twitchy.com/2012/04/23/twitter-lynch-mob-now-that-george-zimmerman-is-out-on-bail-lets-kill-him/

Your assuming that a black group or person was behind these tweets

I guess that statement was unclear. I don't have to assume those people or groups are black because those statements are calls to violence and racism regardless of the race of the person who posted it.

by **Baron Von PWN** on Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:41 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
Baron Von PWN wrote:
bedub1 wrote:
Baron Von PWN wrote:We knew they had a fight. I'm not sure what Zimmerman being bloodied is supposed to prove. Maybe the Martin put up a fight before being shot?

All we have is Zimmerman's word that he didn't start the fight, and his story doesn't jive with that of Martin's girlfriend. Let's see how the trial goes shall we?

Trayvon's girlfriend wasn't there. George was.

This also just goes to show that if you shoot somebody, it's best to kill them. Then there is only 1 side to the story.

I was talking to a buddy, and we decided that if George get's off with anything less than Life in Prison, the blacks will riot. The only way to avoid a riot is to give him Life in Prison. But that's not a just sentence, so under the radar, the feds will come in and take him out of jail, enter him into protective custody, change his name, features, and move him across the country. He will basically enter witness protection plan.

George is out on Bail, so the police won't protect him anymore, so he has to protect himself. But he can't have any guns. Does this seem odd? Since he doesn't have enough money for his own security detail, he and his family are accepting peoples donations of security.

Martin was talking to her on the phone before the fight started. Her testimony of the conversation contradicts Zimmerman's story on the chain of events.

link please

It was discussed earlier in the thread.

Martin's girlfriend was talking to him, he was talking about how some guy was following him. She claims she then heard an argument and scuffling and the call then ended.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/30/justi ... index.html

In the timeline. Girlfriend says she heard an altercation start after they were talking.

Zimmerman says Martin approaches and then attacks him.

These two things seemingly contradict each other.

by **Neoteny** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:31 am

Night Strike wrote:
Neoteny wrote:If you were interested in the facts of the case, you would have called for a trial. That's how our justice system works, for better or worse (by the way, I don't think it was a hate crime; I think it was an escalated situation based on certain prejudices both Zimmerman and Martin probably have).

If I wanted the facts, why would I have automatically called for a trial? If the facts show that a person acted in self-defense, why should they still have to face a trial? If the facts show that Zimmerman properly followed the Stand Your Ground law that specifically bars someone from being arrested, why would I call for a trial? Trials aren't always necessary to elicit the facts, and there are some facts that would preclude having a trial. Furthermore, this specific case could still be thrown out before it even gets to trial if the judge decides that it was self-defense or a proper application of Stand Your Ground.

While I'm happy that you're content to trust all judges and prosecutors to be balanced and unbiased, the facts of the case are that an unarmed minor was shot, there is evidence of a struggle, and a 911 call that implicates Zimmerman in exacerbating the situation. We also have two conflicting stories about the lead up to the struggle. Those are the facts we have. It is not a home invasion or something that cut and dry. I don't expect a judge will throw it out (though I'll admit it's not a longshot to occur), and if a prosecutor had good enough evidence to demonstrate self defense (that Zimmerman didn't escalate), then it certainly hasn't been released, and it should come out at the trial.

But, if the prosecutor thinks there's nothing to it, and Night Strike says there's nothing to it, then I guess that's that. Again, I don't care now that "the facts" will "come to light" and probably be reviewed by a jury of his peers. I officially give no shits. But I do give many shits about the continued insistence that a person who shot another person should not have the incident reviewed in a court setting, especially when the insistence is built upon a foundation of racism

by **BigBallinStalin** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:37 am

Yeah, it's kind of weird that NS doesn't want the court to handle this dispute. Doesn't the US Constitution say something about due process? Maybe it doesn't--whenever it's convenient for NS.

by **bedub1** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:48 am

The case should be thrown out before ever reaching trial. The judge will look at the case, the prosecutor will show the evidence she has, the defense will explain why it's all rubbish, and the judge will toss the case out. Then the riots will start.

by **kentington** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:58 am

Neoteny wrote:While I'm happy that you're content to trust all judges and prosecutors to be balanced and unbiased, the facts of the case are that an unarmed minor was shot, there is evidence of a struggle, and a 911 call that implicates Zimmerman in exacerbating the situation. We also have two conflicting stories about the lead up to the struggle. Those are the facts we have. It is not a home invasion or something that cut and dry. I don't expect a judge will throw it out (though I'll admit it's not a longshot to occur), and if a prosecutor had good enough evidence to demonstrate self defense (that Zimmerman didn't escalate), then it certainly hasn't been released, and it should come out at the trial.

But, if the prosecutor thinks there's nothing to it, and Night Strike says there's nothing to it, then I guess that's that. Again, I don't care now that "the facts" will "come to light" and probably be reviewed by a jury of his peers. I officially give no shits. But I do give many shits about the continued insistence that a person who shot another person should not have the incident reviewed in a court setting, especially when the insistence is built upon a foundation of racism

I think the fact that a minor is involved should bring this to court. Also, the fact that the facts are unknown. I don't necessarily believe this was a hate crime. It seems like a mistake, which shouldn't have happened. That doesn't mean complete innocence and I don't have all of the facts.
I watched the full video that Phatscotty provided, where they are in court. It's like an hour long and it seems that the prosecutor thinks he has more evidence and was sort of held back because it wasn't a trial.

Out of curiosity: Do you think a home invasion shooting should go to court or is that more cut and dry?
My opinion is that unless there are weird circumstances that would be more cut and dry and could be determined outside of court.

by **Neoteny** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:00 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:Yeah, it's kind of weird that NS doesn't want the court to handle this dispute. Doesn't the US Constitution say something about due process? Maybe it doesn't--whenever it's convenient for NS.

Indeed. I find his reliance on government entities to tell us what's right to be particularly giggle-inducing.

by **Neoteny** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:15 am

kentington wrote:
Neoteny wrote:While I'm happy that you're content to trust all judges and prosecutors to be balanced and unbiased, the facts of the case are that an unarmed minor was shot, there is evidence of a struggle, and a 911 call that implicates Zimmerman in exacerbating the situation. We also have two conflicting stories about the lead up to the struggle. Those are the facts we have. It is not a home invasion or something that cut and dry. I don't expect a judge will throw it out (though I'll admit it's not a longshot to occur), and if a prosecutor had good enough evidence to demonstrate self defense (that Zimmerman didn't escalate), then it certainly hasn't been released, and it should come out at the trial.

But, if the prosecutor thinks there's nothing to it, and Night Strike says there's nothing to it, then I guess that's that. Again, I don't care now that "the facts" will "come to light" and probably be reviewed by a jury of his peers. I officially give no shits. But I do give many shits about the continued insistence that a person who shot another person should not have the incident reviewed in a court setting, especially when the insistence is built upon a foundation of racism

I think the fact that a minor is involved should bring this to court. Also, the fact that the facts are unknown. I don't necessarily believe this was a hate crime. It seems like a mistake, which shouldn't have happened. That doesn't mean complete innocence and I don't have all of the facts.
I watched the full video that Phatscotty provided, where they are in court. It's like an hour long and it seems that the prosecutor thinks he has more evidence and was sort of held back because it wasn't a trial.

Out of curiosity: Do you think a home invasion shooting should go to court or is that more cut and dry?
My opinion is that unless there are weird circumstances that would be more cut and dry and could be determined outside of court.

I agree with most of this, though Martin was of an age where he certainly isn't "harmless," I think it's best to err on the side of caution with legal minors. To be honest, I'm not sure I would have gone with murder 2nd, but I'm not the one with the evidence. I also don't think this was a hate crime, but a situation that could have been avoided with a bit of a check on Zimmerman's prejudices.

I do think, in general, home defence shootings are more cut and dry, especially compared to this case.

by **Neoteny** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:17 am

bedub1 wrote:The case should be thrown out before ever reaching trial. The judge will look at the case, the prosecutor will show the evidence she has, the defense will explain why it's all rubbish, and the judge will toss the case out. Then the riots will start.

The blacks, right? What are we gonna do with them?

by **kentington** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:02 pm

Neoteny wrote:I agree with most of this, though Martin was of an age where he certainly isn't "harmless," I think it's best to err on the side of caution with legal minors. To be honest, I'm not sure I would have gone with murder 2nd, but I'm not the one with the evidence. I also don't think this was a hate crime, but a situation that could have been avoided with a bit of a check on Zimmerman's prejudices.

I do think, in general, home defence shootings are more cut and dry, especially compared to this case.

I agree with you on this 100%. Now we just wait to see what evidence they have. It will be interesting to see. I haven't seen many real lawyers in action, but this prosecutor seemed like he had something. He kept mentioning having stuff that Z's lawyer didn't know about.

by **bedub1** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:03 pm

Neoteny wrote:
bedub1 wrote:The case should be thrown out before ever reaching trial. The judge will look at the case, the prosecutor will show the evidence she has, the defense will explain why it's all rubbish, and the judge will toss the case out. Then the riots will start.

The blacks, right? What are we gonna do with them?

Attempt to appease them so they don't riot?

by **BigBallinStalin** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:23 pm

bedub1 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
bedub1 wrote:we decided that if George get's off with anything less than Life in Prison, the blacks will riot.

What does CC think about the underlined? Is that an example of racism, prejudice, or "nope, nothing at all"?

I found the statement awkward, and attempted to revise it so it didn't sound so awkward, but I was unable to come up with a better way to say it. How would you say it?

"... some people might riot, and the New Black Panthers would be likely to start some shit."

You're just presuming that a whole group of people (black people) will take to violence.

1) That's just stupid because you actually have no good reasons/evidence, and (2) other people who aren't black might riot, or do something violent. But really, it isn't this simple, no matter how much you presume.

You're implying that an entire group of people are beyond reason, thus will riot. This is based on your prejudiced notions of all black people. This is reinforced most likely by confirmation bias, refusal to critically think, etc. Thank you for revealing to everyone that you're a dumb racist.

by **kentington** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:34 pm

bedub1 wrote:
Neoteny wrote:
bedub1 wrote:The case should be thrown out before ever reaching trial. The judge will look at the case, the prosecutor will show the evidence she has, the defense will explain why it's all rubbish, and the judge will toss the case out. Then the riots will start.

The blacks, right? What are we gonna do with them?

Attempt to appease them so they don't riot?

Troll or racist. Either way you are being completely inappropriate. Stand down.

by **Borderdawg** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:49 pm

If I may put in my 2 cents: By rights, this case should have been sent to the grand jury. My speculations as to why it wasn't:
The special prosecutor realized that a grand jury would no bill the case. She also realized this that would happen too soon and set off more conflict. By circumventing the grand jury, she has thrown a bone to both the hang 'em high crowd and the let 'em go now crowd, and lengthened the time frame for both to cool down/lose interest. I honestly don't think Zimmerman can be convicted for any degree of murder on the evidence available. Manslaughter, maybe, but I think not likely. Negligent homicide/criminal negligence/reckless discharge of a firearm, more likely.
At this point, I honestly believe the city/county/state/feds just want to drag this out long enough for most of the country to move on to other things before Zimmerman is found not guilty of murder, as he probably should be under Florida law.
May I suggest we all sit back, smoke/drink/ingest our favorite intoxicant/relaxant, and let the courts do their job.
Then, when it is all over, all you analoids on both ends of the spectrum can spend the next 6 months arguing about why your point of view won/lost, and why the verdict was right/wrong. :lol:

by **oVo** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:53 pm

The bias Zimmerman had that night might have been against someone he perceived as a criminal and not racial at all. All the facts of what happened that night have yet to be exposed and it appears a trial is required to do that. The truth of how this situation escalated to the point that Zimmerman shot and killed this teenager may never be known, but how he confronted Martin and the words exchanged should come out in court.

There are no witnesses except Zimmerman. The known fact that he basically stalked the teenager through the neighborhood could make the self defense plea with a handgun hard to justify.

by **bedub1** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:03 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
bedub1 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
bedub1 wrote:we decided that if George get's off with anything less than Life in Prison, the blacks will riot.

What does CC think about the underlined? Is that an example of racism, prejudice, or "nope, nothing at all"?

I found the statement awkward, and attempted to revise it so it didn't sound so awkward, but I was unable to come up with a better way to say it. How would you say it?

"... some people might riot, and the New Black Panthers would be likely to start some shit."

You're just presuming that a whole group of people (black people) will take to violence.

1) That's just stupid because you actually have no good reasons/evidence, and (2) other people who aren't black might riot, or do something violent. But really, it isn't this simple, no matter how much you presume.

You're implying that an entire group of people are beyond reason, thus will riot. This is based on your prejudiced notions of all black people. This is reinforced most likely by confirmation bias, refusal to critically think, etc. Thank you for revealing to everyone that you're a dumb racist.

So do you think a bunch of white people will riot? A bunch of Peruvians?

by **Neoteny** on Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:14 pm

My money's on the French. Rioting seems to be an actual profession there. Tax exempt, I hear.

Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

Concerning Zimmerman Verdict

Re: George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: Evidence of Self Defense Claim Emerge

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: Evidence of Self Defense Claim Emerge

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: Evidence of Self Defense Claim Emerge

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: Evidence of Self Defense Claim Emerge

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: Evidence of Self Defense Claim Emerge

Re: George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: Evidence of Self Defense Claim Emerge

Re: George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin

Re: George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin

Re: George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: Evidence of Self Defense Claim Emerge

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: Evidence of Self Defense Claim Emerge

Re: George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: Evidence of Self Defense Claim Emerge

Re: George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: Evidence of Self Defense Claim Emerge

Re: George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: Evidence of Self Defense Claim Emerge

Re: George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: Evidence of Self Defense Claim Emerge

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: Evidence of Self Defense Claim Emerge

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: Evidence of Self Defense Claim Emerge

Re: George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin

Re: Trayvon/Zimmerman: Evidence of Self Defense Claim Emerge

Who is online