By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - George Zimmerman Trial

silentdj151 on 02 July 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:
silentdj151 said:
Veracity said:


Always a treat when someone completely clueless chimes in who has not watched a single minute of the proceedings pawns off their vociferous nonsense as a substantiated case. 

Go watch the trial you ignorant person.

its very clear that TM attacked Zimmerman. 

yes an assualt occurred, which Zimmerman started because he got out of his car and preceded to confront someone who was hiding in a bush.


We don't know if Zimmerman started it. There were no eyewitnesses. Both sides are incompetent. The only thing that can be done about this case is to find out whether it was murder or self defense and even then the case is still broken.

Ok let me put this as simple as I can: Zimmerman started the events that caused someone to die.

Only thing martin was doing that night was walking home from buying candy and tea

 

 



Around the Network
Veracity on 02 July 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Veracity said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Tigerlure said:
Quick question, was there any witness who saw the initial confrontation between Trayvon and George Zimmermann? I know witnesses said they saw Trayvon on top of GZ, but did they see who actually started the fight?


No. No one witnessed Trayvon walking around the neighborhood outside of Zimmerman, the initial confrontation and no one saw who started the fight. No one witnessed the gun shot either.

The only other two people who know what happened are god and Trayvon outside of Zimmerman. This case is pointless to judge on such a high level at this point.

Go outside the evidence for a minute.

how does trayvon get on top? Zimmerman outweighs Him by 30 pounds.

zimmerman bardic ally describes being sucker punched and knocked down. Makes sense to me.


Thats zimmermans word. In the court of law a persons word without corroboration of a witness means very little, which is why they are looking for inconsistencies in the case. 

If there is bias, what hes saying definitely makes sense to an individual. If someone witnessed him suckerpunch Zimmerman, then what you are saying has evidence behind it. 

Trayvons fingers had bruising on them, which means he bruised himself which beating up Zimmerman: Fact. This is why they have a forensics witness on the stand. Of course shes being cross examined by the defense harshly because she was talked to because shes a prosecution witness.

This is probably why I was picked to be a juror even though I never wanted to be...I tend not to take sides but only focus on the important factors. I've pointed out the bias in my own family as well.


What does "go outside the evidence for a minute" mean to you? 

You did not respond to anything I asked. Try again.



Figgycal on 02 July 2013

Maybe I would have more sympathy for Zimmerman if, you know, he didn't kill a 17 year old kid. What part of that is defensible? Forget he's black (for you racists out there- you know who you are) ; forget that he called Zimmerman a cracker- who gives a shit (is anyone here offended by that?). This kid's life was cut tragically short by a paranoid stalker with a history of being prejudiced.

And you got to love the contradictions between the Sean Hannity interview, which made him look horribly guilty- and his testimony. Two things I remember specifically about that interview were: "I reached into my pocket"- right before he claims Trayvon attacked him- and as it turned out he had a gun on him and Trayvon had every right to be afraid. And saying him killing Trayvon was part of God's plan- keeping it classy.

 

EDIT:Sean Hannity interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaua8aAUpOs

I don't remember where what was said, but there are some contrasts between the stories starting at 7:00 and 11:00



Veracity on 02 July 2013
silentdj151 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
silentdj151 said:
Veracity said:


Always a treat when someone completely clueless chimes in who has not watched a single minute of the proceedings pawns off their vociferous nonsense as a substantiated case. 

Go watch the trial you ignorant person.

its very clear that TM attacked Zimmerman. 

yes an assualt occurred, which Zimmerman started because he got out of his car and preceded to confront someone who was hiding in a bush.


We don't know if Zimmerman started it. There were no eyewitnesses. Both sides are incompetent. The only thing that can be done about this case is to find out whether it was murder or self defense and even then the case is still broken.

Ok let me put this as simple as I can: Zimmerman started the events that caused someone to die.

Only thing martin was doing that night was walking home from buying candy and tea

 

 

Should be a criminal act to present bad logic. That's like saying if I walk up to a stranger to ask them the time and they kill me it's my fault because I walked up to him.if Zimmerman was going to fight I would agree. He wasn't.



S.T.A.G.E. on 02 July 2013
silentdj151 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
silentdj151 said:

yes an assualt occurred, which Zimmerman started because he got out of his car and preceded to confront someone who was hiding in a bush.


We don't know if Zimmerman started it. There were no eyewitnesses. Both sides are incompetent. The only thing that can be done about this case is to find out whether it was murder or self defense and even then the case is still broken.

Ok let me put this as simple as I can: Zimmerman started the events that caused someone to die.

Only thing martin was doing that night was walking home from buying candy and tea

 

 


Yes...he started the ripple effect, but the parts that matter are unknown in a case without witnesses, cameras, etc. As I said that no longer matters anymore in the outcome of the case but yes he is to blame for the initial action (reaction? No clue). If he didnt follow Trayvon he would've walked home with his bag of skittles no matter how suspicious Zimmerman claiimed he was. Zimmerman was beaten up by viewers in the case early on because he wasn't in the right for following Trayvon in the first place, but as facts and testimony came in the cards were overturned. 

"Only thing martin was doing that night was walking home from buying candy and tea"

Sure, in the beginning but in the end the evidence shows he was out for chicklets with Zimmermans face. No one is innocent, but yes its undisputed that Zimmerman started the ripple effect of tension.

Let me put its this way. 

No matter who wins this case half the viewers will not happy.



Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. on 02 July 2013
Veracity said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Veracity said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Tigerlure said:
Quick question, was there any witness who saw the initial confrontation between Trayvon and George Zimmermann? I know witnesses said they saw Trayvon on top of GZ, but did they see who actually started the fight?


No. No one witnessed Trayvon walking around the neighborhood outside of Zimmerman, the initial confrontation and no one saw who started the fight. No one witnessed the gun shot either.

The only other two people who know what happened are god and Trayvon outside of Zimmerman. This case is pointless to judge on such a high level at this point.

Go outside the evidence for a minute.

how does trayvon get on top? Zimmerman outweighs Him by 30 pounds.

zimmerman bardic ally describes being sucker punched and knocked down. Makes sense to me.


Thats zimmermans word. In the court of law a persons word without corroboration of a witness means very little, which is why they are looking for inconsistencies in the case. 

If there is bias, what hes saying definitely makes sense to an individual. If someone witnessed him suckerpunch Zimmerman, then what you are saying has evidence behind it. 

Trayvons fingers had bruising on them, which means he bruised himself which beating up Zimmerman: Fact. This is why they have a forensics witness on the stand. Of course shes being cross examined by the defense harshly because she was talked to because shes a prosecution witness.

This is probably why I was picked to be a juror even though I never wanted to be...I tend not to take sides but only focus on the important factors. I've pointed out the bias in my own family as well.


What does "go outside the evidence for a minute" mean to you? 

You did not respond to anything I asked. Try again.


I cannot replay the events without being in the same area as the event. Any recreation without it is flawed. It was 1/4 on concrete and the rest on grass. The best possible evidence came from the Zimmerman video but as compelling as what he said was its only one persons side of the story. I cannot base a conclusion off of a defendents word without corroboration. 

As for my personal experience from fighting, thirty pounds means very little outside of leverage and distribution of weight , but even weight distribution can be used against you if the person knows how to fight or defend themselves. What I think doesn't matter though in this case because we know nothing about the positioning, we don't have Trayvons word, no witnesses again agin only Zimmerman.

Regardless of all of these things Zimmermans lawyer is doing a hell of a job. At this point no one can prove anything, just beyond reasonable doubt at this point. 

Either an innocent man is going to jail or justice isn't served for a kid who was shot. It's a flawed case. 

Let me put it this way. Listen to Zimmermans best friends testimony and you will see exactly why this putting someone on the stand who isn't a first hand witness is pointless. Bless his heart, but he was essentially useless and potentially harmed Zimmerman because he didnt know exactly what he was saying (perhaps he should've brought the book he wrote about zimmerman with him.)



silentdj151 on 02 July 2013
Veracity said:
silentdj151 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
silentdj151 said:
Veracity said:


Always a treat when someone completely clueless chimes in who has not watched a single minute of the proceedings pawns off their vociferous nonsense as a substantiated case. 

Go watch the trial you ignorant person.

its very clear that TM attacked Zimmerman. 

yes an assualt occurred, which Zimmerman started because he got out of his car and preceded to confront someone who was hiding in a bush.


We don't know if Zimmerman started it. There were no eyewitnesses. Both sides are incompetent. The only thing that can be done about this case is to find out whether it was murder or self defense and even then the case is still broken.

Ok let me put this as simple as I can: Zimmerman started the events that caused someone to die.

Only thing martin was doing that night was walking home from buying candy and tea

 

 

Should be a criminal act to present bad logic. That's like saying if I walk up to a stranger to ask them the time and they kill me it's my fault because I walked up to him.if Zimmerman was going to fight I would agree. He wasn't.


I am referring to this situation only...not your shitty counter argument



Veracity on 02 July 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Veracity said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Veracity said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Tigerlure said:
Quick question, was there any witness who saw the initial confrontation between Trayvon and George Zimmermann? I know witnesses said they saw Trayvon on top of GZ, but did they see who actually started the fight?


No. No one witnessed Trayvon walking around the neighborhood outside of Zimmerman, the initial confrontation and no one saw who started the fight. No one witnessed the gun shot either.

The only other two people who know what happened are god and Trayvon outside of Zimmerman. This case is pointless to judge on such a high level at this point.

Go outside the evidence for a minute.

how does trayvon get on top? Zimmerman outweighs Him by 30 pounds.

zimmerman bardic ally describes being sucker punched and knocked down. Makes sense to me.


Thats zimmermans word. In the court of law a persons word without corroboration of a witness means very little, which is why they are looking for inconsistencies in the case. 

If there is bias, what hes saying definitely makes sense to an individual. If someone witnessed him suckerpunch Zimmerman, then what you are saying has evidence behind it. 

Trayvons fingers had bruising on them, which means he bruised himself which beating up Zimmerman: Fact. This is why they have a forensics witness on the stand. Of course shes being cross examined by the defense harshly because she was talked to because shes a prosecution witness.

This is probably why I was picked to be a juror even though I never wanted to be...I tend not to take sides but only focus on the important factors. I've pointed out the bias in my own family as well.


What does "go outside the evidence for a minute" mean to you? 

You did not respond to anything I asked. Try again.


I cannot replay the events without being in the same area as the event. Any recreation without it is flawed. It was 1/4 on concrete and the rest on grass. The best possible evidence came from the Zimmerman video but as compelling as what he said was its only one persons side of the story. I cannot base a conclusion off of a defendents word without corroboration. 

As for my personal experience from fighting, thirty pounds means very little outside of leverage and distribution of weight , but even weight distribution can be used against you if the person knows how to fight or defend themselves. What I think doesn't matter though in this case because we know nothing about the positioning, we don't have Trayvons word, no witnesses again agin only Zimmerman.

Regardless of all of these things Zimmermans lawyer is doing a hell of a job. At this point no one can prove anything, just beyond reasonable doubt at this point. 

Either an innocent man is going to jail or justice isn't served for a kid who was shot. It's a flawed case. 

Let me put it this way. Listen to Zimmermans best friends testimony and you will see exactly why this putting someone on the stand who isn't a first hand witness is pointless. Bless his heart, but he was essentially useless and potentially harmed Zimmerman because he didnt know exactly what he was saying (perhaps he should've brought the book he wrote about zimmerman with him.)

Zimmerman had been training in mma 3 days a week.



-CraZed- on 02 July 2013
dallas said:
-CraZed- said:
enditall727 said:
 

To be fair, "nigga" was a way of spinning the other word if you know what i mean. You have to understand that it's not exactly the same word.

 

The hilarious thing is that everybody says "nigga" now. EVERYBODY! Blacks, whites, spanish, Asian and everything else

No, not everybody is using the word Nigga. Not all blacks and crertainly not all people of other ethnicities. Sure there are those who do use it bt you can bet they only use it with those black people they know and are comfortable with. If some stupid cheesy ass white person came up to someone black they did not know saying "Yo, what up my Nigga?!" you can be assured they probably won't get a handshake out of it. Growing up in So Cal showe dme quite a bit about 'interracial relations'.  I've seen all sides of this stuff.

If this white guy that you are hypothesizing is a "wigger" then he can say whatever he wants, lol

I've never used that term nor would I ever. Yes there are 'white' guys who embrace the hip hop culture etc. and that's okay I guess. But to use a ord that we KNOW is very hurtful and offensive to certain people even if it irrational is stupid and can get you KNOCKED DA F#&% OUT! Plus it's just stupid and in poor taste.



-CraZed- on 02 July 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:
-CraZed- said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
haxxiy said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
 

Cracker isn't a racist term, its another word for a slave owner with a whip or cowman with a whip. Crack as in crack of the whip, not saltine cracker. I guess some never let slavery go. Ignorance is ignorance, but cracker isn't a racist term. If anything everytime a black person says it historically it demeans them. Its like saying "oppressor"


Etymology can't be used to justify whether a term is racist or not.  That's a kind of genetic fallacy. Otherwise I could just say nigger simply means black-colored instead of anything offensive since that's what the original latin term means.


You do know when black people says Nigga, they are demeaning themselves right? Its ignorance. He even called Zimmerman a "Nigga", which means "guy" interchangably if you paid attention to the testimony. 

Most African Americans don't even know the reason why they say cracker, they just say it, but they aren't doing their ancestors any favors. 

So by your rationale Paula Dean shoud have her TV show and endorsement deals reinstated if she claims she was ignorant of why she used the N word. TM or many black Americans may not know what the geneology of that word is but they sure as hell know it is dereogatory and demeaning. Him using the N word in no way dimishes the specific term cracker. So if I wanted to lessen the blow of calling a black person the N word I could just call him a cracker or peckerwood or honkey or even "guy" within the same conversation and that should negate ANY negative reaction from said black person.

Yeah you go out and try that in real world application and see how long you keep your teeth. Hell, I'm white and I'd probably be happy to help you rearrange your dental work.


You sure are an angry fellow. Paula Dean admitted that she is a product of the south and that she made a mistake those years ago. Its not like shes saying she wasn't prejudiced but has not denied growth through time and experience. The question therin which I cannot answer because I believe a person is not to be ultimately judged if they are changed individuals. Paula Dean is in the hot seat because investors don't want to have anything to do with a person who says those things and it doesnt matter how long ago. Its the same reason athletes lose their endorsements for making stupid decisions, you're a public figure and you must accept the repercussions for your dirty laundry reaching the public eye. 

Historically speaking, yes both terms are derogitory in modern lingo no matter how much people spin it (One out of fear the other out of hatred). The confusion of it all is within the context in which the word is you. If you talk to an actual Cracker on a farm in central florida, he'll accept the term with pride. If you say it to the common man its an issue. Again, I understand the difference and of course do not condone it. Some people just want to pick sides in a fight, I just look at both sides and walk away. Either help the ignorant or they will waste themselves away themselves.


Were do you get that I am an angry fellow? I used the word Happy at the end of my post :P

Bottom line is both words are derogatory and are used to express a racial intolerance towards someone else.