fjl2nd
-
Posts
666 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by fjl2nd
-
-
You are a sad sad person.
Nope, you'll just never get it. He followed him because he was black which made him suspicious.
This is why it matters that George Zimmerman justified his following of Martin because as he put it, “these !@#$ing punks” always get away. In other words, Zimmerman saw Martin as just another “!@#$ing punk” up to no good, similar to those who had committed previous break-ins in the community. But why? What behavior did Martin display that would have suggested he was criminally inclined? Zimmerman’s team could produce nothing to indicate anything particularly suspicious about Martin’s actions that night. According to Zimmerman, Martin was walking in the rain, “looking around,” or “looking around at the houses.” But not looking in windows, or jiggling doorknobs or porch screens, or anything that might have suggested a possible burglar. At no point was any evidence presented by the defense to justify their client’s suspicions. All we know is that Zimmerman saw Martin and concluded that he was just like those other criminals. And to the extent there was nothing in Martin’s actions — talking on the telephone and walking slowly home from the store — that would have indicated he was another of those “!@#$ing punks,” the only possible explanation as to why George Zimmerman would have seen him that way is because Martin, as a young black male was presumed to be a likely criminal, and for no other reason, ultimately, but color. -
Was he a racist when he provided free tutoring to black youth in Sanford? Was he a racist when he twice voted for Barack Obama? Precisely when did he become a racist???
The second he followed/harrassed a black kid because he was......black.
Bingo. They'll be no response to that from the heartbroken Trayvonites. Apparently they think the act of following someone entitles the person being followed to committ felony assault without any fear or risk of repercussion.
You keep hearing whining about Martin not being allowed to 'stand HIS ground'. So if you want to play that game than fine --- Martin exercised his right and DID stand his ground. And then Zimmerman exercised his right and stood his ground back.
The only thing more embarrasing than the fact this case was prosecuted at all is watching certain people grasping at straws in an attempt to discredit or ignore the court's decision.
What is this, the wild west?! You're saying a dangerous thing here. What you're saying is murdering someone is completely fine as long as you're already fighting with fists and the fight isn't going your way.
-
Probably because you feel first and think second like most idiots who write off anything that they don't understand or runs contrary to what they would like to believe as racism.
George Zimmerman is a racist. Period. Read the link I provided above, maybe you'll learn something.
That's how the prosecution dealth with the evidence or lack there of in the case. Maybe this, maybe that. On the prosecutor side you can't try a case like that.
There was simply no evidence that supported this. You can't prove 2nd degree murders on "maybe's".
On the other hand the defense had cold hard proof that lead to his aquittal.
But why do white people have to glorify George Zimmerman and the court system?! Seriously, a 17 year old being killed is nothing to gloat about! It's sickening but sadly, not surprising...
Probably because you feel first and think second like most idiots who write off anything that they don't understand or runs contrary to what they would like to believe as racism.
I actually knew this response was coming the second I used the word "felt".
It was manslaughter in my eyes. I thought the criteria was met.
-
You all should take the time to read this quick essay by Tim Wise. I know most of you won't but here is the link: http://www.timwise.o...to-my-daughter/
An excerpt:
But apparently that moral and existential truth matters little to this jury or to the white reactionaries so quick to praise their decision. To them, the fact that Martin might well have had reason to fear Zimmerman that night, might have thought he was standing his ground, confronted by someone who himself was “up to no good” is irrelevant. They are saying that black people who fight back against someone they think is creepy and who is following them, and might intend to harm them, are more responsible for their deaths than those who ultimately kill them. What they have said, and make no mistake about it, is that any white person who wants to kill a black person can follow one, confront them, maybe even provoke them; and as soon as that black person perhaps takes a swing at them, or lunges at them, the white pursuer can pull their weapon, fire, and reasonably assume that they will get away with this act. I can start drama, and if you respond to the drama I created, you are to blame, not me. -
However, the evidence is not consistent with Zimmeran starting the fight. There was not a single injury to Trayvon other than the gunshot. You would think he would have gotten atleast one blow in on Trayvon if he threw the first punch.
Maybe, he could have shoved him, grabbed him, etc. There are plenty of possibilities. Imagine if Trayvon Martin was defending himself?! Naw, couldn't be.
-
You are in idiot.
They absolutely do. Tryavon being on top means trayvon has the upper hand and its consistnet with the gunshot.
A displaced noise and cuts on the back of the head means Trayvon assualted Zimmerman. That's evidence that Trayvon assualted him.
The lead detective saying that Trayvons father said that wasn't him screaming on the tape implies it was George Zimmerman. Screaming for help is evidence that George could be fearing for his life at the time.
Conclusion. Zimmeran has a right to act in self defense.
Here is the !@#$ing problem with this law in Florida (and wherever else it stands): you can basically start a fight with anyone, start losing the fight and then kill the other participant, claim self-defense and get away with murder.
Because again, there is no proof Trayvon started any kind of fight no matter how much you guys scream he did.
The burdon for self defense is much lower than proving 2nd degree murder.
If you think he (Zimmerman) may of acted in self defense you have to aquit him. It's that simple. The evidence in this case is so strong that he could have acted in self defense. That's all you need to aquit him.
Felt like manslaughter to me. Seemed to meet the requirements in my eyes.
-
So, what you are saying is in NY the fundamental American right of being innocent until proven guilty does not exist? You so crazy.
That's not it at all. It was FACT that she shot and killed Trayvon Martin. The burden of proof is now on him to show he acted in self defense.
I guess he missed.
1) Eyewitness of Trayvon on top of Zimmerman
2) Lead detective saying George Zimmerman interviews are consistent and that he believed him.
3) Lead detective impled that Tracy Martin said that wasn't his son (Trayvon) screaming on the tape
4) Evidence that George Zimmerman was assualted by Trayvon.
5) No evidence that Trayvon was assualted prior to gunshot.
Thats only the tip of the iceberg.
NONE of that proves self defense.
-
Umm? I'm not a legal expert but that doesn't sound accurate.
I was told this by a lawyer from NY. If you claim something like self defense or insanity, it is on the defendant to prove this to "justify" the killing.
But apparently your knowledge of the facts of the case have long expired.........................................
.
"Expired"? You sound like the Zimmerman brothers.
What facts have I missed?
-
Which laws exactly? Self defense laws are unique to Florida?
He didn't have to prove he acted in self defense. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable that he DIDN'T act in self defense. It's different in a state such as New York where you have you prove that you DID act in self defense.
-
My thread is still alive!
Obviously, I'm outraged by the outcome. Florida's stupid laws let George Zimmerman kill a teenager with no consequence. George Zimmerman's words are apparently enough to claim self defense. He will always be a coward to me.
Things like turning Trayvon Martin into a "gangbanger" and "thug" (white America's favorite words to describe black kids) were despicable but par for the course. I hope all those other cowards, the ones who contributed to the Zimmerman defense fund are happy. The "truth" came out.
-
Say, do you have any idea what the catalyst was for the big crash in 2008? Do you have any idea what is keeping the economy from rebounding? How would you get the economy going again? What is your opinion of the following items done by the federal government?
Cash For Clunkers - Wasn't great. It helped stimulate auto demand a little and I read a recent report that it was fairly bad for the environment.
Funding companies like Solyndra- In general, the government using grants and other means to promote research that will be beneficial to our society is fine by me. Not all will pan out and this case was obviously not good.
Propping up union pensions - Union pensions are a problem. I am supporter of unions but I just see them in a no-win situation as time goes on.
Giving extra money to the states for teachers and first responders -This would be nice to see. Get that unemployment number down! Private sector has been adding more and more jobs while government continues to shed them in areas like these.
Holding up the Keystone Pipeline -I'll admit that I have not done enough research on the thing to give a fair opinion. Seen some arguments I agreed with on both sides of the argument.
Tax credit for "green" autos - We have ignored the environment for too long. This could be one way to go. Pretty clear we are really messing with our surroundings. Something has to be done.
Responses are in bold.
The catalyst was the bad loans being made by banks to anyone who wanted a house. The government allowed this to happen and failed at regulation. Compound that with the fact that these loans were getting packaged and repackaged and sold on to the next bank only created an even bigger ripple effect.
Getting the economy to rebound to great standard is a tough task. We are in a very different place than we have even been when looking at the job market. It's tough to see where the jobs will come from and if they do come, will they pay a living wage? I am torn on listening to the Krugmans of the world because this isn't the same economy of the 1930s. I do agree that helping states rehire teachers and others would have a net positive effect on the economy, but it's not enough.
I have a fairly bleak outlook for the future economy. I believe it will improve over the next couple years before tanking again due to remaining high debt levels by consumers, rapid technological growth, and an increasing wealth/income gap. This is coming from a very optimistic person as well...
Keep talkin' like you are in a !@#$in' sit-com.
You're not Frank. This is real life. You and you lib friends here like to pretend you are on "Friends" or something. Come on. GTFU.
You've lost me Ox. I don't what any of this means.
-
It was a copy and paste, that's why the D's and R's were there. Yes, the budget is set the year prior but not the deficit. The point was the deficits from early in the decade to mid decade+ were much, much smaller. Do you remember the crisis after 9/11? We didn't need a trillion dollar stimulus to get us out of it, now did we? Face it, the way we've spent the stimulus money has done nothing to stimulate the economy. Giving money to the states for teachers and other public service workers, funding companies like Solyndra and shoring up union pension plans was nothing other than an attempt to gain favor with his crowd.
The economic situation weren't even remotely similar. 2007 sparked a GLOBAL crisis. Nobody had the correct answer for what to do.
If you think that was funny, check out the kids blog. Life advice from a kid who moved out of his parents house 3 weeks ago.
Keep taking shots brah!
Looks like your the one who has trouble growing up.
-
^
l
i
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
Hypocrite
If you say so, but it's clear to any rational person that the two situations were different.
For the record, I would have raised the debt limit in either case because the consequences are too severe.
-
I think you should give your economics degree back.
Nah, I'm good.
But, what your outlook on the job market? It can't be good.
-
http://www.davemanue...ited-states.php
2001 $127.3 Billion Surplus $164.9 Billion Surplus R D R
2002 $157.8 Billion Deficit $201.02 Billion Deficit R D R
2003 $377.6 Billion Deficit $470.82 Billion Deficit R R R
2004 $413 Billion Deficit $501.21 Billion Deficit R R R
2005 $318 Billion Deficit $373.24 Billion Deficit R R R
2006 $248 Billion Deficit $282.14 Billion Deficit R R R
2007 $161 Billion Deficit $178.1 Billion Deficit R D D
2008 $459 Billion Deficit $488.82 Billion Deficit R D D
2009 $1413 Billion Deficit $1509.62 Billion Deficit D D D
2010 $1294 Billion Deficit $1360.67 Billion Deficit D D D
2011 $1299 Billion Deficit $1324.16 Billion Deficit D D R
2012 $1100 Billion Deficit $1100 Billion Deficit D D R
2013 $900 Billion Deficit $884.96 Billion Deficit D D R
Who cares about political party? It's about the reasons and uses behind the deficit spending.
And if you want to get technical, the 2009 budget is set by Bush. Quite misleading. Same with 2001 being Clinton's.
-
Are you trying to be dense ?
There is no solution, because its none of your business.
You can read better than that fjl, you're just trying to be combative I guess.
save it for someone who doesn't know your previous stuff.
.
I was pretty fired up yesterday and combative. I blame it on not sleeping for 24+ hours after getting off an overnight shift! Haha
-
Uncertainty over the impact of the deluge of new government regulations forthcoming in 2013 and 2014.
Smart people will wait and see before "investing" in anything.
.
The recovery is mostly fine minus job growth, but Newsflash: The job market will be bad for a very long time no matter what the government does. Businesses simply don't need to hire more people to do the same type of work they used to hire for.
It is a scary situation in the long run.
-
The debt then was a waste since unemployment was low and growth was okay. I don't blame the fellow for opposing more reckless spending...
Not to mention, interest on debt than was much higher that what it is now, where people are basically paying us to borrow.
-
No, you brought the subject up, you explain why it is exactly the same issue.
Gay marriage should be looked at in the same light as interracial marriage once. States outlawed it for many years until the federal government stepped in and ruled it unconstitutional to ban it.
As was pointed out earlier in the thread, marriage applies directly to federal taxation which gives the federal government a say in this matter. Just legalize it and move on.
-
Yes, the market has a way to work out private sector employment issues. Tell me, how do punitive taxes on the rich increase employment and wages for the rest?
Well, you calling them punitive is an opinion.
History is the reason. Look at eras where taxes were higher on high incomes. Financial equality leads to a better economy. It's not a coincidence that lower taxes on higher incomes has led to this huge gap. (see Reagan years for the start) The problem is getting taxes to higher levels without hurting the economy too much in the short-term. It has to be a gradual process.
-
I'm saying for you to call projections "the truth" is assinine. Why don't you give some reasons for the deficits going down by that much?
Increased revenues and slowing government spending.
-
It is absolutely none of my (or your) business, what a private company pays its administrators or employees.
The taxation system should be for raising revenue for necessary services to run the government,
NOT to "even things out" !!!!!
.
Then, your solution is.........................................................
The market will take care of itself?? Lmaooo
-
Silly me, but I could have sworn the Administration was laser focused on employment back in 2009?
BTW, how did the economy fare in 4Q12, before the tax hikes came in?
Not great due to cuts in government spending (mainly on defense). Consumer spending and investment both up though...
-
That's not pertinent to the discussion. It's obvious you don't understand the issue, so why don't you just go back to reading up on the redistibution of wealth.
It is the exact same issue. Explain to me how it isn't?
I'll give you another chance to answer it. I'm enjoying making you look silly this morning.
Trayvon Martin Case
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
I'm going to leave on this note (I have to sleep since I work overnights).
The entire situation was a travesty. A kid died because of George Zimmerman's actions. That is a fact. Race played a role even though you all wrongly disagree and I get that. The system may have "worked" but the system is broke and rarely do we see justice for people of color. The pessimist in me thinks that will never change either.
I was disgusted with other white Americans gloating about how they were right, about how Trayvon was a gangbanger and got what he deserved, and some even had the hatred in their heart to contribute to his defense fund. Imagine an African-American male getting that kind of support in a self-defense case?! Impossible, I know. White people love to rally behind causes like this. Don Imus insults black women in an unbelievable manner, whites say they'll tune in to his show. Paula Deen uses racial slurs, whites rush to buy her cookbooks. George Zimmerman kills a black teenager in self defense, whites donate to make sure he goes free. The list goes on, and it's embarrassing to me.
This isn't just about Trayvon Martin, there is a bigger picture. Most of you won't even acknowledge it exists. You bring your standard replies of "don't bring race into this" or "stop playing the race card" which only prevents any progress in the numerous racial injustices and problems in this country.
Carry on.