Slashdot Mirror
Judge Rules Defense Can Use Trayvon Martin Tweets
theodp writes "The NY Times reports a judge in the second-degree murder case against George Zimmerman has ruled that Trayvon Martin's school and social media records should be provided to the defense. Judge Debra S. Nelson said Martin's Twitter, Facebook and school records were relevant in the self-defense case. In those instances, showing whether a victim 'had an alleged propensity to violence' or aggression is germane, the judge said. The defense also got permission for access to the social media postings of a Miami girl who said she was on the phone with Martin just before the shooting. Time to update the Miranda warning to include: 'Anything you Tweet or post can and will be held against you in a court of law'?'"
This case has always been much more about media bias than about a mexican shooting a black.
Tweeting, and posting on facebook or other social sites are forms of speech, speech is protected by the first amendment but that said it can also be used against you in any court of law. 'Anything you say can and will be used against you' so I think the current miranda rights cover that.
So nothing really ground breaking here as far as I'm concerned.
Zimmerman, not Martin, is the accused here so of course he should be entitled to what ever exculpatory evidence he can find. If the "Miami girl who said she was on the phone with Martin just before the shooting" wanted her social media postings protected on 5th amendment grounds and the court found that they weren't protected there might be a story here, but the summary at least doesn't hint at that.
Okay so you say "Time to update the Miranda warning to include: 'Anything you Tweet or post can and will be held against you in a court of law'?'"' And FTFH "Judge Debra S. Nelson said Martin's Twitter, Facebook and school records were relevant in the self-defense case." Miranda is for the accused. Basically your snide comment makes your headline look dumb.
The defense has argued that Trayvon was the aggressor and are going to see if his school records and online life back that up. The internet is not some parallel dimension with no relationship to our real lives. If Trayvon was into "Thug Life", MMA, etc... or was suspended for getting into fist fights at school (he was suspended at least 3 times) then this is relevant to the case at hand as it makes the notion that he attacked Zimmerman more believable.
Time to update the Miranda warning to include: 'Anything you Tweet or post can and will be held against you in a court of law'?
Sorry but courts allow emails to be introduced as evidence so long as authenticity can be established. Why shouldn't this hold true for tweets and facebook posts? This has absolutely nothing to do with Miranda.
That's true about the defendant, but we're talking about the victim here. It's much easier to get character evidence entered about the victim than it is about the defendant.
"Anything you tweeted six months ago can and will be twisted to portray you in whatever light suits the prosecutor's agenda."
It amazes me that so few people understand how truly dangerous social media is. Everyone who uses it is creating a permanent record of things that used to be hearsay. Even the most innocuous posts can come back to haunt you. Like any corporation, people need to be exceptionally careful about the image they present, even if they believe it to be private. Failing to so so could easily affect ones entire life.
For example, Take a fellow we just received a resume for. The gentleman had all of the qualifications we were looking for, and did quite well on a phone interview. Googling for this guy produced some pictures of what we presumed to be college gatherings that demonstrated extremely poor judgement on this guys part. Final result: no in person interview, they guy is on our block list, and he will never even know why he didn't get an in person interview. How many different opportunities is he going to miss out on that he will never know he missed because of those photos. Same thing goes for all social media postings. How long before Facebook decides to start "enhancing their revenue" by providing this kind of damning information to HR services for a fee. The company I work for wouldn't hesitate for a second to pay for such a "search", and neither would a lot of places. Facebook has almost no real risk of exposure because no HR department would want to publicize this kind of research, and people would have no way of finding out they had been the "victim" of such a search.
-=Geoskd
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
Even if the kid was bragging about breaking into houses, and even if Zimmerman was aware that Martin broke into houses, that doesn't clear Zimmerman: A citizen with evidence of somebody else's criminal behavior that isn't in immediate danger is supposed to notify the police, not shoot the alleged criminal.
What I'm assuming they're claiming they're after is evidence that Martin was a violent person who was likely to have responded to Zimmerman by assaulting him. What they're actually almost definitely after is information that they can use to drag Martin's name through the mud to try to convince the jury that Martin's life was not worth protecting under the law.
I watched a defense attorney try this exact move while I was sitting on a jury. The defendant had been accused of smashing a brick over the victim's head, making her smoke crack, dragging her into a house, and then cutting up her face with a knife. The defense counsel offered no defense except to insinuate as much as he could get away with that the victim had entered the house voluntarily and traded the use of her car for the drugs. The jury realized very quickly that this didn't matter at all, because the available evidence made it quite clear that defendant had still taken a knife to the victim, and we were only asked to decide whether an assault with a deadly weapon had occurred. It was plain to me that the point of the "defense" was not to suggest that the defendant was innocent, but to suggest that the victim was a worthless human being so we wouldn't care what the defendant had done.
I am officially gone from
This is definately a "blame the victim" move... Pretty low for the courts.
I don't see what good it would do? Unless the kid was bragging about breaking into houses or getting into fights, there's not much gonna clear the guy. In fact, if the kid tweets about being followed once before, even if he's upset about it, then it's only going to backfire.
But he was bragging. Bragging about punching bus drivers in the face. He was also seen in YouTube videos refereeing Fight Club style fights.
You can read some of his tweets here: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/26/the-daily-caller-obtains-trayvon-martins-tweets/
And if you think someone if blaming the victim, you're right. They are blaming Zimmerman for defending himself. Read the NYT article carefully. Every article from the NYT and most media outlets always make reference to Trayvon being unarmed as if that means you should never be shot or be the recipient of deadly force. The also say Trayvon "hurt" Zimmerman's head. Hurt? Hurt is when you trip and skid your knee. Hurt is not what happens when someone is slamming your head into a concrete pavement.
The courts have *long* recognized that deadly force can be used against unarmed attacker(s) under certain conditions.
Again, all part of the narrative put for by most media outlets --especially the anti-gun NYT-- that despise guns in the hands of civilians and those who use them for self defense.
No it is not "blame the victim" move. It is putting all relevant facts into the daylight move in my opinion. If you are a proven aggressor against law enforcement or any other thing for that matter and if you were in a conflict with this group, it is the other party's right to present what and who you are with all publicly available information. Otherwise, we are going into the gray area of a homeowner shooting a thief inside his house and getting sued for the thief's injuries.
__________
The more I know people, the more I love animals
Why should they need to have prior knowledge?
In an fairly extreme example: if I post on FB about my martial arts hobby that I'm going to go out and beat some random guy on the street up. Then I'm shot dead out on the street. Then the shooter is prosecuted for shooting innocent me with wide reporting of how innocuous I was. Then it's certainly reasonable to use my prior statements displaying bad intent to call that description of me into question and of my martial arts training to suggest capabilities beyond what might normally be expected of someone my age and appearance.
I don't know all the details of this case and almost certainly neither do you. But it's ludicrous to suggest prior statements are only relevant if the defendant knew about them beforehand or can't be used in this situation under some misunderstanding of the constitutional protections of free speech.
Time to update the Miranda warning to include: 'Anything you Tweet or post can and will be held against you in a court of law'?'"
In 1912, instant messaging meant sending a telegram or mailing a postcard. "Ten words or less." In 2012, you tweet. That changes nothing. Evidence that is relevant to an issue in dispute is admissible unless there is a compelling legal reason to exclude it.
A Miranda warning is required only when you are about to be interrogated by the police, with damn few exceptions, what you expose to others has always been fair game.
Even if the kid was bragging about breaking into houses, and even if Zimmerman was aware that Martin broke into houses, that doesn't clear Zimmerman: A citizen with evidence of somebody else's criminal behavior that isn't in immediate danger is supposed to notify the police, not shoot the alleged criminal.
What I'm assuming they're claiming they're after is evidence that Martin was a violent person who was likely to have responded to Zimmerman by assaulting him.
Zimmerman has always articulated from day one that he shot to stop the active attack. That he only got out of his car to give the relevant information to the 911 dispatcher of Martin's whereabouts. That Martin came back to confront ZImmerman, threw a punch and continued to beat him while he was supine on the ground. Being on the ground with an attacker actively slamming your head into the concrete pavement is reason enough for using deadly force to stop and attack.
Zimmerman has never said that he shot Martin for looking suspicious. The media has latched onto speculation --as if it were fact-- that ZImmerman merely shot someone for walking around. The media has put forth the accusation that Stand Your Ground laws allow for this to happen legally when nothing could be further from the truth.
P.S. Guess which state was the first to enact a Stand Your Ground Law? California. Yes. Hardly the red state bastion of the NRA.
Here's a very informative video about what Stan Your Ground laws are really about: http://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/stand-ground-laws-self-defense-or-license-kill
It's the way the system works. It's how it's designed. If a fact is relevant, then it's admissible. The defence is arguing that this is relevant. Given that he's going to be locked away from society for a very long time and have his life ruined, I don't think it's too much to ask to be absolutely sure that his actions were totally unjustified.
It's important that all relevant facts are disclosed. The court is meant to consider these facts impartially. If the court can't be impartial, and we need to hide factual information from the jury, then we have bigger problems than this specific decision.
You think he's guilty. That's fair enough. So do I. The court is acting on the presumption that he's innocent, and that's how it should be.
And maybe you got rid of your best candidate because of prejudice based on what he does in his private life. You're part of the worst scum of this Earth. Fuck you.
they wont see it that way... let me counter that with a different medium but similar concept..
I am hanging around a campfire with 5 of my buddies, we are all drinking. I make the comment that I cant stand my boss and I'm probably going to kill him one day. A week later he is found murdered in his home. One of my buddies drops an anonymous tip about my drunken outburst to the cops. The cops go gather witness statements from a couple of these buddies and collect enough evidence for grand jury indictment. Later all 5 people are brought into court, sworn in under oath, and made to testify as to the accounts of that night.
I cannot claim that just because I didnt get on live TV and make the announcement, I had some expectation of privacy. If these twitter and facebook posts as well as school records create a pattern of violence and other criminal activity, it garners support of the defendants claim:
"during the physical altercation with Travon Martin, Travon found the gun lodged in the waistband of George's belt and grabbed for it while saying 'you're going to die tonight mother fucker!'. During the struggle for George's life, the gun discharged once into the chest of Travon at point-blank range".
This is a statement of account that has no eye witness. The defense claims that the intent was just to detain one of the people that has been constantly breaking into the homes of the neighborhood and Travon jumped him, resulting in a struggle for life. Some of these breakins have even been home invasions while residents were home. For weeks cops have gotten there 30min too late to catch them. Many times even called in by George to come grab them. This again gives a story of a man simply trying to slow people down just enough for the cops to arrive. Its a good story. Nobody will ever know what really happened besides George and Travon. Dead people obviously cant testify.
Meanwhile the media, and the victim's family, are painting Travon as this completely innocent angel, an honor roll student, that's only crime in life was being black. So if these records show:
1. travon was a C and D student
2. Travon had a poor attendance recorc
3. Suspensions and records of disciplinary action for extreme violence
4. tweets bragging about breaking into homes
5. facebook posts bragging about, or pictures showing, stolen goods
Then although they, by themselves, do not prove travon grabbed the gun and tried to murder George; still accomplish character assasination. "If they lied about these things, then they're probably lying about everything else too, just to avoid public record of their son being a criminal". Once that opinion gets formed with the jury it will be harder to get a conviction for sure. The evidence to decide on is not whether George shot and killed Travon, he clearly did. The question is whether George's life was actually in immanent danger, justifying self defense.
So you declined an interview to a qualified applicant because they partied in college?
I hate to break it to you, but almost all your other interviewee's did too. What we need to do - as a society - is recognize certain social norms. We already do to an extent, but its the silent code that its all ok until you get caught.
Having just read RA Salvatore's Homeland it reminds me of the Drow society - everyone attacking each other and scheming and its fine if you get away with it but if you get caught society punished you to the utmost.
Hypocrisy at its finest.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
But the jury isn't being asked to decide whether an "assault with a deadly weapon" has occurred. They're being asked to decide whether or not the killing of Trayvon Martin was an act of self defense (and thus unfortunate, but legal under Florida law), or an act of 2nd degree murder (and thus illegal, and carrying with it a stiff prison sentence).
Since all we have is one side of the story, past patterns of behavior on the part of Martin & Zimmerman may be very relevant in assessing the evidence. *IF* Martin has a history of breaking into houses, getting into fights, etc. etc., then it makes Zimmerman's story - that he was standing there when Martin approached him and assaulted him - somewhat more believable. If Martin is shown to be the poster boy for good kids everywhere, then it makes it far less believable. Just as past patterns of behavior on Zimmerman's part are relevant - does he have a history of racism? does he have a history of assault? does he have a history of waving his gun around like a maniac? All of these things would make his story LESS believable.
It's all relevant, because there simply aren't many facts beyond "deceased young black male, shot at close range" and the defendant's claim that "I was jumped, and acted in self defense." What a jury is being asked to decide is - is Zimmerman's story reasonable?
Fact, the young man (17 years old) was shot in the back
Nope, shot in the chest, from the front
and the evidence suggests he was shot at some distance, apparently trying to run for his life.
Nope. Estimated distance was 24 to 36 inches, about arms length for someone his height.
Their has never been a single bit of corroborating evidence that Mr. Zimmerman was in any way assaulted.
Nope. His face and head showed signs of a severe beating and Martin's knuckles were bruised in a way consistent with punching someone in the face and head.
It you attack a cop with stones or a knife or even your hands, it is not excessive force for them to shoot you. Why should it be any different for the public?
Deadly force should never be used, even in self defense.
There are times that deadly force MUST sometimes be used in self defense, if you intend to survive.
A fist fight can easily end in the death of one of the parties. If you didn't start the fight, is your only option supposed to be lay there and take it? Hope you don't end up dead by the time the attacker stops?
Non-lethal self defense training or not, you pull a knife and get close to an officer, you're getting shot and rightfully so.
being in such a situation isn't going to give you much opportunity to draw a weapon and fire it, let alone do much else.
Nice blanket assumption. Ever been in that exact situation?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
NYT piece here listing him at 170 lbs: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/us/trayvon-martin-shooting-prompts-a-review-of-ideals.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all At his booking he was listed at 185, but weight can fluctuate, especially under high stress conditions, which I think you'd agree he'd been under. Either way, it's not like Zimmerman was a grown man fighting a toddler. A 17 year old football player is going to be strong and in great shape. That doesn't make Zimmerman right or even in a moral grey area for what he did, but quit trying to portray someone like Martin as a helpless child.
And evidence that Trayvon was in a fight club would give credence to the zimmermans statements that trayvon was winning a physical fight with him and travon beating the hell out of him.
A fit 6'2 17 year old who fist fought for sport could credibly get an out of shape heavier man afraid for his life.
If you look at the 911 calls and peg the locations to the maps- Travon- was last seen over a minute only 300' from his house. It takes about 20 seconds to cover that distance.
Zimmerman continues talking to 911 for about a minute after last seeing Travon with no evidence he had seen Travon again yet.
Travon didn't go home. It's possible he got pissed off and returned to the scene.
The main scenario where Zimmerman could be guilty and culpable is if Travon had been hiding and zimmerman spots him and goes over and puts his hands on travon to attempt to detain him.
If on the other hand Travon got pissed that Zimmerman was following him, they exchanged heated words and travon attacked first- then zimmer man killed in self defense. You don't hit other people. You don't key their cars. If there is a problem, you call the police. Travon could have called the police and said someone was following him.
17 year olds are unfortunately adults in body but unwise children in temperament and logical thinking.
This situation is tragic but if I were on the jury, based on the evidence I've seen so far, I'd have reasonable doubt. And in america, you have to prove people are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal trials.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
On the internet everybody is a bigger mouth than in reality. I know quite a few people which have semi "violent" forums post, but are cowards in real life. Saying that facebook post shows a history of violence is utterly bullshit. A history of violence is when you bully others, steal, go into a lot of fight. Facebook post are for poseur. If this is used as defense than it is utter bullshit. I hope the prosecutor make sure to check trayvon in real life to show such "history of violence" from facebook psot for the bull it is.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
So you declined an interview to a qualified applicant because they partied in college?
No where in that post did I say it was a party. In point of fact, it looked to be some kind of hazing ritual. It wasn't even the candidates involvement in the ritual that put the nails in the coffin. If it had been hearsay, we would have dismissed it. The part that got him permanently removed from consideration was that he was stupid enough to allow evidence of a crime to be permanently recorded. That kind of lapse in judgement we can do without. The posting of the pictures were obviously thought to have been private, but through one stupidity or another, the pictures were made publicly available. The moral of the story, is never trust any repository of legally admissible evidence that you, yourself, cannot legally set fire to and destroy.
-=Geoskd
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
It'll be pretty much the same.
The few people who are actually capable of putting together coherent descriptions of what should reasonably happen given certain assumptions will be shouted down by whoever has decided they know what happened. Regardless of how the case turns out, there will be a large group of people who believe that justice was perverted for political purposes, and the result is more proof that there is a vast left-wing/right-wing conspiracy to destroy group X.
We'll have lots of basement legal experts claim hundreds of completely illogical and irrational things about how the law works, and in general the discussion will devolve to how big a given person's e-peen is.
A bit hyperbolic, but it touches on several essentials. The causes of Martin's suspensions have been revealed repeatedly, and they are not violence related, but some people on Slashdot are willing to post speculations that there's something beyond that. When you keep looking for the thing that bolsters your opinion, and it's just not there, just maybe it's time to question your opinon instead of doubling down on it.
Beyond that, there was a point where the police locally knew a few things and only those things, for certain. At later times, other facts came to light, and the situation became more complex, but in the first few hours after the shooting, there was a definite point where all the police had to go on were these facts:
1. They knew they had a homicide, and who did it.
2. They knew that the person who did it was claiming it was justifiable self defense.
3. They knew there were major flaws in the shooter's story - changes in the range the encounter supposedly took place at, changes in what the suspect said to dispatch, what he claimed dispatch said to him, how the deceased person had attacked him, what blows were thrown, what blows landed where, and so on. They knew that their possible murderer had repeatedly changed his story.
So why didn't they charge him right there and then?
All debate about what has been revealed weeks or months later ignores this simple question. There was a definite point where George Zimmerman was a strong suspect for a charge of 1st degree murder. Most detectives would have been willing to insist on holding him for at least the standard 24, and go before a judge to apply for a warrent to search Mr. Zimmerman's home. Many would have been willing to get the judge up at 3 AM, if needed, on the strength of what they had at that particular point. Why not in the Martin case?
Who is John Cabal?
He shot and killed a man.
True.
He deliberately went out with a weapon to kill someone.
False. You're attributing intent where none has been proven. Carrying a gun does not equal intent to kill anymore than wearing your seat belt indicates an intention to get into a car wreck.
How is that not murder?
See above.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Possibly.
The legal standard in most states for the use of deadly force is belief of imminent severe bodily injury or death. Essentially, would a reasonable person believe they might die or be severely injured and that use of deadly force would prevent it? States differ on what other avenues must be attempted prior to the use of deadly force, such as trying to run away, etc.
You can die in a fist fight. You can certainly sustain severe bodily injury.
There's another issue here. In most states, the initiator of the use or threat of force can't claim self defense. So if I punch you and we start fighting, you could then claim self defense if you shot me, but I couldn't if I shot you. The same if I pulled a knife and threatened to stab you.
And thirdly, there's the difference between what's moral and legal. There are probably situations where I'd think the person's choice to shoot was morally despicable but should be legal under the general principles of self defense.
If someone has a gun and you don't, attacking him is the last thing you will do, unless you are corned and cannot run away. Unless Zimmerman actually pulled his gun at Martin and put him in a situation where he couldn't possibly escape, or escape were unlikely, before firing at him, Martin had no logical reason to attack him if he knew he had a gun. More likely than not Martin attacked Zimmerman because he was unaware he had a gun and if Zimmerman didn't had a gun he could easily be the one dead or at least severely injured.
Exerting your freedom and going where you are legally allowed to go even if you know you may be attacked, whilst taking precautions to defend yourself in case you are attacked, is hardly negligence.
None of this matters. The only thing that matters is that Zimmerman the white (son of a Peruvian mestizo) is found guilty of murder. Any other outcome will lead to riots.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
It's only tragic if the kid was completely innocent and did not attack zimmer first.
These things seem severely in doubt.
Bull. Fucking. Shit. The evidence points strongly to Zimmerman stalking and harassing Martin. What happened after that, we don't know for sure, and never will. But it is pretty obvious that Zimmerman engaged in some level of provocation.
Your life is no more important than anyone else's, to assume so is extremely arrogant and selfish.
??? Do you not understand the notion of "social contract"? You can say that our lives have equal worth, OK, fine. You don't attack me and I won't attack you. However, if you do attack me, you give up the right to not be attacked. You get that, right?
So if I have to kill you to stop the attack, I damn sure will, and that's one of the most fundamental human rights there is.
You have it backwards. It isn't an attempt to make white people afraid of blacks, it is an attempt to get blacks outraged against whites. If it was an attempt to scare white people, they would not have misreported Trayvon as a young child. They would have made shown him as being as big and menacing as possible. Instead, the media has portrayed Martin as being a lose cannon, and Trayvon as being a defenseless child. The fact that you call him a child shows that you have fallen for it hook line and sinker. The media even went so far as to splice the audio tapes together in a way to try and vilify Martin.
Which ever one is the aggressor (could even be both), it is clear that the media is not trying to rally white people up against blacks.
The *killing* is unfortunate. In the final analysis, a 17 year old kid is dead, regardless of the reasons. I consider that unfortunate, and I can still be sorry to hear of his death, even if it was a completely warranted act of self defense on Zimmerman's part.
If the shooting was self defense, I'd never suggest that Zimmerman shouldn't have defended himself... but the outcome is still tragic.
All death is tragedy you sociopathic fuck.
Death of innocents is double tradgedy.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
This is why we need an assault Skittles ban.
Zimmerman was hunting Martin down and was armed with a gun. Martin clearly felt his life and safety were threatened
That is not a fair way to describe what happened. A neighborhood watchman following what he considers a "suspicious" looking person is not "hunting them down with a gun". Sure he may have been overzealous and it is not pleasant to be followed around and considered a criminal when you are not, but that's not enough of a reason to jump on the guy and start pounding his head against the concrete (saw the pictures?). On the other hand, once that happened, Zimmerman WAS justified in using deadly force to defend himself. It's a shitty deal for Trayvon but this case should never have been brought to trial and it wouldn't have been if it wasn't so politicized.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Of course, that could be highly unfair treatment. It assumes that past behavior is a reliable predictor of future behavior.
You are misunderstanding what this is about. This is not "there's a 17 year old, tall, strong kid looking at me. If he's never done anything wrong, then he is harmless. If he has a history of fights, then I look for my gun". This is a case "The guy shooting the 17 year old claims it was self defence. There are no witnesses. Do we believe him? If the 17 year old has never been in trouble, then the guy is likely lying. If the 17 year old has a history of fights, then it is quite possible that the story is true".
The copious amounts of blood from a shooting tend to come out the exit wound (and there was none in this case). You get some from the entry wound, but not nearly as much. Zimmerman's jacket had four bloodstains containing Martin's DNA, so there's your blood.
Yeah so my point still stands. Next time save yourself the time and effort in posting.
I completely disagree. He offered relevant information and clarified what the law says. Even if it doesn't invalidate your point, it's a good post.
Discussion is not about winning arguments, it's about exchanging ideas to better understand things.
There have been at least 2 witnesses come forward and said they saw martin bashing Zimmerman's head against the ground, and the video the police took clearly shows blood and torn skin on the BACK of Zimmerman's head. Add to this it was over 85 degrees that night yet he was bundled up in a black hoodie and the reason he was in FLA in the first place was getting kicked out of his former school for theft?
I'm sorry but there is plenty of doubt in this case. mark my words after seeing all the evidence the jury will acquit, which will then be followed by "flash mobs" screaming "justice for Trayvon" while they go on a looting and violence spree, just like they did the day of the funeral. How justice and looting go together damned if I know, but that's what will happen.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
So person A was walking home doing nothing wrong.
Person B creates a situation, and gets a few minor injuries while killing Person A (inflicted by Person A, a bit upset about the whole being attacked/killed thing.)
Person A was in Florida because he was kicked out of school.
I'm sure you have doubt in your mind. Justifying the idea of killing the weak because they fought back a little before dying is hard.
So you sit in your armchair, drink your drink, and pontificate on the ifs and buts. And with enough words said, you sort of convince yourself that those people had it coming and the world is just.
What royally pisses me off is we have a fricking epidemic in this country of what i call "wolf packs" after the WWII submarine tactic of using strength of numbers as a force multiplier and its spreading like a cancer through the black inner city neighborhoods, yet thanks to the media sucking on the political correctness dick nobody will ask the simple logical question "Why?". Why is this happening, why is it nearly 100% a black inner city phenomena and what can we do to stop it?
Its not poverty, as the poorest state in the nation, WV, is also the least likely to suffer from these wolf packs, and videos taken of these wolf packs show black teens with $200 sneakers and smartphones, its not lack of jobs as other minorities have been hard hit as well and again not seeing this behavior with them, this seems to be limited to inner city black youth between the ages of 14-35. If anyone doubts me here is a partial list of these attacks and note that we had one not 3 days ago!
Personally I think its 50 years of a combination of welfare and a victim mentality pushed upon the black community by these so called "black leaders" like Sharpton who blame everything on somebody else. When you have songs celebrating "baby daddies" and leaders standing there with a straight face and claiming Ebonics is a legitimate language and you're racist if you don't accommodate it, and that getting an education is "acting white"? You are setting entire generations up to fail.
I have to believe that this thing is gonna end up exploding, simply because nobody has the balls to speak up and point out so many black youth are heading straight for a cliff. in the previous decades you could get away with being uneducated because there was always the factory jobs, but those are gone, yet you still have women having multiple kids with multiple deadbeats and refusing to even make their children go to school. They spend all day watching TV and wanting all the expensive trappings they see, yet the community turns on them if they attempt to get an education because they are being "Uncle Toms". I truly believe this violence is gonna end up exploding and its gonna get ugly REAL fast.
and honestly with the crime rate the way it is is anyone surprised more and more look on black teens with fear? Just look at the numbers for yourself, its truly fricking scary the levels of violence we are talking about, and for every Trayvon Martin there are a good 3 or more Wichita Massacres you never hear about thanks to our PC media.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
My problem:
You do not go on neighborhood watch with a gun. You do not attempt to apprehend people while on neighborhood watch. You are neighborhood WATCH, not a sworn and trained officer of the law.
Everything about this sounds like Martin was a fucking idiot kid who liked to shoot off his mouth and Zimmerman imagined himself to be some kind of law dog who was going to bust this thing wide open.
Zimmerman also is putting tons of words into Martins mouth, and many of those words sound to me like bullshit - like a very, very bad script writer tried to write a part for scary black thug #2 or something.
I don't know what happened that night - I'm actually not even sure Zimmerman knows what happened that night at this point. I do know that Zimmerman is not helping himself and has not been helping himself this entire time.
I also know that it's good that this has been investigated and is going to trial rather than just being waved off as it initially was. A man is dead at the hands of another man, under unclear circumstances, and that Deserves an investigation and trial. If Zimmerman really was acting in self-defense (or at least is found to have been acting so) then he'll be fine. If not, he will be punished according to the law. Isn't that what should happen?
I am not a gun person, though I am somewhat realistic about guns and gun culture in the US. I don't think it is unreasonable for a man who used a gun to shoot another man to stand trial for that. I don't care about the racial noise, I don't care about the politics. I just want people who kill other people to be held accountable for their actions.
I actually am somewhat surprised at the number of people who post here and seem to be pro-gun and simultaneously bothered that Zimmerman is being tried. You would think responsible gun owners would be glad that we live in a nation of laws and that a man who shot another man under incredibly unclear circumstances wouldn't just be left free to walk on his own say-so. I mean, what if things had gone differently and Martin shot Zimmerman with Zimmerman's gun? Wouldn't people want that to be investigated and tried also?
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
There have been at least 2 witnesses come forward and said they saw martin bashing Zimmerman's head against the ground, and the video the police took clearly shows blood and torn skin on the BACK of Zimmerman's head. Add to this it was over 85 degrees that night yet he was bundled up in a black hoodie and the reason he was in FLA in the first place was getting kicked out of his former school for theft?
Well, first off, just because he was getting his ass kicked in no way means he did not provoke the confrontation to begin with. You don't get to start a fight and then claim self defense.
The 2 witnesses, IIRC, saw someone bashing someone else's head against the ground, and the defense has spun that to be Martin on top.
Maybe he was wearing a hoodie because it was raining. Maybe he was wearing a hoodie because it's a stupid teen fashion thing and he'd wear the same damn clothes whether it was 10 or 100 degrees. But what the hell does that have to do with whether or not Zimmerman started things? Nothing, that's what. It's a red herring meant to play on racial stereotypes.
Thank you for proving my point, its NOT a universal event, its happening in the large black communities, yet the politically correct like yourself refuse to even look at the data because we can't come up with white or asian mobs doing the same thing. News Flash..Its NOT RACIST TO POINT OUT THE NUMBERS JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT THEY SAY but instead we'll have whole generations of black youth practically born to fail because people like you refuse to see the hard data right in front of your face.
Again don't take MY word for it, go to the FBI's crime information website and look at the data yourself, and note that for the past 25 years they have been ordered to skew that data in the name of political correctness by counting ALL non black crime, asian, latino, middle eastern, as "white" to try to rig the numbers and you STILL have on average 8 to 1 when it comes to violent crimes committed by blacks vs committed by their new definition of white.
I'm sorry if the data doesn't support your politically correct worldview but it don't. Again we need to find out WHY the black neighborhoods are going through this so that we can correct it, otherwise YOU are being racist because you are setting up the entire black community to be looked down upon as a failure and violent subset of the larger whole. Its just as racist as affirmative action which automatically assumes blacks simply aren't smart enough to compete without being a protected class and the underlying cause is the same, racist beliefs that you are smarter and better, they are stupider and more violent and unable to care for themselves. its classic victim mentality and its a cancer.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.