Silvertongue
Regular Member
Shot a video this morning, hope it's helpful.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
How not to become the next George Zimmerman
- Thread starter Silvertongue
- Start date
Silvertongue
Regular Member
[video=youtube;vujkkIAbq4A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vujkkIAbq4A&feature=share&list=UUF7nT9FyAysf6lbo0Ncfj3Q[/video]
I'm far more concerned about not becoming the next Travon Marton. Got a video for that? Gotta love how some here are so sure it was self defence as if they seen the whole thing first hand. May have been, I suppose it's possible but theres one who can't give testomony. All I know is just about anyone can follow or stalk me, shoot me dead and walk free by saying I attacked them. If I was to speculate wit is what others here seem to be doing, I'd say there was some self defence on both sides. This was likely a fight between two consenting, ,, well one consenting adult and a teenager. In my case they will probibly just bang their head against a tree or something to create the self defence excuse.
eye95
Well-known member
It is easy not to become the next M. Just don't become a thug and don't assault an honest citizen for no lawful reason. Pretty simple.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
That one comment undermined everything else you were trying to say by showing a logic failure.
I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm saying to omit that argument next time.
Here's what I mean. Anytime a defender kills his opponent, there is only one testimony. Just because there is only one does not, cannot, make a liar out of that one. Your argument is basically undermining every legitimate defender who killed his attacker. Including Martin if he had killed Zimmerman. And, yourself, if you ever kill an attacker.
Silvertongue
Regular Member
Have you checked out the official timeline of events?
7:16:55 — Gunshot heard on 911 call.
7:17 — The first office officer on the scene, Officer T. Smith arrives by squad car at Retreat View.
7:17:40+ — Officer Smith arrives at the crime scene.
7:19:07 — Photo taken of Zimmerman's head injuries by a civilian bystander.
Two minutes and twelve seconds is an awful lot of time for that amount of swelling to kick in, and 45 seconds isn't enough for someone to inflict that damage to themselves.
**Disclaimer: You are entitled to your opinion, even if you don't recognize it will never change the opinions of the six jurors in the case.
jayspapa
Regular Member
There is just one small detail you are leaving out in your timeline. How long had the attack been ongoing before the gunshot was heard.
I agree, Zimmerman could very well be telling the truth. I agree that the case against him wasn't proven. I just can't get past the fact that he set out to keep an eye on someone who he decided was probibly up to no good. I can't begin to count the number of times someone thought, or claimed I was up to no good. I've never killed an attacker yet and believe me when I say I have been attacked probibly a handfull of times. It's always justified and I'm in the wrong. In that way, I can somewhat relate to Martin. But your right about everything else.
eye95
Well-known member
So what? Someone kept an eye on you. If you were near me, I'd keep a weather eye out for you too! If you are in public, you are subject to being observed. If you don't like that, stay home. I applaud Z for keeping an eye on M. His behavior warranted it, but there would have been nothing wrong with Z's observation anyway.
Oh, and FTR, folks, this is the poster who formerly used the handle "Joanie." Just helping you make the linkages between these posts and the others.
Last edited:
OC for ME
Regular Member
It does not matter what anyone here thinks. It only mattered what six citizens thought. Case closed.....so to speak.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
It's pretty clear Martin thought he would "stand up for himself" (AKA act like a thug) by beating up Z. Unfortunately, there is never a valid reason to physically assault someone.
Don't do this, and you won't become the next M. Simple.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Hmm. I wonder. I think you might be onto something there.
It seems pretty plausible to me that a young black man, having experienced both institutional and private racism, and having its existence pounded into him from birth, might just finally say, "I've had it! I'm not doing anything wrong and here is another MFer profiling me just for walking home with a snack! That's it! I'm not going to take it anymore!"
Moreover, I wonder if that is the real reason TM got so much support from the black community? I wonder if there is an undercurrent of, "That could be me or my son who finally had enough." I also wonder if there is an element there of not wanting to hold TM responsible for his actions because they can see themselves reacting the same way? They can appreciate why he acted the way he did?
It seems to me that maybe racism did get TM killed, just not in the obvious way.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Which son is a better question. The 13/14 TM as was repeatedly depicted in news reports. Or the 17 TM as he depicted himself on a video sharing web site.
DarthBrute
Regular Member
It doesn't matter whether or not GZ got out of his car and followed TM. It doesn't matter. What matters in this case is the fact that TM DECIDED. He DECIDED to attack another human being. Who beat someone bad enough to get a broken nose and several lacerations all over his head. To also include black eyes. GZ also was carrying concealed and it stayed concealed until the moment he shot him. Do you think TM would have attacked if GZ had the gun out? No. What does that say? It says that GZ had no intention of killing him. That he was only following for id purposes. When Trayvon Martin DECIDED and made the conscious choice to attack another human being and beat him he was shot.
George Zimmerman shot because he thought his life was in danger. What puts someones life in danger is different for everyone. What puts me in fear of my life would be different than what would put a Navy SEAL's life in danger. Two different extremes. But everyone is different. Everyone would have a different degree of what they themselves would see as dangerous to their life. You cannot say his life was not in danger. You cannot say oh he was a 17 years old and he was unarmed because in 2011 there were 728 murders by someone beating someone else to death with their fists.
You can try to spin this anyway you want. You can say "Oh it wasn't about the fact that TM was black and GZ was half white." ********. Flat out f'ing ********. This got turned into a racial issue. Nobody gave 2 ***** that a 12 year old white girl was murdered by 2 black teens for her bike. (Autumn Pasquale) This got turned into a racial issue. White people got a bad case of white guilt and the black community just saw another way to get all up in arms about something else. Plain as day. With black on black crime always prevalent always happening. Where is Jesse Jackson and AL Sharpton on that? Why isn't the black community just as active and loud about that issue? Because that would point the finger in the direction they don't want. That would say, "We are responsible for more black murders than any other racial group. We kill our own."
GZ killing TM was not about race until the media made it about race. This was about a man who was brutally attacked and felt the need to defend himself. The only thing that could remotely with any possibility be pointed in the direction of evidence for the prosecution in this case would be that he got out of his car to follow. (About to split a hair here but a still a sound argument.) After being told, "You don't have to do that." That was not an order. The 911 operator did not say, "Do not follow him. Stay in your car." Even if he did say that a 911 operator is not a police officer.
Please. This became about race because people wanted it to be.
George Zimmerman shot because he thought his life was in danger. What puts someones life in danger is different for everyone. What puts me in fear of my life would be different than what would put a Navy SEAL's life in danger. Two different extremes. But everyone is different. Everyone would have a different degree of what they themselves would see as dangerous to their life. You cannot say his life was not in danger. You cannot say oh he was a 17 years old and he was unarmed because in 2011 there were 728 murders by someone beating someone else to death with their fists.
You can try to spin this anyway you want. You can say "Oh it wasn't about the fact that TM was black and GZ was half white." ********. Flat out f'ing ********. This got turned into a racial issue. Nobody gave 2 ***** that a 12 year old white girl was murdered by 2 black teens for her bike. (Autumn Pasquale) This got turned into a racial issue. White people got a bad case of white guilt and the black community just saw another way to get all up in arms about something else. Plain as day. With black on black crime always prevalent always happening. Where is Jesse Jackson and AL Sharpton on that? Why isn't the black community just as active and loud about that issue? Because that would point the finger in the direction they don't want. That would say, "We are responsible for more black murders than any other racial group. We kill our own."
GZ killing TM was not about race until the media made it about race. This was about a man who was brutally attacked and felt the need to defend himself. The only thing that could remotely with any possibility be pointed in the direction of evidence for the prosecution in this case would be that he got out of his car to follow. (About to split a hair here but a still a sound argument.) After being told, "You don't have to do that." That was not an order. The 911 operator did not say, "Do not follow him. Stay in your car." Even if he did say that a 911 operator is not a police officer.
Please. This became about race because people wanted it to be.
... "Racism" is merely a crutch they are taught to use as an excuse to justify doing things they know darned-well to be wrong, and hope to be given a pass on. Does "racism" exist? Sure, of course, for some, but for many out there it is over-used, worn-out as an excuse, and just plain nonsense. Certain folks go to great lengths to complain about certain stereotypes that they claim to despise, yet go out of their way to try to LIVE UP TO, that very stereotype. And when someone responds or reacts to that image being presented, they pull out the "race" issue because they've come to expect everyone to start stepping on eggshells.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Thank you, I didn't know that, so I take it she deleted the Joanie SN.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
I don't know that its that simple. While examples of which you write do exist, in plenty, I think we'd be foolish to over-simplify and pretend that was all there was. People come in a marvelous variety of attitudes and ideas.
Imagine you were a member of a repressed group, taught all your life by adults who experienced it first hand in their youth, hearing their perhaps warped or outdated view. At some point, I can see that pushing a fella over the edge if he is confronted with what he thinks is a real-life example.
Or, lets say, much of your life, every time or most times that The Man urged you to be "reasonable", you later discovered you were being lied to. That every time you held in abeyance your anger in the name of being "reasonable", you discovered The Man was lying to you and using your own civility against you. At some point, you're going to just up and say, "Eff the Man." You're certain that any excuse or platitude he offers is just another in a long string of lies designed to lull your anger, and that, just like many previous times, you're bound to come out on the short end of the stick.
I can see that pushing somebody over the edge. I can see rioting as a couple generations of anger boils over.
Its just another reason to respect everybody's rights. And, demand the race-baiters and politicians stop taking advantage of minorities.
Last edited:
As for becomming a Z or an TM,... I think both of them could have used better-judgement, but in the end, Z probably ended up doing what he felt he had to, under the circumstances.
Had the kid been in the right, he could have simply handled it, when/if approached, or asked by Z, by simply stating that his father was visiting a resident, and he was heading back there from the store. Z, would probably have simply said, Ah ok, and/or verified that by checking -or having police verify the father's location at the residence being visited.
Out here, where I am, after events at my place 2 -3 yrs ago, and a string of break-ins and robberies, you better believe every one of us on this block approach ANY strangers to our area, and verify their reason for being here, if we dont recognize them. No matter WHAT color/race/ethnicity/potantial sexual orientation/gender, they may be.
Granted, we dont approach them all gruff and "who are you/why are you here? get out of here" or anything, but simple, polite, inquiry. "Hey, can I help you?" etc.
Reason is simple: there's only 8 residences here, on a dead-end road out in the sticks. There is absolutely NOTHING of interest to anyone who doesnt have biz here, for them to travel all the way out here. If they are here to visit, or do some sort of work for someone who lives out here, it's something we are able to verify easily, by simply contacting them and asking them.
If the person has no legit biz out here, they are calmly encouraged to make most haste to some other destination.
Of course, it helps, that almost everyone here is OC when home/around the home, etc.
Had the kid been in the right, he could have simply handled it, when/if approached, or asked by Z, by simply stating that his father was visiting a resident, and he was heading back there from the store. Z, would probably have simply said, Ah ok, and/or verified that by checking -or having police verify the father's location at the residence being visited.
Out here, where I am, after events at my place 2 -3 yrs ago, and a string of break-ins and robberies, you better believe every one of us on this block approach ANY strangers to our area, and verify their reason for being here, if we dont recognize them. No matter WHAT color/race/ethnicity/potantial sexual orientation/gender, they may be.
Granted, we dont approach them all gruff and "who are you/why are you here? get out of here" or anything, but simple, polite, inquiry. "Hey, can I help you?" etc.
Reason is simple: there's only 8 residences here, on a dead-end road out in the sticks. There is absolutely NOTHING of interest to anyone who doesnt have biz here, for them to travel all the way out here. If they are here to visit, or do some sort of work for someone who lives out here, it's something we are able to verify easily, by simply contacting them and asking them.
If the person has no legit biz out here, they are calmly encouraged to make most haste to some other destination.
Of course, it helps, that almost everyone here is OC when home/around the home, etc.
davidmcbeth
Banned
Forgot this advice: Don't make videos when driving
eye95
Well-known member
Probably not. As I understand it, everything posted under that name is invisible to everyone except the staff and the poster. I think it took quite a while for that poster to figure it out.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>