I'd love to know what you're trying to say by that.Originally Posted by LordInfamous
I'd love to know what you're trying to say by that.
Nope, I just used common sense.
Or we could go with aliens came down, bashed him in the head, and teleported back to the mothership which immediately entered a wormhole back to planet derpwaffle.
Think of it like this: You're a dad. You have a son. You're gone, you come home, and a vase is broken. Did you see your son break the vase? No. Do you know he did it? Yes. Or you might argue that since you weren't there to witness it once again the aliens from planet derpwaffle are creating chaos on Earth. Maybe you had a video camera that caught it. Maybe someone hax0red your camera and photoshopped it to look like the kid broke the vase and when he says he didn't break it he's telling the truth. Clearly you won't punish him because someone may have photoshopped the video.
If I said that Zimmerman didn't shoot Trayvon you'd laugh at me. Now think about the reverse... dude's head got bashed... he says the person he was fighting with did it... there's plenty of evidence to back up his story... should we assume his story is a lie because nobody was there to witness it despite the head wounds? That would be like trying to argue that Zimmerman didn't shoot Trayvon despite the bullet in his chest. You don't need to witness it to know it went down that way. It's how cases are built all the time. You take the stories and the evidence and put them together to come to a conclusion.
Based on your post you're either:I'd love to know what you're trying to say by that.
A) Trolling
B) Playing devil's advocate
or C) Unwilling to see the obvious because of personal feelings about the incident
I <3 Zoolook. I remember when he had you all in a fuss over at SYB. Or whatever that site was. Good stuff.
What if that blood is not his?
Perfectly straight pattern could have been made by wearing a hat.
Last edited by will_perdikakis; 04-22-2012 at 01:08 AM.
Were you referring to me or him? Based on it being deleted, I think I was right about where he was trying to take the conversation.
On the other comments you made, you're absolutely right that it's "obvious" that Zimmerman was hurt in an altercation. What we don't know is how that started or the order of events. He may have pulled the gun before Trayvon pushed him to the ground for example. You don't know, neither do I. Should we assume Zimmerman's lying? Maybe not, but we should at least ask the hard questions, and also be honest that if Zimmerman had been black, with the same outcome, you can bet your left testicle he wouldn't have been released.
What I am trying to say is that, for everyone making judgments, those judgments are at least partly based on our prejudices coming into the situation.
Last edited by Zoolook; 04-25-2012 at 06:56 PM.
My preference would have been Z flattened into the pavement by a passing large vehicle, as it likely would have prevented http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ilantism_.html and http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/apr/2...on-ar-3659891/ and the volatile future riots Sharpton and Jackson can't wait to pour gasoline on.
But as to the case, there is no evidence to counter Zimmerman's story. And without evidence I see nothing but a show trial that never has a chance for conviction, but is one hell of a way to string the tension along for the next year.
Do you agree with this?
http://gawker.com/5896490/your-guide...trayvon-martin
This is the opening, but it goes on further.
For a minute there, it looked like Trayvon Martin might avoid the kind of horseshit thunderstorm that tends to accompany the shooting deaths of unarmed African-Americans. It seemed like everyone agreed that the police had ****ed up. Fox News had only one segment on the killing in the weeks following. Not even white racists wanted to defend Martin's killer, George Zimmerman: when I wrote about the case last week, the worst response I got was from one particularly dedicated nutcase, who set up a Twitter account to harass me for not properly specifying that Zimmerman is Hispanic.
But the horseshit is raining down now, helped along by a desperate Sanford Police Department doing everything it can to make Martin look like he deserved to die, and by the champion point-missers of the internet right wing, who hardly need convincing that a 17-year-old black kid was up to no good.
Last edited by Zoolook; 04-25-2012 at 07:00 PM.
I don't care about any of that. If there was a shred of actual evidence, and not conjecture which is all that is in that article, I would be saying execute Z. But there isn't. At all.
My guess is (conjecture) that M probably smoked a joint while on his way to the store, grabbed his skittles and tea and became far more paranoid that he was being followed than he should have. Does someone on a cellphone in a gated community scare/intimidate you? It wouldn't me... unless I was high and paranoid. I ultimately think this was a perfect storm of 2 people continually making the wrong decisions. Regardless, of what I think or imagine, it does not change the extreme weakness of the prosecutions case and my belief that if this was white on white, or hispanic on hispanic or black on black, none of us would have heard a peep about it.
There was a recent case where a black dude shot a Mexican and he's not behind bars yet. I haven't bothered to read much on it, but basically the Mexican was mentally handicapped and walking his dog when the black man in a car almost hits him, they argue, mentally handicapped guy with dog gets shot.
Can I have your left testicle now?
What prejudices? I read about a guy with head wounds and another guy with only a gunshot wound. Without an actual eye witness the only reasonable conclusion I can come to is that the shooting was in response to the head injuries. They may have had an altercation, one of them may have been the instigator, but what I'm concerned with is that one suffered potentially life threatening injuries while the other didn't have a scratch until the shooting and the bullet struck him from the front not the back. It's consistent with someone shooting in self defense against an assailant.What I am trying to say is that, for everyone making judgments, those judgments are at least partly based on our prejudices coming into the situation.
Last edited by RainWind; 04-25-2012 at 08:09 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote