Black teen shot and killed by neighborhood watch in Orlando gated community

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

I use it because I find it way over the top dramatic. Others have used it many times in this thread. Using it is basically trying to paint an image of Rampage Jackson laying a beatdown on a member of Menudo. I'm glad my many references to it have reduced it to a caricature of what it is, a wannabe vigilante cop losing a fist fight.

See valo403?

Lots of posts saying things as facts that aren't close at all to a real fact. I'm sure you just happened to miss this post though.

[moon]

Originally Posted by valo403

So if I were to say that basically Martin was walking home minding his own business when Zimmerman pursued, approached, confronted and then attempted to restrain Martin, without providing a shred of factual basis for any of that, it's just me coming up with a theory? Based entirely on the presence of the word basically? C'mon man.

I would disagree with your assessment of what happened but at least that is not presenting it as fact and the only possible conclusion.

And yes I think the word basically provides some room for the possibility that something else happened.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

See valo403?

Lots of posts saying things as facts that aren't close at all to a real fact. I'm sure you just happened to miss this post though.

I guess I am confused on what a fact actually is, but now that I look at it, maybe it is fact.

vigilante = neighborhood watch.
wanna be cop = applied to be a cop didn't he, and went on drive alongs, and was neighborhood watch.
losing a fist fight = on the bottom getting gounded and pounded mma style.

hey, maybe my personal opinion is fact.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

losing a fist fight = on the bottom getting gounded and pounded mma style.

hey, maybe my personal opinion is fact.

That's no where close to a fact. Assault is not a fist fight. Zimmerman could have been assaulted, Zimmerman could have assaulted Travyon, or it could have been a fist fight (which we both know assumes a more mutual confrontation). Or would refer to a man attacking a woman unprovoked as a fist fight? (Let me guess, going to avoid that question).

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

That's no where close to a fact. Assault is not a fist fight. Zimmerman could have been assaulted, Zimmerman could have assaulted Travyon, or it could have been a fist fight (which we both know assumes a more mutual confrontation). Or would refer to a man attacking a woman unprovoked as a fist fight? (Let me guess, going to avoid that question).

sorry, I should have said, basically losing a fist fight, to leave my options open.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

See valo403?

Lots of posts saying things as facts that aren't close at all to a real fact. I'm sure you just happened to miss this post though.

To be honest I've stopped really reading Duff's posts, he's just looking to get a rise and he's doing a good job of it. I should probably do the same with Nage as I assume his goal is similar.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by valo403

To be honest I've stopped really reading Duff's posts, he's just looking to get a rise and he's doing a good job of it. I should probably do the same with Nage as I assume his goal is similar.

Agreed. I am done with responding to his posts now as well. I don't agree with your position on this, but I respect that you are actually making contributions that are well thought out, as opposed to duffy just trolling this thread.

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by valo403

You're seriously equating the mistreatment of women to the mistreatment of African American men in the context of the justice system? That's laughable. Have you read a thing on the subject?

In 1866, the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution was passed, guaranteeing citizenship to the former slaves and changing them in the eyes of the law from 3/5 of a person to whole persons. Then, in 1869, the 15th Amendment guaranteed the right to vote to black men, with most women of all races still unable to vote.

Ratified on August 18, 1920, the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted American women the right to vote.

Are you kidding me?

That wasn't at all my point, but since you brought it up, I don't know if you are black but you are certainly not female.

That was possibly the most pompous comment I've ever seen so far on these boards- there are plenty of comments about women, but I am fairly certain most are made in jest and I find them funny. Your comment was made out of ignorance.

I don't dwell on this crap or what happens to other people. I try to live my life in the best way, and I try to be an inherently good person. With regards to the case, I don't think it's at all helpful in a society that is teaming with black-on-black violence in large cities, and a never-ending cycle of poverty and single parent (Mother) households, to make comments that are completely unfounded when it comes to black racial stereotypes. It doesn't help, it hurts.

Bringing up slavery is not going to get anyone anywhere- just as bringing up suffrage will not change the fact that a woman's point of view wasn't even considered until the 20th century. It's what we do now and in the future that matters- and yammering and arguing about whether Trayvon Martin was killed because he was black when there is no indication that is the case is pointless.

The bottom line is- you can't change if a person is or is not prejudice or ignorant, but you can change laws. The law doesn't state 'Only stand your ground if the person is black.' It doesn't state that a citizen can only use a handgun if a person is black. It states that there IS a 'stand your ground law' and Americans have the right to own handguns and assault weapons. We need to control the things we can change, and this situation is sad, but it has to do with the bs gun laws in place, not with the colour of either of the victims' skin.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Agreed. I am done with responding to his posts now as well. I don't agree with your position on this, but I respect that you are actually making contributions that are well thought out, as opposed to duffy just trolling this thread.

ha, I aint even trolling. I stand by everything I've said.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

In 1866, the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution was passed, guaranteeing citizenship to the former slaves and changing them in the eyes of the law from 3/5 of a person to whole persons. Then, in 1869, the 15th Amendment guaranteed the right to vote to black men, with most women of all races still unable to vote.

Ratified on August 18, 1920, the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted American women the right to vote.

Are you kidding me?

Men were given the right to vote when they became eligible for conscription. The thought was that if a man could be forced to die for his country, then he should have so say in how it is governed. Women on the other hand have never been subject to the draft. Not trying to say that this is right by any means, but I think some context is in order when talking about oppression.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

In 1866, the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution was passed, guaranteeing citizenship to the former slaves and changing them in the eyes of the law from 3/5 of a person to whole persons. Then, in 1869, the 15th Amendment guaranteed the right to vote to black men, with most women of all races still unable to vote.

Ratified on August 18, 1920, the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted American women the right to vote.

Are you kidding me?

That wasn't at all my point, but since you brought it up, I don't know if you are black but you are certainly not female.

That was possibly the most pompous comment I've ever seen so far on these boards- there are plenty of comments about women, but I am fairly certain most are made in jest and I find them funny. Your comment was made out of ignorance.

I don't dwell on this crap or what happens to other people. I try to live my life in the best way, and I try to be an inherently good person. With regards to the case, I don't think it's at all helpful in a society that is teaming with black-on-black violence in large cities, and a never-ending cycle of poverty and single parent (Mother) households, to make comments that are completely unfounded when it comes to black racial stereotypes. It doesn't help, it hurts.

Bringing up slavery is not going to get anyone anywhere- just as bringing up suffrage will not change the fact that a woman's point of view wasn't even considered until the 20th century. It's what we do now and in the future that matters- and yammering and arguing about whether Trayvon Martin was killed because he was black when there is no indication that is the case is pointless.

The bottom line is- you can't change if a person is or is not prejudice or ignorant, but you can change laws. The law doesn't state 'Only stand your ground if the person is black.' It doesn't state that a citizen can only use a handgun if a person is black. It states that there IS a 'stand your ground law' and Americans have the right to own handguns and assault weapons. We need to control the things we can change, and this situation is sad, but it has to do with the bs gun laws in place, not with the colour of either of the victims' skin.

My comment was made in ignorance? Really? What was so ignorant about it? We are discussing the treatment of certain populations in the criminal justice system, and you're telling me that women are mistreated on the same scale (if not more based on the way you phrased it) as african american males? Do you have a basis for that? There is a massive pile of evidence that minorities have experienced disparate treatment, particularly black males. I don't recall seeing much that indicates women are mistreated outside of not being taken seriously as victims.

Bringing up slavery isn't going to get anyone anywhere? Then why did you bring it up? I certainly didn't. I also didn't say Martin was killed because he was black, and I don't think many others here have. The President also did not say this.

What unfounded comments as to black racial stereotypes were made? Can you point those out?

The bottom line is that race is a real issue and one that needs to be addressed. You seem to think that it should be ignored, or that it doesn't exist (I honestly can't tell). Changing gun laws is great, but why is it an either or?

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by valo403

Do you think Zimmerman does the same thing if he sees a white kid walking through the neighborhood?

I think you are throwing race in the mix.

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by valo403

My comment was made in ignorance? Really? What was so ignorant about it? We are discussing the treatment of certain populations in the criminal justice system, and you're telling me that women are mistreated on the same scale (if not more based on the way you phrased it) as african american males? Do you have a basis for that? There is a massive pile of evidence that minorities have experienced disparate treatment, particularly black males. I don't recall seeing much that indicates women are mistreated outside of not being taken seriously as victims.

Bringing up slavery isn't going to get anyone anywhere? Then why did you bring it up? I certainly didn't. I also didn't say Martin was killed because he was black, and I don't think many others here have. The President also did not say this.

What unfounded comments as to black racial stereotypes were made? Can you point those out?

The bottom line is that race is a real issue and one that needs to be addressed. You seem to think that it should be ignored, or that it doesn't exist (I honestly can't tell). Changing gun laws is great, but why is it an either or?

Last time I checked, there weren't laws about what men can and can't do with their bodies. If you want me to go over how women have been abused and treated, in documented history, I'll do it in another thread. I brought it up because you asked- or did you forget?

It's not an either or- it's an either or in THIS case. This case is not about race. However, there is no changing your mind, because you assume to know what Zimmerman's thought processes were that night, despite all evidence pointing otherwise.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by valo403

Actually, there wasn't. The full investigation took place after attention was paid to the incident and the State stepped in.

And this as well, I could go on and on. You have attempted to claim that racism (by the police and Zimmerman) are parts of this case.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I think you are throwing race in the mix.

Certainly, and I think it's a question that deserves to be asked. I'm not sure of the answer myself, but that doesn't mean the question shouldn't be asked.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

And this as well, I could go on and on. You have attempted to claim that racism (by the police and Zimmerman) are parts of this case.

Nope, sure haven't. The initial investigation was poor, I have no idea whether race played a role in that.

Please, go on.

Btw, still waiting for you to provide evidence to support your factual claims.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

Last time I checked, there weren't laws about what men can and can't do with their bodies. If you want me to go over how women have been abused and treated, in documented history, I'll do it in another thread. I brought it up because you asked- or did you forget?

It's not an either or- it's an either or in THIS case. This case is not about race. However, there is no changing your mind, because you assume to know what Zimmerman's thought processes were that night, despite all evidence pointing otherwise.

Okay, I think you need to take a step back and realize what is being discussed, the treatment of minorities by the criminal justice system. Laws about what genders can or cannot do with their bodies (and yes, there are laws about what men can do as well) are not part of the criminal justice system. Women certainly have been mistreated, and continue to be mistreated, by a variety of mechanisms, but I do not recall a single study that demonstrates that they receive disparate treatment relative to men in regards to the criminal justice system. If you have one please pass it along, it's not something I know of.

And what did I ask about? I sure didn't ask about slavery if that's what you are referring to.

As for your second paragraph, you again need to read what I have said and what I have been discussing. I was not discussing THIS case, I was discussing the role of race in general in the US. As was the President. I also have repeatedly made it quite clear that I do not know what Zimmerman's thought process was, although it's cute that you pretend that there is clear evidence pointing in any direction, when the reality is that there is virtually no evidence beyond the word of the accused, which is hardly a sound basis to come to a definitive conclusion.

[DuffMan]

Interesting

There’s no doubt that the Florida jurors who cleared George Zimmerman of all charges in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin came to the correct decision last week. But sometimes there is a vast difference between justice and what is just.

Under the state’s controversial “Stand Your Ground” law it doesn’t matter that the 17-year-old victim was unarmed, or how—or even why—the fatal confrontation started. The only salient issue was whether his 29-year-old killer, the self-appointed captain of the neighbourhood watch, had a “reasonable belief” that he himself might be killed or suffer “great bodily harm.” In Florida, and the more than 30 other U.S. states that have bowed to pressure from the National Rifle Association and remade the definition of self-defence, it’s now basically shoot first and answer one simple question later: Were you scared?

Putting aside the break-ins at Retreat at Twin Lakes, crime has been falling for years in Florida—just like practically everywhere else in North America. Violent crime in particular, with 67,000 fewer offenses in 2012 than in 1992, despite the state’s population having grown by more than 5.5 million. But that’s not the public perception, either statewide or nationally. Opinion polls consistently show people believe the problem is getting worse with each passing year.

It’s that seemingly unshakable sense of dread that the NRA and its ally, the American Legislative Exchange Council, capitalized on when they picked Florida as the beta test for their bid to expand gun rights via Stand Your Ground. Latching on to the case of James Workman, a 77-year-old pensioner who had spent months in legal limbo after shooting an intruder in his trailer, they managed to engage public sympathy and push the statute through the legislature virtually unopposed.

A recent Tampa Bay Times analysis of more than 130 incidents where the statute was invoked found that a majority of the cases never went to trial. Sometimes it even works after the fact, like the 2010 confrontation in Town N’ Country, a Tampa suburb, where a late-night jogger pulled his gun on a teen who reportedly tried to rob him, and shot him four times in the back as he ran away. No charges were ever filed

.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/07/17/w...lives-in-fear/

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by valo403

Btw, still waiting for you to provide evidence to support your factual claims.

me too,

[valo403]

The fact that there is a Tampa suburb called "Town N' Country" is the most Florida thing I have ever heard.