trayvan martin
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i would say that does not change a goddamn thing about your convoluted series of dog whistles, euphemisms, and attempts to play dumb.
but i would say your unprompted need to announce such makes you seem pretty damn defensive.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
when was martin charged and found guilty of the crime of battery?
I agree, I think life is the best intelligence test. There are successful people of all races, and failures of all races. If you want to call about 3 months a long history, then that is fine. I had a two year run on addiction, its a "progressive disease." That means it gets worse. All of these things you mention didn't happen until nearly the very end. They served me as a wake-up call and helped me end my denial that I indeed had a problem.
You love that word debunked, yet you never debunk anything, and when you attempt it, all I have seen from you is failure.
As I said, I think life is the best indicator of intelligence. I've done some fucked up shit, and despite this, I've managed to do fairly well for myself. If most people of a certain group fail, then that group is more prone to fail.
White people have oppressed every other group on this planet for the last few hundred years, prior to that whites were being oppressed by those from central Asia.
World history is not much more than a story of which group was fucking with what other group at a given time. And in that time, all but one has had it's day in the Sun. All but one has failed to recover and do pretty darn well since white people cut way back on that shit in the last hundred years.
Life is an intelligence test, and while individuals prosper, groups fail. And one group will always fail....Always. This will still be going on 10,000 years from now. Sadly, I wont be around to point that out to you.
When his victim was found to have acted in self defense and found not guilty of murdering him....on the basis of self defense.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
that has everything to do with your support system rather than your intelligence. and no one i know would say that working at subway as a 30 year old is doing fairly well in life. if you came from a poor family, or were black, or both, you'd be in prison.
All I have in bold above is not applicable of me. Thanks for playing, next time use facts.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
no jury ever said zimmerman acted in self defense. they ruled that there existed the possibility, however narrow, that he might have acted in self defense.
florida's stand your ground allows you to kill someone without a scratch on your finger, you just have to fear for your life. martin was followed by an unidentified stranger in the dark for no reason and ran away, then the stranger chased after him. he could have killed zimmerman and have been protected by stand your ground as long as he feared for his life.
anyone with a self preservation instinct is gonna fear for their life if some stranger follows you in his truck, then gets out, then chases you after you run away and then goes looking for you with a gun.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so you're saying that you considered working at subway as a 30 year old because your wealthy white family bailed your ass out (even after you stole from them) is a case of doing fairly well in life?
As I recall, Zimmerman did not enact the defense of stand your ground.
He didn't have a scratch on his finger, but gashes on his head. Casper the Ghost didn't do it, Martin did.
If I were walking through someone else's neighborhood, and I were confronted about my trespassing there, I would act with contrition, not a violent attack.
Martin was physically imposing, but still young and immature, and for that he died. If he had been a mature adult, he would have responded differently to Zimmerman's challenge. Zimmerman had every right to challenge him. Perhaps you, or even most people wouldn't have. But we are allowed to ask someone what they are doing. That person is not allowed to attack us for doing so. But when they do, we're allowed to shoot them for it.
Zimmerman didn't argue stand your ground, just the garden variety self defense.
Once again, you're making up shit as you go without regard to fact, but in an effort to make Zimmerman look bad.
No one gives you a good job if you haven't had any job for close to a year. I did work at Subway for some months, after I proved to the right person I could show up everyday, act like I cared a little, not curse out the customers, and not steal from the business, I got a better job.
I guess I could have held on to my pride and rode on the coattails of my rich family like you do. But I don't get down like that. I'd rater take just about any job as have no job.
The beauty of it is when you take a job with an attitude better than minimum wage = minimum effort, you actually don't make minimum wage for long.
I'll probably make more money than you this year, without breaking one single law.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
as i recall, i never said he did. i said martin was entitled to that defense, as any sane and rational person would fear for their life if some unidentified stranger got out of his truck to chase you after you ran away.
a gash is quite a characterization of a laceration of about 1 cm and 3 cm.
what don't you get about the fact that martin was in a common area where he was residing and entitled to be there?
there was no trespassing involved, you racist POS.
for what?
martin had more right to challenge zimmerman, as martin was not the one in the dark who followed someone without identifying himself and chasing that person after they ran away.
zimmerman didn't do that though. he never even identified himself or mentioned that he was part of a neighborhood watch.
you are allowed to attack someone if you fear for your life though, and anyone would be in that kind of fear if an unidentified stranger followed them in the dark and chased them towards their residence.
once again, i never said zimmerman argued SYG. you're making up shit as you go without regard to fact because you can't rebut anything i am actually saying. that's about the extent of your mental capabilities.
you can not tell me that if you personally were walking home from the store to your own residence, and some unidentified stranger followed you in their truck for a while, and then got out of their truck with a gun to chase you as you ran, that you would run straight to your residence and show them where you live, especially if you were an unarmed minor. and you can not tell me that you would not be entitled to fear for your life if a stranger followed you and chased you like that.
if you argue otherwise, i'd love to get your address and send some people to follow you around. we'll see if you still sing the same tune.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
another lengthy explanation from you about how your life plan worked out to perfection, and you ended up working at subway as a 30 year old thanks to your wealthy white family being there to catch you even after you stole from them.
that is quite the success story you have.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
good use of ellipsis.
In the battle of who can just post the most nonsense, I give the victory to you. With this and a dollar you can almost buy a soda.
Yes, Martin might have been able to use stand your ground, except for he, according to what the jury determined to be the facts, threw the first punch. You cannot instigate a confrontation and use SYG.
Asking someone a question is not instigation, it is conversation. There is absolutely no evidence what so ever that Zimmerman was aggressive physically in any aspect.
They were in a subdivision like community, the Martin family did not live in this subdivision. They lived on down the road. It was a common area, and likely a public street, so Martin had a right to be there, but no business being there. The two are not the same.
As per racial profiling, the car full of young poor black men driving through a white subdivision have a right to drive down a public road, but no business there. So they get pulled over. Same concept. Zimmerman likely did not recognize Martin, and he likely knew most of his neighbors. Failure to recognize is tantamount to realizing he was from outside the neighborhood. So as a neighborhood watch, the logical question is "hey, what are you doing here?"
Now, Martin was not obliged to answer. But he was also not authorized to physically attack Zimmerman, which is what a jury said he did. This is a legal fact. Twelve rational people viewed the evidence and came to this conclusion. You aren't rational, and I'm probably not either. Our opinion on this is irrelevant, their opinion is all that matters.
MARTIN STARTED HITTING ZIMMERMAN, so he got shot.
How big does the open wound from being slammed on a curb need to be on your head before you would call it a gash? Does a broken nose move the needle any?
Why don't you care that so many black babies are aborted?
I love your description.... Followed in a truck, got out with a gun.
Yes, Z had a gun, but it was likely hidden.
And many times someone has asked me a question out of the blue, and I answered them. It is what civilized people do, as opposed to over evolved homo erecti.
Yes, Martin might have been able to use stand your ground, except for he, according to what the jury determined to be the facts, threw the first punch. You cannot instigate a confrontation and use SYG.
Asking someone a question is not instigation, it is conversation. There is absolutely no evidence what so ever that Zimmerman was aggressive physically in any aspect.
They were in a subdivision like community, the Martin family did not live in this subdivision. They lived on down the road. It was a common area, and likely a public street, so Martin had a right to be there, but no business being there. The two are not the same.
As per racial profiling, the car full of young poor black men driving through a white subdivision have a right to drive down a public road, but no business there. So they get pulled over. Same concept. Zimmerman likely did not recognize Martin, and he likely knew most of his neighbors. Failure to recognize is tantamount to realizing he was from outside the neighborhood. So as a neighborhood watch, the logical question is "hey, what are you doing here?"
Now, Martin was not obliged to answer. But he was also not authorized to physically attack Zimmerman, which is what a jury said he did. This is a legal fact. Twelve rational people viewed the evidence and came to this conclusion. You aren't rational, and I'm probably not either. Our opinion on this is irrelevant, their opinion is all that matters.
MARTIN STARTED HITTING ZIMMERMAN, so he got shot.
How big does the open wound from being slammed on a curb need to be on your head before you would call it a gash? Does a broken nose move the needle any?
Why don't you care that so many black babies are aborted?
I love your description.... Followed in a truck, got out with a gun.
Yes, Z had a gun, but it was likely hidden.
And many times someone has asked me a question out of the blue, and I answered them. It is what civilized people do, as opposed to over evolved homo erecti.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
they were in the retreat at twin lakes, where both were residing, and martin was running towards his house when zimmerman started chasing him. they were much closer to martin's house than zimmerman's.
thanks for demonstrating that you are shit for brains clueless and uninformed here.
jesus christ you are racist.
not true at all, another example of you showing off how uninformed you are.
there was a complaint about zimmerman following another resident to his home at a neighborhood watch meeting.
you shouldn't open your mouth and keep removing all doubt. you are clearly not familiar with the facts of the case at all.
actually only six did, and three initially wanted manslaughter or worse. another example of you opening your mouth and removing all doubt. three times in one post so far.
you just admitted that martin was entitled to stand his ground and shoot the unidentified stranger who was following and then chasing him, so not sure why you put a lesser thing in all caps.
now if only zimmerman had asked him a question out of the blue, instead of following and chasing without identifying himself even as a part of the neighborhood watch (note that word: watch).
funny that the guy who was ready to stab an innocent guy who had not attacked him with a knife for his dope is talking about what civilized people do.
Let's get one thing clear. You're arguing that Martin did nothing wrong, and Zimmerman did all the wrong.
I'm saying that both of them were within their rights. With the exception of Martins decision to turn and initiated violence.
There was no evidence of Zimmerman doing anything violent, or indicative immediate violence.
Martin did. He got shot. He threw the first punch, unprovoked.
It is within your rights to follow someone down the street and ask them what they are up to. It just is. That is all Zimmerman did prior to being attacked.
As per the jurors, it doesn't matter that some of them wanted to convict Zimmerman of something the prosecution didn't give them the option of.
It takes 12 people agreeing on something for a verdict. At the end of the day that was not guilty.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
let's get one thing clear: you don't get to change and redefine my argument.
i am arguing that zimmerman's actions gave martin every right to fear for his life. i am also correcting your geographical misconceptions about the retreat at twin lakes, as well as spoonfeeding you basic facts about the case and the incidents prior to it.
you just admitted a post ago that martin was entitled to stand his ground and kill zimmerman for following him in the dark unidentified, then chasing him after he ran towards his home. is shooting someone in the face in self defense not initiating violence, unfrozen caveman lawyer?
you just said that there was enough provocation for lethal force, and you have no proof who threw the first punch or who tried to detain who. no one does, save the liar zimmerman and the deceased victim.
you have no evidence or proof that zimmerman was attacked rather than the one who did the attacking.
and there is a big difference between following someone down the street and asking them a question, and following them down the street in their truck, then getting out of their truck to give chase after the person they are following runs away.
if you actually had a case, you wouldn't need to be dishonest about it.