The Zimmerman Trial
- Thread starter angelatc
- Start date
BlackTerrel
Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2008
- Messages
- 10,464
No I don't. You don't know me at all. I'd align far more with liberals than the conservative status quo on most issues to be honest.
Outside of abortion and gun rights I don't agree with "conservatives" on almost any issue.
BlackTerrel
Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2008
- Messages
- 10,464
I live in probably the most liberal city in the US - no one's going to riot (not on any serious scale). Stop living in fear.
kcchiefs6465
Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 15,193
Well truth be told, there are reasons aside TM verdict riots occurring.
Born and raised in the city and I for one can't wait to move to the country.
A comparison Pete said that I liked was "too many rats in one cage."
The dollar is not sustainable in the long run. After our military adventurism and artificially propping up the dollar is exhausted times will be bad. Wait until people go hungry for a few days. At least in the country you could hunt and forage for food. It will get bad.
That being said there aren't going to be any big riots over this verdict. A couple of kids breaking windows or attacking random people. One off random crimes and that will be about all. Watch and wait though, the police will come out by the hundreds to control the demonstration. They very well may beat a few people causing a generally calm but angry demonstration to turn into looting and chaos. Mark my words. And then if they happen to beat a protester to death, or into a coma, or hit a woman or child people will really be pissed. (rightfully so) I could see a protest escalating depending on how the police treat the situation. Might give them a chance to try out the new APC.
Last edited:
BlackTerrel
Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2008
- Messages
- 10,464
I doubt it.
I have a buddy from Lebanon. Lebanon is about 1,000 times poorer than the US and has had all kinds of civil war and occupation and foreign invasion. My buddy is 30 years old and he never starved to death - he lived through it - and he was poorer than average in Lebanon. Unlikely that San Francisco sees anything worse in the next 30 years than Lebanon has seen in the last 30.
We're smart capable people and whatever happens we'll deal with it. I'm not going to live in fear every day of some Alex Jones style apocalypse.
Could something happen? Sure. For all I know I get hit by a car tomorrow or a meteor hits the earth and we all die. But I'm not going to sit here in fear or spread panic over the internet. Life is short.
Keith and stuff
Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2009
- Messages
- 10,554
You live in Cambridge? Amherst? Burlington? Where in New England do you live? Let's hang out sometime!
When the petrodollar collapses it will get 1,000 times worse here too.
BlackTerrel
Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2008
- Messages
- 10,464
San Francisco.
kcchiefs6465
Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 15,193
As an aside, I feel dismissed when you label it an "Alex Jones style apocalypse." Have you seen Dr. Paul's greatest speech in my opinion, "The End of Dollar Hegemony"?
I am not worried about anything. I have no fears, per se. That is not to say this system can continue forever. If it could, nobody would have to work another day. Let's all just stay home and have the government print money as needed. It is foolish to think that. People live beyond their means and eventually will have to live beneath their means. People in some parts of Africa for instance, are used to low caloric diets and going without. They go hungry and sometimes even starve to death. People here would not go hungry for two or three days without resorting to looting and robbing.
Simply stating that is not fearmongering or living in fear. If you haven't seen Ron Paul's speech check it out. I can link it if you can't find it. Using rationale and reason to diagnose the problem and offer solutions. Nothing to do with Alex Jones. I don't listen to the show much myself. Maybe once or twice a year if Ron Paul is being interviewed and that's about it. I heard him on Howard Stern's show (though I don't listen to that either) and was actually very impressed. I looked up all of what he was saying and corroborated it independently.
Ender
Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 12,527
One of the best articles I have read on the case:
The Zimmerman Trial, Day Ten: Stand Whose Ground?
Posted by Jelani Cobb
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/07/trayvon-martin-zimmerman-trial-day-ten.html - livefyre
By the time Tracy Martin, Trayvon Martin’s father, arrived on the stand on day ten of the George Zimmerman trial, he had already been cast in unanticipated roles—grieving father, reluctant agitator, courtroom stoic—though none of that dimmed the discomfort of his latest turn: witness for the defense. His appearance proved to be the sharpest twist on Monday, a day that had already seen a witness compare the screams from Zimmerman’s fight with Trayvon with those of American soldiers during the Tet Offensive, and a live-action mixed-martial-arts tutorial featuring the lead defense counsel. It takes a certain kind of nerve to summon the father of the deceased as part of an effort to exonerate the man who killed him; it requires something greater than poise to endure being summoned. Toward the end of the cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Martin why he’d repeatedly listened to a 911 call in which the gunshot that killed Trayvon could be heard. His reply was jarring: “I was trying to understand why he got out of his car and chased my son.”
It’s doubtful that he was completely without answers. The knowledge that you can inspire fear in the most inadvertent of ways, that there is a protean set of descriptions that you always fit, is axiomatic of the black male experience in this country. This is knowledge fathers pass to sons just as sure as explaining how to tie a Windsor knot. The more salient question, the one that forms part of the core of this case—though it is unlikely to be posed, and certain not to be resolved in the Seminole County courthouse—is this: Is it ever possible for a white person to be suspicious?
There’s already been any number of indelible moments in this central Florida courtroom. Last week featured a scene out of King Solomon’s court, in which both the mother of the deceased and the mother of the defendant claimed it was her son’s voice screaming for help just before the shot punctuates the 911 call. A procession of witnesses testified about seeing one man atop another and striking him, though they couldn’t agree on the attacker. Their visual vagueness was matched by another theme—the common, enduring horror at realizing there was a man lying dead in the grass. Yet more than the conflicting testimony over who screamed for help, more than the question of which man was on top, this case is about a defendant’s presumed innocence and a dead man’s presumed guilt.
While speculation about the trial has centered on whether or not Zimmerman will take the stand, Trayvon Martin, in a real sense, already has. In a creeping set of rulings, Judge Debra Nelson decided to allow discussion of the traces of marijuana that were found in Martin’s system during his autopsy. The contours of the defense, like a great deal of the discussion of this case, are shot through with an antiquated brand of rape-think. What was he wearing? Was he high or drunk? Why was he out at night? Beneath these questions is a calcified skepticism toward Martin’s innocence that all but blurts out “He was asking for it.”
Amid their frustratingly uneven presentation, Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda and the rest of the prosecution have pegged their second-degree murder charges largely on the idea that Martin was losing the fight on February 26th of last year, that he shouted for help, and that Zimmerman, a vigilante would-be cop, shot and killed him anyway. In plotting their route to conviction, they necessarily bypass another set of questions. What if he wasn’t losing the fight? What if Zimmerman is the one who called for help? What if Martin did swing first? And, most crucially, is an unarmed black teen-ager ever entitled to stand his ground?
The answers to these questions have bearing that is more social than legal, but they’re inescapable in understanding how we got here in the first place and what this trial ultimately means. George Zimmerman got out of his car that night as an amateur deputy and protector of the Retreat at Twin Lakes gated community. Trayvon Martin was a visitor to that community. Nowhere in Zimmerman’s initial emergency call does he broach the idea that Martin might belong there, that he might actually be someone who warranted protection, too. Instead, there is the snap judgment that the teen-ager is one of the “fucking punks” who “always get away”—a judgment that Zimmerman’s supporters and the Sanford Police Department either co-signed or deemed reasonable enough to absolve him of responsibility for what ensued.
What remains frustratingly marginal in this discussion is the point Martin’s friend Rachel Jeantel raised in her testimony—that Martin himself was afraid, that a black person might assess a man following him in a car and on foot as a threat, never mind that he might have seen Zimmerman’s weapon and suspected his life was in danger. The defense paid a great deal of attention to the implications of Martin referring to Zimmerman as a “creepy-ass cracker,” but, to the extent that we think about the epithet, we’re concerned with the wrong C-word. Imagine George Zimmerman being followed at night, in the rain, by an armed, unknown black man and you have an encounter that far exceeds the minimal definition of “creepy.” Indeed, you have a circumstance in which anyone would reasonably fear for his life. Add a twist in which that black man fires a shot that ends a person’s life, and it’s hard to imagine him going home after a brief police interview, as Zimmerman did.
De la Rionda’s team is charged with prosecuting a crime, not a set of social attitudes that facilitate it. But whatever its legal merits, the prosecution’s approach has left intact the suspicion that Florida’s proactive self-defense laws are color-coded, intended for people in fearsome encounters with blacks, not blacks in fearsome encounters.
The Zimmerman Trial, Day Ten: Stand Whose Ground?
Posted by Jelani Cobb
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/07/trayvon-martin-zimmerman-trial-day-ten.html - livefyre
By the time Tracy Martin, Trayvon Martin’s father, arrived on the stand on day ten of the George Zimmerman trial, he had already been cast in unanticipated roles—grieving father, reluctant agitator, courtroom stoic—though none of that dimmed the discomfort of his latest turn: witness for the defense. His appearance proved to be the sharpest twist on Monday, a day that had already seen a witness compare the screams from Zimmerman’s fight with Trayvon with those of American soldiers during the Tet Offensive, and a live-action mixed-martial-arts tutorial featuring the lead defense counsel. It takes a certain kind of nerve to summon the father of the deceased as part of an effort to exonerate the man who killed him; it requires something greater than poise to endure being summoned. Toward the end of the cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Martin why he’d repeatedly listened to a 911 call in which the gunshot that killed Trayvon could be heard. His reply was jarring: “I was trying to understand why he got out of his car and chased my son.”
It’s doubtful that he was completely without answers. The knowledge that you can inspire fear in the most inadvertent of ways, that there is a protean set of descriptions that you always fit, is axiomatic of the black male experience in this country. This is knowledge fathers pass to sons just as sure as explaining how to tie a Windsor knot. The more salient question, the one that forms part of the core of this case—though it is unlikely to be posed, and certain not to be resolved in the Seminole County courthouse—is this: Is it ever possible for a white person to be suspicious?
There’s already been any number of indelible moments in this central Florida courtroom. Last week featured a scene out of King Solomon’s court, in which both the mother of the deceased and the mother of the defendant claimed it was her son’s voice screaming for help just before the shot punctuates the 911 call. A procession of witnesses testified about seeing one man atop another and striking him, though they couldn’t agree on the attacker. Their visual vagueness was matched by another theme—the common, enduring horror at realizing there was a man lying dead in the grass. Yet more than the conflicting testimony over who screamed for help, more than the question of which man was on top, this case is about a defendant’s presumed innocence and a dead man’s presumed guilt.
While speculation about the trial has centered on whether or not Zimmerman will take the stand, Trayvon Martin, in a real sense, already has. In a creeping set of rulings, Judge Debra Nelson decided to allow discussion of the traces of marijuana that were found in Martin’s system during his autopsy. The contours of the defense, like a great deal of the discussion of this case, are shot through with an antiquated brand of rape-think. What was he wearing? Was he high or drunk? Why was he out at night? Beneath these questions is a calcified skepticism toward Martin’s innocence that all but blurts out “He was asking for it.”
Amid their frustratingly uneven presentation, Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda and the rest of the prosecution have pegged their second-degree murder charges largely on the idea that Martin was losing the fight on February 26th of last year, that he shouted for help, and that Zimmerman, a vigilante would-be cop, shot and killed him anyway. In plotting their route to conviction, they necessarily bypass another set of questions. What if he wasn’t losing the fight? What if Zimmerman is the one who called for help? What if Martin did swing first? And, most crucially, is an unarmed black teen-ager ever entitled to stand his ground?
The answers to these questions have bearing that is more social than legal, but they’re inescapable in understanding how we got here in the first place and what this trial ultimately means. George Zimmerman got out of his car that night as an amateur deputy and protector of the Retreat at Twin Lakes gated community. Trayvon Martin was a visitor to that community. Nowhere in Zimmerman’s initial emergency call does he broach the idea that Martin might belong there, that he might actually be someone who warranted protection, too. Instead, there is the snap judgment that the teen-ager is one of the “fucking punks” who “always get away”—a judgment that Zimmerman’s supporters and the Sanford Police Department either co-signed or deemed reasonable enough to absolve him of responsibility for what ensued.
What remains frustratingly marginal in this discussion is the point Martin’s friend Rachel Jeantel raised in her testimony—that Martin himself was afraid, that a black person might assess a man following him in a car and on foot as a threat, never mind that he might have seen Zimmerman’s weapon and suspected his life was in danger. The defense paid a great deal of attention to the implications of Martin referring to Zimmerman as a “creepy-ass cracker,” but, to the extent that we think about the epithet, we’re concerned with the wrong C-word. Imagine George Zimmerman being followed at night, in the rain, by an armed, unknown black man and you have an encounter that far exceeds the minimal definition of “creepy.” Indeed, you have a circumstance in which anyone would reasonably fear for his life. Add a twist in which that black man fires a shot that ends a person’s life, and it’s hard to imagine him going home after a brief police interview, as Zimmerman did.
De la Rionda’s team is charged with prosecuting a crime, not a set of social attitudes that facilitate it. But whatever its legal merits, the prosecution’s approach has left intact the suspicion that Florida’s proactive self-defense laws are color-coded, intended for people in fearsome encounters with blacks, not blacks in fearsome encounters.
Last edited:
BlackTerrel
Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2008
- Messages
- 10,464
We're not going to go hungry. We have more food than we need. Does Dr. Paul think the US in the future is likely to be worse than what Lebanon has been for the past 30 years? A tiny isolated country that was savaged by civil war, occupation, terrorism, etc.... still most people didn't starve. We're going to be worse off than them?
Shit will get worse and shit will get better over the next 60 years I plan on living. Whatever happens we'll deal with it.
kcchiefs6465
Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 15,193
Confidence in the dollar will wean as people become more and more convinced that there is no meaning behind the currency. After our country's
Worse than Lebanon in what way? (not that I'm an expert of Lebanese lifestyles)
Did you watch the speech?
And for the record I am not saying this will be the end all of this country. It will lead to propagandized "news" supporting efforts for a one world currency. People will gladly accept it given the circumstances.
HigherVision
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2012
- Messages
- 841
Yes me complaining about people who are black looting, burning and killing people en mass in Los Angeles is worse than them actually doing it. The dominant strain of logic in society is that a white life is worse less than black life because if you complain about a black person hurting or killing a white person too adamantly it's racist, so you just kind of have to take it. Well I am fucking sick of that. It's you who are side of the oppressor. When someone initiates violence against another person it is that person who is the other person's oppressor. Statistically blacks do this more frequently than white people. Maybe if the laws and the popular beliefs in society were that it's actually wrong and not justified by old stuff like slavery this wouldn't be the case. Politically black people are a privileged class in this country today. And I'm going to speak out against it until we all have equal rights, until a black person assaulting a white person is considered just as much a 'hate crime' as vice versa in the eyes of the law. Because this is bullshit and it's gone on too long.
Example of what I'm talking about:
Last edited:
ObiRandKenobi
Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,035
The judge lady is obnoxious.
Dr.3D
Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 30,313
It she that fat one that looks like a pig?
The Free Hornet
Member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,743
If that's among the best, then you have 100% assured me that Zimmerman ought to be acquitted.
Added: I should add that "stand your ground" isn't in play so an article titled "stand whose ground" on July 9th could only be aimed at ignorant mofos. And I don't deny the core premise of the article that black men ought to be suspicious of white (or "half-hispanic" - thanks MSM! always adding to the language lol) men. The prison stats justify that fear. However, that justified fear doesn't prove Zimmerman guilty of anything. It would seem, TM was right to fear GZ and GZ was right to fear TM.
Last edited:
Similar threads
