Dear George Zimmerman

[ReardenSteel]

More irony.

Trayvon never killed anything. George Zimmerman did.

George Zimmerman stopped Trayvon's attempt to kill him.

 

[GoodSpeed]

More irony.

Trayvon never killed anything. George Zimmerman did.

We all know he was trying to kill GZ. That's why GZ was aquitted. If he Trazan wasn't trying to smash his head in, GZ would be in jail.
The justice system worked, so there's not really much to talk about here.

 

[Bedford]

We all know he was trying to kill GZ.

No we don't know this, and neither do you.

 

[ReardenSteel]

No we don't know this, and neither do you.

We don't know what actually happened, but in the absence of any evidence proving his guilt we must assume he is innocent.

 

[GoodSpeed]

We don't know what actually happened, but in the absence of any evidence proving his guilt we must assume he is innocent.

and they (the jury) did assume GZ was innocent, so it turned out at least that part was good.

 

[Swim411]

George Zimmerman stopped Trayvon's attempt to kill him.

Anyone who believes Trayvon Martin was planning to kill George Zimmerman has lost interest in even feigning the appearance of caring about reality.

Simply put, 17-year-old boys don't usually decide to throw their lives away by murdering complete strangers on a very public walkway, for no apparent reason.

It is so fantastically stupid. Yet, you have to give props to Zimmerman for getting so many people to believe something that is stark raving mad.

 

[Swim411]

We don't know what actually happened, but in the absence of any evidence proving his guilt we must assume he is innocent.

There is a bullet hole in a dead kid’s chest, and a smoking gun.

In the real world, that is called, "evidence."

So do you want to amend what you said? Or are you going to stick with "absence of any evidence"?

 

[GoodSpeed]

Look -- I can see there are differing opinions here, but at least it seems everyone can agree that Trayvon was trying to beat GZ to death and that GZ was trying to protect himself. And that's why GZ got off scott free - its not too complicated.

 

[Bedford]

We don't know what actually happened, but in the absence of any evidence proving his guilt we must assume he is innocent.

I don't agree with this. In the absence of any evidence proving his guilt I must assume that we cannot find him guilty.

 

[Bedford]

Look -- I can see there are differing opinions here, but at least it seems everyone can agree that Trayvon was trying to beat GZ to death and that GZ was trying to protect himself. And that's why GZ got off scott free - its not too complicated.

Nobody knows that Martin was trying to kill Zimmerman.

 

[Swim411]

at least it seems everyone can agree that Trayvon was trying to beat GZ to death.

Look, there is no better, or easy way to say this. But if you want to discuss this at length, I have a hard time believing you wouldn't end up agreeing with me. And that is believing Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old boy out for snacks, and talking with his friend on the phone, was LITERALLY trying to kil George Zimmerman, requires suspending rational thought about human nature—basically it requires being floridly racist.

Seventeen-year-old kids don't decide on a whim to murder perfect strangers.

And I highly doubt you could name one time IN HUMAN HISTORY where this happened.

 

[Swim411]

I don't agree with this. In the absence of any evidence proving his guilt I must assume that we cannot find him guilty.

Smoking guns, and bullet holes in dead kids' chests are "evidence."

Why do you say there isn't any?

 

[ReardenSteel]

There is a bullet hole in a dead kid’s chest, and a smoking gun.

In the real world, that is called, "evidence."

So do you want to amend what you said? Or are you going to stick with "absence of any evidence"?

Not according to stand your ground law, and I maintain that it is a good law.

 

[Swim411]

Not according to stand your ground law, and I maintain that it is a good law.

According to any law, a bullet hole in a dead kid and a smoking gun are literally physical evidence of murder.

And to boot, we have evidence of intent to kill from Zimmerman's own mouth.

 

[Bedford]

Smoking guns, and bullet holes in dead kids' chests are "evidence."

Why do you say there isn't any?

I can honestly say, unlike others, that we all know Zimmerman killed Martin. The argument remains was it self defense or intentional.

 

[GoodSpeed]

Look, there is no better, or easy way to say this. But if you want to discuss this at length, I have a hard time believing you wouldn't end up agreeing with me. And that is believing Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old boy out for snacks, and talking with his friend on the phone, was LITERALLY trying to kil George Zimmerman, requires suspending rational thought about human nature—basically it requires being floridly racist.

Seventeen-year-old kids don't decide on a whim to murder perfect strangers.

And I highly doubt you could name one time IN HUMAN HISTORY where this happened.

Teenage boys can be pretty volatile like Trayvon.
I'm more afraid of an angry teenage boy than an adult - that's exactly how Anakin got all crazy and became Darth Vader was about the same age (that's my example) and HE killed many younglings (young kids) like a serial killer.
They get upset w hormones raging and start thumping on someone, and shrieking.

 

[ReardenSteel]

According to any law, a bullet hole in a dead kid and a smoking gun are literally physical evidence of murder.

And to boot, we have evidence of intent to kill from Zimmerman's own mouth.

Stand your ground law gives immunity in self defense shootings. So it is not murder as defined by the law.

 

[ReardenSteel]

I can honestly say, unlike others, that we all know Zimmerman killed Martin. The argument remains was it self defense or intentional.

I would agree with that. However, killing in self defense is not murder according to the law.

 

[wintermile]

You forget one simple thing, when claiming racial bias, one must, in fact, be racist.

This never happened, and GZ never portrayed a racial bone in all of his life. What was racist was the racist instigators portraying GZ as a "white hispanic" and insisting racism is the heart of the matter. What the heck is a "white hispanic"? George Zimmerman was just as much a member of a minority group as Trayvon.

This is just absolutely amazing. That the judge did not want the prosecution to whip the jury into a frenzy like the media was doing with the public is now considered a hindrance? Why? Because justice could only have been served by mob mentality? IF George Zimmerman had committed a crime, the facts would have been there to speak to it. They weren't, so he was acquitted.

I'm sure there are real racist crimes being committed out there. If you think that the issue really deserves this amount of attention (and it does deserve attention), go pick a real case. Don't manufacture one out of thin air (like Al Sharpton did) and don't try to turn one that isn't racist into one that is. It just won't stand up under the light of day.

Zimmerman does not need helpmates to go the hyperbolic mile for him.

If a federal case is put forth, witness #22 made statements regarding Zimmerman's behavior. Zimmerman is not innocent of racial jeering and harassment, which he directed at witness #22.

I linked to racial profiling occurrences in this thread. Some individuals are taking their cases to court. What their cases have in common with the Martin-Zimmerman case is implicit and explicit biases.

Neither Zimmerman's family line nor his good intentions toward minorities excuses him of any racial targeting or racially expressed views of minorities.

For the matter, Zimmerman can take the implicit bias test and then go to de-bias school.

Correll was firm to state any implicit or explicit bias that took place, or not, between Martin and Zimmerman is unknown. Correll adds, "However, it’s also true that we have lots of evidence that people tend to associate African Americans with threats, and that is particularly true for young male African Americans. That’s a pretty widespread stereotype, that colors a lot of judgments.”

Inzlicht contributes to the article in the bolded portion of the quote: "Implicit bias is certainly not the only possible reason why Zimmerman was interested in Martin. Explicit bias, says Michael Inzlicht, associate professor of social psychology at the University of Toronto, reflects “a fully conscious belief that there is an association, in this example, between black young men, violence, and guns: ‘I think it makes sense for me to think these people are especially likely to be dangerous.’” Even without explicit bias, implicit bias can play a role, Inzlicht says, “and when you see a young black male with a hoodie, that association bubbles to surface.”

I do not encourage helpmates for Zimmerman to focus on the victim's (Martin's) fictional wanted image and ignore the bad news about Zimmerman by remaining ever inclined to dismiss his negligent and prejudicial behavior.

Martin supporters have a more judicious approach. An all-out influence is recognized when the turbidness of implicit and explicit biases are monitored.

End the implicit and explicit biases---as quoted from Correll and Inzlicht--- that young black males are threats. This is the key message communicated by those I have been studying that you ignore.

Racial profiling | The Why Files​

 

[ReardenSteel]

Zimmerman does not need helpmates to go the hyperbolic mile for him.

If a federal case is put forth, witness #22 made statements regarding Zimmerman's behavior. Zimmerman is not innocent of racial jeering and harassment, which he directed at witness #22.

I linked to racial profiling occurrences in this thread. Some individuals are taking their cases to court. What their cases have in common with the Martin-Zimmerman case is implicit and explicit biases.

Neither Zimmerman's family line nor his good intentions toward minorities excuses him of any racial targeting or racially expressed views of minorities.

For the matter, Zimmerman can take the implicit bias test and then go to de-bias school.

Correll was firm to state any implicit or explicit bias that took place, or not, between Martin and Zimmerman is unknown. Correll adds, "However, it’s also true that we have lots of evidence that people tend to associate African Americans with threats, and that is particularly true for young male African Americans. That’s a pretty widespread stereotype, that colors a lot of judgments.”

Inzlicht contributes to the article in the bolded portion of the quote: "Implicit bias is certainly not the only possible reason why Zimmerman was interested in Martin. Explicit bias, says Michael Inzlicht, associate professor of social psychology at the University of Toronto, reflects “a fully conscious belief that there is an association, in this example, between black young men, violence, and guns: ‘I think it makes sense for me to think these people are especially likely to be dangerous.’” Even without explicit bias, implicit bias can play a role, Inzlicht says, “and when you see a young black male with a hoodie, that association bubbles to surface.”

I do not encourage helpmates for Zimmerman to focus on the victim's (Martin's) fictional wanted image and ignore the bad news about Zimmerman by remaining ever inclined to dismiss his negligent and prejudicial behavior.

Martin supporters have a more judicious approach. An all-out influence is recognized when the turbidness of implicit and explicit biases are monitored.

End the implicit and explicit biases---as quoted from Correll and Inzlicht--- that young black males are threats. This is the key message communicated by those I have been studying that you ignore.

Racial profiling | The Why Files​

What is wrong with that? There is in fact a correlation. Anyone with an elementary understanding of statistics can see that. Of course it's racist if you bring up statistics about race and violence.