RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events 17 year old Trayvon Martin shot by Neighborhood watch guy Zimmerman

Wasn't it just it just one small abrasion on his ring finger? So instead of "knuckles" it's actually "knuckle".

A little racism for Pro...



More evil white racism.
Oh wait! No whites involved. But it does give example to the underlying tensions between blacks and hispanics.

Just demonstrating that it could have been Martin's racism toward Zimmerman that caused him to initiate the attack, and his face pounding of Zimmerman only ended when he got surprised by a bullet to his chest.

Haha! I don't know, you tell me since you're the one trying to school me on it.

I'm not even gonna bother Google diving for a source on that since it doesn't actually change the reality of the injuries--just like how stressing the word "minor" doesn't change the reality of two black eyes, a broken nose, multiple cuts to the back of the head, and blunt trauma to the cranium.

Seriously though, you're pretty funny: you actually think mincing words rearranges reality to your whim. It takes someone with a real knack for mental gymnastics to be so hyperbolic.

And more directly tied to the Trayvon Martin case:



Clearly racially motivated black violence toward two whites. Liberal reporters no less, and still the media doesn't want to report it.

According to Pro Hispanics are white.

I think this had little or nothing to do with race or politics, but everything about George Zimmerman being an asshole.

Racism is nothing new, it's been going on since there were humans.

I believe the fearing what is different was/is built into the human mind for survival during it's infancy.

To survive as a caveperson, especially a pre-fire caveperson anything that wasn't you/your tribe/whatever was competition for resources.

It's something that is now in the human mind that isn't really needed anymore. Like your appendix.

Problem is in the history of Earth humankind has only been around a very short time.

It's something that we will probably evolve out of as time goes on.

Until then you have to use you intellect and reason to rise above those ancient human instincts.

Or, I could be completely full of shit.

Very possible. Zimmerman strikes me as overzealous. In which case, if he were a less severe individual, this never would have happened. Then again, the same could be said about Martin.

Personally, the reason I'm not so harsh towards Zimmerman's character is because there was cause to be cautious of burglaries. That wasn't a fabrication on his part. And if you live in the area and are also charged with keeping an eye on the goings on within it, then you're going to want the most ideal place to observe so that you can report. The problem is he overdid it--a common mistake for everyone really.

I'm well aware that his grave misjudgements are at the primary cause of this case, but I honestly don't think other people in his situation would have done much differently--including us.

Now I do not necessarily disagree with preemptive strikes against would be attackers, but if Zimmerman didn't actually make any movements to attack or threaten Martin beyond being on his tail, then Martin's reaction was completely unwarranted, and not even his death--or the hype surrounding it--will negate that.

I respectfully disagree.

Not just in the United States, but throughout the world, ethnocentrism and ethnonationalism is on the increase. Blacks and hispanics in the U.S. see the decline in whites as a percentage of the population (down from 89% in 1965, to about 72% now, and decreasing 1 or 2% every 4 years, mostly due to massive waves of immigration from the third world), as their numbers are rising, particularly hispanics. That is the reason Democrats are pushing race and class divisions, to try and rally support based in whipped-up fear, hatred and scapegoatism against a decreasing white population, and Democrats paint themselves as protectors of minorities against the phantom of decades-old past white racism, against Republicans they slanderously label as the white racist party.

So much for the utopian delusion of a truly equal post-racial multi-ethnic society. As is, I guess, human nature, when other black or hispanic groups become the majority, they will exert power and discrimination over the white minority.
You see the beginnings of that in Obama's rhetoric that he --in kneejerk impulse-- blames police when a black college professor behaves badly, and in particular in Eric Holder's justice department, that absolutely refuses to prosecute minority-on-white discrimination and threats of violence toward whites. Only minorities are given protection under the law. This is the shape of things to come under the new Democrat power structure.



You see the same rising ethnocentrism/ethnonationalism around the world. In Ecuador, in Venezuela, in Brazil, all the non-european candidates fan the flames of hatred and envy of ethnic hispanics toward european hispanics, a mentality of taking back the country from European oppressors, fanning the flames of race and class envy. Identical to the Obama political model.

And throughout the world, ethnocentric separatism is on the rise:
French Quebec that constantly weighs breaking off from english Canada. Ironically, it is only large waves of new immigrants to Quebec that has prevented French Quebec from having the votes to secede.

Likewise, Scotland is contemplating breaking off from the United Kingdom. And there is definitely racial hatred among Scots for the historic conflict and wrongs of the English toward them.

Likewise Belgium is on the edge of splitting into two states, one French-speaking, one Flemish-speaking.
Likewise the more friendly separation of Czech Republic from Slovakia. A greater sense of ethnocentric nationalism made this necessary.
Likewise the sometimes violent push for separation of Barcelona from Spain.
The separation of Kosovo from Serbia.

And these are all places that are peaceful and prosperous, many where they have a large degree of shared culture along with their prosperity.

Then you get into the more violent ethnonationalism in places like Bosnia, Croatia, and the Caucuses.

And in mixed christian/muslim African countries like Sudan and Kenya.

I could go on with multiple examples of separation and conflict in the Middle East and Asia as well.

But my point is, it is only white western democracies who delude themselves that race no longer matters. And they are for their benevolent attitude even more hated and threatened by violence from minorities. Who are being whipped into a frenzy of anti-white hatred by minority leaders and academics, and by white liberals who will eventually find themselves swept aside when minorities no longer need them.

Up till around 10 years ago, I bought the benign delusion that we were moving toward a truly equal and harmonious multi-racial society. I envisioned a future being somewhat like Star Trek.

But I've seen minority rhetoric become increasingly resentful, and instead of continued pushes for true equality, minority rhetoric has increasingly called for reparations, payback, seizure, redistribution, and threats of violence. the lack of punishment for these threats inevitably will embolden actual violence that goes beyond mere rhetoric.

Exactly.

It's not that Zimmerman was this stellar guy who is free of any blame with a flawless personal history. Zimmerman clearly is not.
But there were burglaries in Zimmerman's neighborhood, and he was on neighborhood watch for his community, with several years experience. And he did plan to be a police officer, and had that experience as well.


And ultimately, Zimmerman only watched Martin from a distance. Trayvon Martin could have just turned his back and walked or run away. It was Martin who initiated the first punch, and wasn't satisfied with one punch, but continued relentlessly beating on Zimmerman. And Zimmerman was fortunate enough to have a gun to pull out and defend himself.

There is no case for prosecuting Zimmerman. Beyond a reasonable doubt, it was self-defense.

I don't think it's mincing words to point out Martin only had one small abrasion on his ring finger. That's what is in the report and as you can see it does play into what that witness now says otherwise Martin probably would have more damage to the knuckles.

What report are you even referring to?



And yet again, MEM tries to pass himself off as a specialist in hand-to-hand combat.

Okay, okay...so because you think the injuries on Martin's fists weren't extensive enough, the black eyes and broken nose could not have been caused by Martin--and the cuts on the back of Zimmerman's head were self-inflicted...interesting.


I guess no concession is too great, no bullshit excuse too retarded as long as its in the pursuit of destroying laws that protect self-defense.

Zimmerman did more than watch Martin from a distance. He followed Martin and it sounded like he chased him. Who started the fight is also unestablished. Zimmerman says Martin did. Martin's friend indicates it was Zimmerman who started it. According to her Martin's last words were him yelling "Get off, get off". This was after he told her a weird creepy guy was following him. Considering what she's saying I'm not sure how you can say the prosecution has no case.

You actually brought up the knuckles/damage thing up first.

No shit.

...and the police were skeptical and thought there were inconsistencies even before they knew Martin had been on the phone talking to this witness.

I'll grant that Zimmerman followed Martin. That's not new information. You can hear in the 911 call where he jumps out of his truck (you can hear the bell of the door and the door open and close, and his rapid footsteps) and says to the 911 operator "He ran..." At which point the 911 operator asks "are you following him?"
And Zimmerman answers yes.
And the operator say "Okay sir, we don't need you to do that", and I can't recall Zimmerman's response, but I think he just acknowledged "OK".
He followed long enough to give Martin's location to 911, and then by his account broke off pursuit and walked back toward his truck, when he was blindsided by Martin.

I'll concede that we don't know for certain who started the fight. But if Zimmerman threw the first punch, why was there no evidence of bruising or injuries from punches on Martin?

I would fully expect Martin's girlfriend on the phone to give an account favorable to Martin, and incriminating toward Zimmerman. All she heard over the phone is Martin's version, and she heard sounds that she could interpret to have come from either person.

The prosecution has no case because the evidence is at best circumstantial, nothing clear. And the injuries to Zimmerman, with no apparent bodily injuries to Martin, indicate that all the fighting was done by Martin, and all the defending by Zimmerman.
To prosecute Zimmerman, the D.A. has to prove that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense, and shot without provocation. Zimmerman's injuries show justifiable cause for him firing in self-defense.

And there are forensic evidence and witnesses who either back Zimmerman's account, or at worst don't contradict it.

As I've said prior, I say all this based on what has been made public so far, and we all know there's more evidence that could tilt it either way. But as I've said, at this point I lean toward believing Zimmerman.
If forensics had shown Martin was shot at a distance of 10 or 12 feet, I'd say it hurt Zimmerman's credibility.
If Zimmerman had no broken nose or other injuries, I'd say the fornsic evidence likewise incriminated Zimmerman as not acting in self-defense.
But they didn't.

Martin yelling "get off" would imply that Zimmerman grabbed hold of him. In which case, a punch to Zimmermans face would be considered self defense also, right? Zimmerman never has to throw a punch to be considered threatening.

Oh racist Dave......always trying validate hate for non-whites...

Incontrovertible. Undeniable. Facts. Watch the hatemongers SPIN into trying to prove hate is okay and murdering an unarmed child is 'MERICAN!

Can we start using this instead of the crying graemlin?

No.

I'm sorry, what? I couldn't hear you over the sound of nose picking.

Well played.

I didn't talk about anything Zimmerman said. I just referred you to his injuries and the eyewitnesses--who don't know the guy--that saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.



Which would undermine MEM's assumption that just because the witness recanted seeing flying fists, that they weren't actually thrown.

Yahoo

• Four witnesses in the Trayvon Martin case have changed their stories, some "in ways that may damage" George Zimmerman, the Orlando Sentinel reports.
  
  According to records released last week in the second-degree murder case, the witnesses—all of them neighbors—were interviewed multiple times by police and special prosecutors about what they saw on Feb. 26, the night Zimmerman fatally shot Martin in Sanford, Fla.
  
  Four days after the shooting, one woman told police she "saw two guys running" and then "a fistfight. Just fists. I don't know who was hitting who." But on March 20, she told investigators she saw just one person.
  
  "I couldn't tell you if it was a man, a woman, a kid, black or white," the woman, "Witness 2," said. "I couldn't tell you because it was dark and because I didn't have my contacts on or glasses. I just know I saw a person out there."
  
  Another witness, who was initially interviewed on March 20, said she saw two people on the ground immediately after the shooting but was not sure who was on top.
  
  But in another interview with investigators six days later, the paper reported, she was sure: It was Zimmerman on top.
  
  "I know after seeing the TV of what's happening, comparing their sizes, I think Zimmerman was definitely on top because of his size," the woman, "Witness 12," said.
  
  A third witness, "Witness 6," told police on the night of the shooting that he saw a black man on top of a lighter-skinned man "just throwing down blows on the guy, MMA-style." He said the lighter-skinned man was calling for help. Interviewed later by investigators, he said he was not sure who was calling for help, and was not sure any punches were thrown.
  
  A fourth witness also interviewed on the night of the shooting said he heard the shooting, ran outside, and saw Zimmerman standing with "blood on the back of his head." According to "Witness 13," Zimmerman told him that Martin "was beating up on me, so I had to shoot him."
  
  A month later, the same witness described Zimmerman's demeanor: "[It was] not like 'I can't believe I just shot someone!' It was more like, 'Just tell my wife I shot somebody,' like it was nothing."

Wow. I smell witness tampering.

There was an earlier story where somebody's mom said the police that questioned her son seemed to be trying to get him to say it was Zimmerman on the bottom and crying for help. Maybe the initial questioning is the problem in some of this?

I'm not going to assume that at this point. However, if a witness was worried about, for example, Spike Lee tweeting their home address and/or the Black Panthers paying them a visit, becoming unsure of what they saw is not outside the realm of possibility.

Yeah. Witness intimidation is certainly there, whether or not witnesses are changing their stories because of it.

More direct tampering through personal threats and intimidation seems less likely, and like Zimmerman's alleged murderous intent, can't be said to have occured unless backed with evidence.

But intimidation by the Black Panthers and others could be considered a subtle form of witness tampering.

I love it. When the facts start to prove them wrong, the Rightwing Superfriends immediately go into conspiracy mode.

"What? The witnesses DON'T state that Zimmerman was innocent?? WITNESS TAMPERING!! BLACK PANTHERS (but we're not racist, swear)!! LIBERAL MEDIA!! "

You're such a two-year-old, Pro.
All your infantile mocking and gloating doesn't change this: the case against Zimmerman has no substance. It will ultimately not warrant prosecution.

Witnesses who say they saw one thing, and now say another, only destroy their own credibility. That still doesn't change the forensic evidence of self-defense, the powder burns less than 18 inches away when fired, the broken nose and other injuries to Zimmerman, the 911 calls that more accurately indicate what witnesses saw when it happened.

It's not "racist" or "paranoid" or whatever. When witnesses change their testimony, they lose credibility. They look like liars, or at best unsure of what they saw.


As I've repeatedly said, I favored conviction of Zimmerman when I started this topic. But with new evidence revealed since the story first broke, I now see Zimmerman's actions as self-defense. Despite the politicizing and racializing of a simple shooting, and attempts at intimidation by groups who want to convict Zimmerman, no matter what the evidence.

Just Pro, flinging his poo...

And presenting his OPINION as fact.

FACT.

Poo cake? That doesn't sound like any sort of good thing!

You don't go from describing an assault as "MMA style" to "uh, well, I'm not sure."

Usually, recants occur over night, closer to the initial explanation. Four witnesses changing their stories so severely after two months is unusual, and this case is extremely high pressure.