- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Messages
- 65,981
- Reaction score
- 23,408
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
This is NOT to argue the case really, but to review the "debate" - and HOW MUCH OF IT WAS FALSE OR BASED ON ASSERTING TRUISMS ON SPECULATION.
I probably shouldn't bother with this, although I have more messages on the Zimmerman/Martin board, I had to leave it months ago because it was crazy making redundant - largely on asserted facts as truisms - that weren't truisms. Here's what comes to mind:
1. Trayvon Martin was walking home. No, the time line shows he wasn't walking home because he would have been home. He would have been home before GZ saw him. He would have been home after GZ saw him. We can speculate all day what he was doing or why, but he was not just walking home.
2. GZ was not seriously injured so had no justification for shooting. Having already been seriously injured is not the legal standard for using deadly force to prevent serious injury, just like a person doesn't have to already be dead to used deadly force to prevent being killed.
3. George Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin. Of itself, "profiled" means nothing. The assertion is he profiled TM for being African-American. We don't even know if GZ KNEW TM was African-American when he phoned the police. It was dark, hood over TM's head and GZ never mentioned his race until the police operator asked - but then TM was walking towards GZ. Actually, by his record GZ can prove he is more anti-racism than about anyone on this forum. However, doesn't matter if he is a racist anyway. It's not illegal to be a racist. Al Sharpston is still a free man, isn't he? So are people in the KKK. There is nothing to show GZ racially profiled TM - and it is totally irrelevant if he had anyway.
4. This is more about irrelevancy, but who gives a **** want the "Neighborhood Watch" private association thinks? Yeah, they think only police should have guns. Who cares what they think? Their rules are not law, so they are irrelevant to anything.
5. GZ assaulted a police officer in the past. No, he was never charged with that. He shoved a cop off a pal and the dismissed charge was interfering, not assaulting. Interfering is usually a *****-ass-charge anyway.
6. GZ followed TM. No, we don't know that. It appears GZ stayed to the sidewalk to see where TM went to, but there is no evidence GZ "followed" TM.
7. TM was a "child." No, he was legally a "minor," not "a child."
8. GZ was told not to follow TM. No, never happened. A telephone receptionist for the police said GZ didn't need to follow TM. So?
YET, on the other side there also are false assertions of truisms:
9. It started when TM sucker slammed GZ in the face. No, we don't know that at all. It is entirely possible GZ "started it" as a physical fight.
GZ had been security for private parties, some use the word "bouncer." It is the practice of bouncers and security if some punk gets in your face violating your space, you shove that punk back hard. GZ had the weight, likely self confident, to think he could shove TM back easily. And he had shoved that cop. GZ is a "shover." It is entirely possible that GZ shoved TM to back him off. And TM then responded by slamming GZ in the face. IF that is how it happened, TM could slam GZ in the face. And the fight was on and GZ was losing. Maybe they were struggling over the gun fast. Maybe GZ was just too slow to make any of his upward punches strike home.
We do NOT know that TM threw the first "punch" or made the first aggressive physical contact. The TRUISM is that there is no ****ing way we can know who turned it into a physical conflict - ie who started the fight. And we can't know means not guilty.
LAST - but not about falsely asserted truisms...
10. Maybe true, but very annoying - sneering that GZ wanted to be a police officer as if that shows psychological disturbance. Incessantly sneering he is "a wannabe cop." I don't know about you, but that sort of pisses me off. The contempt the media showed for police officers in that was stunning - and of course many on this forum joined in. There is NOTHING wrong in someone wanting to be a police officer. What is wrong with someone wanting to be a police officer?
OK, where am I wrong on the endlessly asserted certain truism that have never been truisms - instead always were just speculations - or outright false?
I probably shouldn't bother with this, although I have more messages on the Zimmerman/Martin board, I had to leave it months ago because it was crazy making redundant - largely on asserted facts as truisms - that weren't truisms. Here's what comes to mind:
1. Trayvon Martin was walking home. No, the time line shows he wasn't walking home because he would have been home. He would have been home before GZ saw him. He would have been home after GZ saw him. We can speculate all day what he was doing or why, but he was not just walking home.
2. GZ was not seriously injured so had no justification for shooting. Having already been seriously injured is not the legal standard for using deadly force to prevent serious injury, just like a person doesn't have to already be dead to used deadly force to prevent being killed.
3. George Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin. Of itself, "profiled" means nothing. The assertion is he profiled TM for being African-American. We don't even know if GZ KNEW TM was African-American when he phoned the police. It was dark, hood over TM's head and GZ never mentioned his race until the police operator asked - but then TM was walking towards GZ. Actually, by his record GZ can prove he is more anti-racism than about anyone on this forum. However, doesn't matter if he is a racist anyway. It's not illegal to be a racist. Al Sharpston is still a free man, isn't he? So are people in the KKK. There is nothing to show GZ racially profiled TM - and it is totally irrelevant if he had anyway.
4. This is more about irrelevancy, but who gives a **** want the "Neighborhood Watch" private association thinks? Yeah, they think only police should have guns. Who cares what they think? Their rules are not law, so they are irrelevant to anything.
5. GZ assaulted a police officer in the past. No, he was never charged with that. He shoved a cop off a pal and the dismissed charge was interfering, not assaulting. Interfering is usually a *****-ass-charge anyway.
6. GZ followed TM. No, we don't know that. It appears GZ stayed to the sidewalk to see where TM went to, but there is no evidence GZ "followed" TM.
7. TM was a "child." No, he was legally a "minor," not "a child."
8. GZ was told not to follow TM. No, never happened. A telephone receptionist for the police said GZ didn't need to follow TM. So?
YET, on the other side there also are false assertions of truisms:
9. It started when TM sucker slammed GZ in the face. No, we don't know that at all. It is entirely possible GZ "started it" as a physical fight.
GZ had been security for private parties, some use the word "bouncer." It is the practice of bouncers and security if some punk gets in your face violating your space, you shove that punk back hard. GZ had the weight, likely self confident, to think he could shove TM back easily. And he had shoved that cop. GZ is a "shover." It is entirely possible that GZ shoved TM to back him off. And TM then responded by slamming GZ in the face. IF that is how it happened, TM could slam GZ in the face. And the fight was on and GZ was losing. Maybe they were struggling over the gun fast. Maybe GZ was just too slow to make any of his upward punches strike home.
We do NOT know that TM threw the first "punch" or made the first aggressive physical contact. The TRUISM is that there is no ****ing way we can know who turned it into a physical conflict - ie who started the fight. And we can't know means not guilty.
LAST - but not about falsely asserted truisms...
10. Maybe true, but very annoying - sneering that GZ wanted to be a police officer as if that shows psychological disturbance. Incessantly sneering he is "a wannabe cop." I don't know about you, but that sort of pisses me off. The contempt the media showed for police officers in that was stunning - and of course many on this forum joined in. There is NOTHING wrong in someone wanting to be a police officer. What is wrong with someone wanting to be a police officer?
OK, where am I wrong on the endlessly asserted certain truism that have never been truisms - instead always were just speculations - or outright false?
Last edited: