George Zimmerman sues Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren over tweets honouring Trayvon Martin

[Citizen]

White privilige thing...An ideology created from a precursor to the BLM movement which has gained traction in the US.

I am not sure you understand cause and effect. There is nothing wrong with protesting bad policing

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Thank you. I guess the ideology of the precursor of BLM caused these hateful thoughts about the police.

 

[Citizen]

The hateful thoughts of the police were evident long before BLM.

EDIT: I guess, the BLM is a police-hating organization which is supported outside of the black community.

Hateful actions towards black people was evident long before BLM. BLM is not a police hating organization. Both blacks and whites protest injust policing. It is nothing wrong with protesting what you object. That is the American way. Thanks to the protests, we have more body cams and more police are beginning to think before they react

 

[Citizen]

White privilige thing...An ideology created from a precursor to the BLM movement which has gained traction in the US.

No, it is a fact that white people are treated differently than black people

 

[Divine_Wind]

No, it is a fact that white people are treated differently than white people

Say what?

 

[Citizen]

Say what?

White people are treated differently that black people

 

[Divine_Wind]

White privilige thing...An ideology created from a precursor to the BLM movement which has gained traction in the US.

Agreed. It's a racist ideology that neglects to consider democracy. Pretty funny considering that Democrats came up with it and claim to be the standard bearer of Democracy.

 

[Divine_Wind]

White people are treated differently that black people

By whom? Are black people also treated differently than white people? Asians? Hispanics? How so?

 

[Citizen]

Agreed. It's a racist ideology that neglects to consider democracy. Pretty funny considering that Democrats came up with it and claim to be the standard bearer of Democracy.

It is not an ideology. It is a fact.

 

[Divine_Wind]

It is not an ideology. It is a fact.

Thank you for agreeing it's racist but disagreed it's "fact" since it is, indeed, an ideology. If it was a fact, then it could be proved.

You do understand the concept of a democracy, don't you?

 

[Citizen]

By whom? Are black people also treated differently than white people? Asians? Hispanics? How so?

Black people are treated differently than white people in most aspects of life. Stop and Fisk, police killings, incarcerations, being followed in stores, I could go on and on. But I think you know that

 

[Divine_Wind]

Black people are treated differently than white people in most aspects of life. Stop and Fisk, police killings, incarcerations, being followed in stores, I could go on and on. But I think you know that

Sorry, dude, but now you are all over the place. First you wrote "white people are treated differently than white people", then you wrote "White people are treated differently that black people", and now you are writing "Black people are treated differently than white people". WTFO?

Where are these things you claim? Lemme guess: Liberal cities. LOL

Why do you think Liberal whites are treating Blacks differently?

 

[Citizen]

Sorry, dude, but now you are all over the place. First you wrote "white people are treated differently than white people", then you wrote "White people are treated differently that black people", and now you are writing "Black people are treated differently than white people". WTFO?

Where are these things you claim? Lemme guess: Liberal cities. LOL

Why do you think Liberal whites are treating Blacks differently?

I think you knew that I made an error which was corrected in my 1st post. Stop playing games. You understand exactly what I am saying

 

[Citizen]

Thank you for agreeing it's racist but disagreed it's "fact" since it is, indeed, an ideology. If it was a fact, then it could be proved.

You do understand the concept of a democracy, don't you?

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Divine_Wind]

What the hell are you talking about?

You being wrong about "white privilege". Don't worry about it. I think most people who read our conversation can figure it out for themselves.

 

[Citizen]

You being wrong about "white privilege". Don't worry about it. I think most people who read our conversation can figure it out for themselves.

I explained to you what white privilege is. Why don’t you just give a coherent response to that post. Yes, most people who read our conversation can figure out what you are trying to do.

 

[Divine_Wind]

I explained to you what white privilege is. Why don’t you just give a coherent response to that post. Yes, most people who read our conversation can figure out what you are trying to do.

You described a racially-motivated political label for a democracy-related phenomenon. Thanks for the insult, but I'm sorry I hit a nerve so strongly that you couldn't help yourself in writing it.

Agreed most people can read our conversation. What do you think I'm "trying to do"?

 

[Citizen]

You described a racially-motivated political label for a democracy-related phenomenon. Thanks for the insult, but I'm sorry I hit a nerve so strongly that you couldn't help yourself in writing it.

Agreed most people can read our conversation. What do you think I'm "trying to do"?

Insult? What in the hell are you talking about? If you refuse to respond to my post, just say so. Trying to start an argument with me is just not working.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Insult? What in the hell are you talking about? If you refuse to respond to my post, just say so. Trying to start an argument with me is just not working.

When a person says or implies another person's post is incoherent, then it's an insult.

I explained to you what white privilege is. Why don’t you just give a coherent response to that post. Yes, most people who read our conversation can figure out what you are trying to do.

Sorry, but since you can't avoid both making insults and denying you made them, then I have little interest in discussing a topic which causes you to do so.

 

[Citizen]

When a person says or implies another person's post is incoherent, then it's an insult.

Sorry, but since you can't avoid both making insults and denying you made them, then I have little interest in discussing a topic which causes you to do so.

The problem is ....your avoided discussing the topic. But that’s OK

 

[Mason66]

That is Zimmerman's testimony. I don't beleive him based upon his other behaviors.

Talib Kweli Greene
✔
@TalibKweli


George Zimmerman is online posting pics of Trayvon Martin's dead body right now. Let that sink in America. #blacklivesmatter

1,197
11:05 AM - Sep 27, 2015
Twitter Ads info and privacy

2,405 people are talking about this


That is not normal

https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/638192572511453185?s=20

He’s also been back in the courtroom several times since the Martin trial. Less than a month after his acquittal, Zimmerman was pulled over for speeding, CNN reported. According to dashcam footage, he allegedly had a gun on him and the officer said, “Don’t play with your firearm, OK?”
Later in 2013, he was arrested and charged with felony aggravated assault for allegedly pointing a shotgun at his girlfriend. The case was later dropped. Two years later, he was arrested again — this time for charges of domestic aggravated assault for allegedly throwing a bottle of wine at his girlfriend — and again the charges were later dropped. Finally, last May, Zimmerman was shot, receiving minor injuries, during a dispute with a motorist named Matthew Apperson. In 2014, Apperson had called the police in a different dispute, saying Zimmerman had allegedly threatened him by saying, “Do you know who I am?” and “I’ll f—ing kill you,” according to Vox.

In fact, his legal troubles go back to 2005, when he was arrested twice. First in a domestic dispute that ended with a broken engagement and a restraining order filed against him. Then, for the battery of an officer after he shoved an undercover agent who was arresting Zimmerman’s underage friend for being in a bar.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-controversies-since-the-trayvon-martin-case/

I really don't understand how he can be thought of as an average citizen and the kid he shot as a thug. Must be about race. That is all I can conclude.

You have every right to believe him or not.

The forensics supported his story and the jury believed it as well.

 

[Mason66]

Unless of course he was out of breath from running and stopped for a minute then saw Z approaching on foot.

At which point many of his defenders would have quite likely confronted him.

And possibly ended up dead for it.

Well, you do live up to your user name.

What if this or that.

There is no evidence Martin was out of breath. He wouldn't have had the energy to jump Zimmerman and get him on the ground to pound his head.

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't believe it logical to expect Zimmerman to act logically. Obviously he was following Martin, or there would be no meeting of the two. The physical evidence of the case also revealed that there was no trace of Zimmerman's DNA on Martin's hands so the physical confrontation part is kind of suspect also.

I think the whole situation is incredibly tragic.

I don't doubt that Zimmerman fudged some details to make himself look good, but I also feel Martin was partly culpable.

Definitely a tragedy that could have been avoided.

 

[Ouroboros]

Obama is nothing like trump. He separated himself from the justice system. But I think you know that. You didn’t like Obama’s comment, although it had nothing to do with Zimmerman. That is why you brought it up in the 1st place. If you agree that his comments did not interfere with the case, then why bring it up in the 1st place. We are supposed to be a rule of law country that the conservatives pretend to love. But it is not about that at all. What Zimmerman did as not different than the days of public lynchings.

What I said was that Obama's comments about Martin were as improper as Trump's remarks about any ongoing case, and that you can't have one set of rules for Obama and another for Trump.

Nobody in the days of the public lynchings could have ever invoked justification of self-defense.

 

[JMR]

What I said was that Obama's comments about Martin were as improper as Trump's remarks about any ongoing case, and that you can't have one set of rules for Obama and another for Trump.

Nobody in the days of the public lynchings could have ever invoked justification of self-defense.

I think you ignore the fact that young men of color are in particular danger of being seen as "suspicious" when they are doing nothing but walking while black. Obama was trying to highlight that fact, and humanize a dead person who was being characterized as a "thug" and still is by many here.