Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman Revisited

[Jack Hays]

Nice.. and whites still commit more violent crimes. and more crime in general. its just a fact.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/43tabledatadecoverviewpdf

Statistically you have more to fear being raped, murdered, burglared, aggravated assaulted etc by a white person. They simply commit more crime in general.

Please see #348. Out of equal pools of white and black citizens, a higher percentage of blacks will be offenders. That is the fact that is relevant for police who deal with largely black populations.

 

[Jack Hays]

so? So what?

Walking down the street.. I have more to fear from a white person than I do from a black person. I am more likely to be assaulted, murdered. raped.. other sexual offenses.. etc by someone that's white.

Your statistic is pretty much meaningless.

No, you do not.

 

[jaeger19]

Please see #348. Out of equal pools of white and black citizens, a higher percentage of blacks will be offenders. That is the fact that is relevant for police who deal with largely black populations.

Except we are not in equal pools. so its a meaningless point.

Statistically I am more like to be victimized by a white person.

 

[ttwtt78640]

so? So what?

Walking down the street.. I have more to fear from a white person than I do from a black person. I am more likely to be assaulted, murdered. raped.. other sexual offenses.. etc by someone that's white.

Your statistic is pretty much meaningless.

That depends largely on which street you choose to walk down. Obviously if you stay in mostly white areas that is true but that is reversed if you stay in mostly black areas. Most crime is intra racial but that is of little statistical importance.

https://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/

 

[jaeger19]

No, you do not.

yes I do. so do you.

 

[jaeger19]

That depends largely on which street you choose.to walk down. Obviously if you stay in mostly white areas that is true but that is reversed if you stay in mostly black areas. Most crime is intra racial but that is of little statistical importance.

https://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/

Well.. "mostly white areas " make up the vast vast vast part of the country.

 

[Jack Hays]

Except we are not in equal pools. so its a meaningless point.

Statistically I am more like to be victimized by a white person.

Your claim in #350 is refuted by the equal pools observation.

 

[Jack Hays]

yes I do. so do you.

No. your claim is refuted by the equal pools observation.

 

[jaeger19]

Your claim in #350 is refuted by the equal pools observation.

no.. because our country is not "equal pools"..

 

[Jack Hays]

no.. because our country is not "equal pools"..

Irrelevant. Your claim in #350:

Walking down the street.. I have more to fear from a white person than I do from a black person.

Because of the equal pools observation any individual black you encounter is more likely to be a criminal than any individual white. QED

 

[Vox]

Except we are not in equal pools. so its a meaningless point.

Statistically I am more like to be victimized by a white person.

Surrounded by bright light.......you choose to be blind.

:mrgreen:

The statistics clearly show that blacks are far more dangerous than whites.......doing most of the crime.

BUT.......let's get more specific. It's wrong to use 13% as the black percentage of the general population when talking about crime.

Truth is, most of the crime is done by young black men......and THEY are about SIX percent of the population.

And (focus now) a huge number of THEM are ALREADY in prison and can't commit any crimes.

Starting to get it, Jaeger?

:mrgreen:

The few remaining young black men out on the street really have to offend and attack often and zealously to manage to commit most of the crime in America.

There's the epiphany you so desperately needed. You have almost nothing to fear from a white person.

A young black man, however........he's got a job to do.

:ind:

 

[sear]

"statistics clearly show that blacks are far more dangerous than whites.......doing most of the crime." V #361

- excellent -
Please post a brief quote of such statistic, with source (ie Bureau of Crime Statistics), with URL / link.

Thanks.

 

[Thoreau72]

Surrounded by bright light.......you choose to be blind.

:mrgreen:

The statistics clearly show that blacks are far more dangerous than whites.......doing most of the crime.

BUT.......let's get more specific. It's wrong to use 13% as the black percentage of the general population when talking about crime.

Truth is, most of the crime is done by young black men......and THEY are about SIX percent of the population.

And (focus now) a huge number of THEM are ALREADY in prison and can't commit any crimes.

Starting to get it, Jaeger?

:mrgreen:

The few remaining young black men out on the street really have to offend and attack often and zealously to manage to commit most of the crime in America.

There's the epiphany you so desperately needed. You have almost nothing to fear from a white person.

A young black man, however........he's got a job to do.

:ind:

The white people that I fear the most are those in high positions in the federal government, which has been hijacked by the bad guys many years ago, maybe all the way back to Ike in his Farewell Address in 1961. The kind of white people who take the country to war under fraud, though Colin Powell and Condolezza Rice were big parts of it, so race must not be relevant somehow to being corrupt.

 

[blackjack50]

WTF? 6'0 is a whole inch taller than 5'11. Averages are what makes big and small, not the extremes.

? I was defining Martin as small because he is white a bit smaller than me. 1 inch and almost 100 pounds. Frame wise I am huge. Martin isn't. I look at it from a fighter's perspective.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[blackjack50]

And all this time, I thought you were just a fat-head.
Turns out, it's your entire body! Live & learn.

Little guys spend their life wishing they were bigger. Big men don't spend their life wishing they were little. I enjoy being 6 foot and having nice large muscles. It really irritates the napoleon complexes that step on that mat with me.

 

[blackjack50]

PS

No.
That is completely inconsistent with Z's account of events as they occurred, as he reported it via cell-phone to Sanford police dispatch.

Bear in mind, Z was patrolling by POV.
So Z would have had to:
- sight the school boy
- mentally process a suspicion
- find a place to park
- telephone Sanford police dispatch

So TM could not POSSIBLY have surprised Z in such way.

This is stupid. Specifically because I was referring to AFTER Zimmerman lost sight of Trayvon. But you just want to argue and be wrong about this.

Add all that to the following time-line you're speculating about:

b5 adds:

View attachment 67217816
Hilarious! But at very best, spectacularly uninformed!

You should focus more on the argument and less on being wrong.

By the way. Did you ever figure out which stalking law Zimmerman broke? Or are you willing to admit you were laughably off base there?

Then why did Z report to Sanford police dispatch that TM ran AWAY from Z, clearly to AVOID confrontation?



If TM had wanted a confrontation, he had it handed to him on a silver platter when Z reported TM stepped in for a closer look.

Maybe he originally made a good decision and then decided to turn around and be a tough guy? Are you saying that is an unlikely decision for a phony tough kid? A hormonal teenager? One who has pictures of guns and weed and thug life and Burglary issues?

Hell. That brings up an important question about your approach:

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT TRAYVON WAS A GOOD KID? Do you believe he was not trying to emulate the "thug life style?" That he wouldn't hurt a fly? Or do you think he was a hormonal teenager with anger problems and drug issues like we know now?

Fact: you don't know what happened after Zimmerman's call ends. What we DO know is they came across each other. And you keep trying to produce this Ockham's razor evidence. It doesn't work. Because there are a variety of potential conclusions. And the one where Martin turn's around and confronts Zimmerman? Not unlikely. Even a reasonable conclusion if you factor in the Lean, pot, burglary, and fighting.

b5 adds:

Correct, indicating it was Z that forced the armed confrontation.

There is no logic in this statement.

1) If Zimmerman has no right to confront Trayvon...you don't have evidence that he did.

2) If you believe that he has no right...then if Trayvon confronted Zimmerman...that makes the roles reversed and Trayvon would not be allowed to confront Zimmerman.

There is no "indicating this or that." You don't have a single shred of concrete evidence to the contrary. You have already demonstrated that. You can't produce evidence for your position.

1) You can't show that what Zimmerman did was unreasonable (calling 911 on a suspicious person).

2) Or in attempting to give police a better idea of where the individual went.

3) Your evidence that Zimmerman is a racist...is that he described a black person as black.

4) Your attempt to claim stalking involved NO legal definition.

5) Your claim of the path is not based on actual proof. Just your opinion.

7) And finally...you can't explain how a 17 year old in good shape couldn't make it 80 yards in 4 minutes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[blackjack50]

Okay.. yeah.. intelligent people.

A kid.. with NO ARREST RECORD. NONE. And what? A school record of a suspension for "pot residue". A wait.. maybe a suspicion of burglary.. or theft.. or well nothing at all.

That's a "thug

I believe there were also references to fighting in texts. And the fact that his toxicology report did have him as having TJC in his system. And then there are the ingredients for Lean.

He wasn't a thug. He was a wannabe.

BUT Zimmerman had a DOMESTIC VIOLENCE charge against him that was sufficient enough that a judge awarded a RESTRAINING ORDER.

AND he had to enter a plea deal because of a RESISTING AN OFFICER WITH VIOLENCE arrest.

Yes. And the restraining order was also filed against his wife. Are you unfamiliar with how domestic violence plays out? And resisting? Yea. He was a drunken idiot there. Was he drunk the night of the incident?

So. What you have here are 2 dumbasses who think they are tough. Both are low class dumbasses. Period.

Again.. a kid without even a juvenile record.. but a "suspicion" of burglary? A school suspension

That's a thug/..

A wannabe thug. Get rich or die tryin! Ever meet a 17 year old kid? There are plenty who pretend to be tough because of the stupid music they listen too. And wasn't his dad an actual thug piece of ****? I can't remember? Gang ties and so on? I'm sure he was a great role model. All irrelevant.

A fellow.. training a year in MMA, who is armed with a firearm, who has a criminal history of losing his temper and becoming violent.

While drunk.

Like I said.. intelligent people understand why there is some racism involved here.

LMAO! WHAT? Because you believe the Hispanic man is guilty? I bet if he was white you would believe him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Vox]

- excellent -
Please post a brief quote of such statistic, with source (ie Bureau of Crime Statistics), with URL / link.

Thanks.

Based on available data from 1980 to 2008—

Blacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide
victims and offenders. The victimization rate for blacks (27.8
per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per
100,000). The offending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost
8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000)
(table 1)

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

:ind:

 

[Vox]

And all this time, I thought you were just a fat-head.
Turns out, it's your entire body! Live & learn.

Statements like that are entirely inappropriate.

The guy you are calling fat and a fathead has been consistently trouncing you in this debate.

The appropriate thing for you to do would be to apologize......you know that, right?

:ind:

 

[Vox]

A kid.. with NO ARREST RECORD. NONE. And what? A school record of a suspension for "pot residue".

LOL!

He had no arrest record because they didn't arrest him for vandalism, drugs, possession of stolen property and burglary tools.

And Zimmerman's record shows that charges against him were dropped in the "resisting arrest" incident. Domestic violence was never proven against him as far as I can tell, although there WERE accusations.

Neither were choir boys, but only one was a thug......and that's The Famous Trayvon Martin.

:ind:

 

[sear]

"I enjoy being 6 foot and having nice large muscles." b5 #365

I'm right there w/ you.
But I still made a new year's resolution to lose 10 lbs.
At the current rate, I only have 25 lbs. to go!

"I was referring to AFTER Zimmerman lost sight of Trayvon." b5 #366

But didn't specify that until now.
I responded to what you posted, not what you meant.

"you just want to argue" b5

Look in the mirror cupcake.
I'm defending an innocent school boy against a wrongful death, a homicide.
I reason, express logical arguments, with quotations, and defined terms.

"and be wrong about this." b5

Then I'm not doing very well. For we're on page 37 and I haven't been correctly flagged with even one factual error yet.
Not one!
There have been contradictions, not refutations.

"Did you ever figure out which stalking law Zimmerman broke?" b5

I never tried. And I never asserted Z broke any stalking law.
But I will allow to pass unchallenged your implication that there is one.
And thanks for your support.
The USC language I posted was to define the word. I don't recall having asserted that alone was the violation of law Z was guilty of.
Rather petty, in the case of homicide, don't you think?
But to appease the delicate Nellies, I have substituted the verb "locomote". Didn't seem to improve the discourse all that much.
I haven't misused the word stalk. It's what Zimmerman did. And under penalty of perjury I'll swear to that use in open court under oath, premised on verifying the Sanford police transcript I've quoted.

"Are you saying that is an unlikely decision for a phony tough kid?" b5

Ah.
Semantic infiltration! Classy.
But it won't work on me.
I do not accept your premise that TM was "a phony tough kid".
We know by the time-line Z established with Sanford police dispatch that TM made a considered, deliberate decision; not a spur of the moment decision he'd have likely spontaneously reversed.
TM was no dummy.
TM knew Z was BIG TROUBLE (a fact even arm-chair QB's like you can't deny) and LITERALLY ran out of sight of him for TM's own safety. The notion that TM then would have reversed himself, and stalked Z is ABSURD !!

Beyond that, there's no need for speculating about who stalked ("locomote" if you prefer) who.
Zimmerman CONFESSED TO SANDFORD POLICE DISPATCH THAT HE DID !!! I have no information that it's ever been disputed; that for example Z lied to the dispatcher.

Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok

Transcript of George Zimmerman's Call to the Police

b5 inquires:

"DO YOU BELIEVE THAT TRAYVON WAS A GOOD KID?"

a) I don't think either one of them was a choirboy.

b) I gather it was Z, not TM that had the more violent offense on his rap sheet.

c) Your question is immaterial. TM's criminal history has no bearing. TM was walking from candy store to residence, enjoying the sights and the night air.

"That he wouldn't hurt a fly?"

I believe, based upon Zimmerman's timeline report to Sanford police dispatch, and my differential profile of each of them, that TM tried to avoid a confrontation, and that Z confessed (see quotation above) to attempting to force one.

"...you don't have evidence that he did."

The evidence is abundant.
If Z had been late to an important meeting when he first spotted TM, would Z have taken the time to halt his travel, and chat it up with Sanford police dispatch?
No. Z made the time, and Z had all the time he needed for this.
Z brought a loaded gun.
And there's ample indication by his comments such as referring to TM as an @$$hole, that for virtual zero reason Z was scathingly contemptuous of TM from the start.

"(calling 911 on a suspicious person)."

"Suspicious"?
What did TM do that rendered him "suspicious"?
"Walking" and "looking" are not crimes!

V #368
Thanks.

"has been consistently trouncing you in this debate." V #369

No BODY has layed a finger on me. I've been contradicted, but never persuasively refuted.
To my knowledge, I have not in this thread posted one single factual error that has been corrected. To the contrary, I've mopped the floor with you people.

There have been some extremely bizarre assumptions attributed to me, such as that I thought Z had violated one specific stalking law. But the fact is I simply CORRECTLY used the word "stalking" as a verb.

"The appropriate thing for you to do would be to apologize......you know that, right?" V #369

And it shall happen, the first moment I have anything to apologize for. But it hasn't happened yet, and it remains extremely unlikely.

 

[Jack Hays]

I'm right there w/ you.
But I still made a new year's resolution to lose 10 lbs.
At the current rate, I only have 25 lbs. to go!

But didn't specify that until now.
I responded to what you posted, not what you meant.

Look in the mirror cupcake.
I'm defending an innocent school boy against a wrongful death, a homicide.
I reason, express logical arguments, with quotations, and defined terms.

Then I'm not doing very well. For we're on page 37 and I haven't been correctly flagged with even one factual error yet.
Not one!
There have been contradictions, not refutations.

I never tried. And I never asserted Z broke any stalking law.
But I will allow to pass unchallenged your implication that there is one.
And thanks for your support.
The USC language I posted was to define the word. I don't recall having asserted that alone was the violation of law Z was guilty of.
Rather petty, in the case of homicide, don't you think?
But to appease the delicate Nellies, I have substituted the verb "locomote". Didn't seem to improve the discourse all that much.
I haven't misused the word stalk. It's what Zimmerman did. And under penalty of perjury I'll swear to that use in open court under oath, premised on verifying the Sanford police transcript I've quoted.

Ah.
Semantic infiltration! Classy.
But it won't work on me.
I do not accept your premise that TM was "a phony tough kid".
We know by the time-line Z established with Sanford police dispatch that TM made a considered, deliberate decision; not a spur of the moment decision he'd have likely spontaneously reversed.
TM was no dummy.
TM knew Z was BIG TROUBLE (a fact even arm-chair QB's like you can't deny) and LITERALLY ran out of sight of him for TM's own safety. The notion that TM then would have reversed himself, and stalked Z is ABSURD !!

Beyond that, there's no need for speculating about who stalked ("locomote" if you prefer) who.
Zimmerman CONFESSED TO SANDFORD POLICE DISPATCH THAT HE DID !!! I have no information that it's ever been disputed; that for example Z lied to the dispatcher.

b5 inquires:

a) I don't think either one of them was a choirboy.

b) I gather it was Z, not TM that had the more violent offense on his rap sheet.

c) Your question is immaterial. TM's criminal history has no bearing. TM was walking from candy store to residence, enjoying the sights and the night air.

I believe, based upon Zimmerman's timeline report to Sanford police dispatch, and my differential profile of each of them, that TM tried to avoid a confrontation, and that Z confessed (see quotation above) to attempting to force one.

The evidence is abundant.
If Z had been late to an important meeting when he first spotted TM, would Z have taken the time to halt his travel, and chat it up with Sanford police dispatch?
No. Z made the time, and Z had all the time he needed for this.
Z brought a loaded gun.
And there's ample indication by his comments such as referring to TM as an @$$hole, that for virtual zero reason Z was scathingly contemptuous of TM from the start.

"Suspicious"?
What did TM do that rendered him "suspicious"?
"Walking" and "looking" are not crimes!

V #368
Thanks.

No BODY has layed a finger on me. I've been contradicted, but never persuasively refuted.
To my knowledge, I have not in this thread posted one single factual error that has been corrected. To the contrary, I've mopped the floor with you people.

There have been some extremely bizarre assumptions attributed to me, such as that I thought Z had violated one specific stalking law. But the fact is I simply CORRECTLY used the word "stalking" as a verb.

And it shall happen, the first moment I have anything to apologize for. But it hasn't happened yet, and it remains extremely unlikely.

Zimmerman was acquitted. Case closed.

 

[Henrin]

? I was defining Martin as small because he is white a bit smaller than me. 1 inch and almost 100 pounds. Frame wise I am huge. Martin isn't. I look at it from a fighter's perspective.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Frame wise he was average, you know. Again, you don't measure what is big and small by the extremes, but the averages. Martin was above average height and just about average weight for a grown adult male. Considering however he was a teenager he would have likely filled out more in his early twenties and came out above 180. Anyways, if you're really 260 at your height then you're way above your BMI and by the percentages likely fat. If however you're fit then likely you won't maintain that as you get older and it will convert to fat.

 

[Vox]

No BODY has layed a finger on me. I've been contradicted, but never persuasively refuted.
To my knowledge, I have not in this thread posted one single factual error that has been corrected. To the contrary, I've mopped the floor with you people.

LOL!

"LAYED?"

Correct word would be "LAID." Your word choice is a great example of your abilities.

And everybody here has laid a finger on you.......and a hand and a foot as you got your ass kicked.

Your bloviation sans intellectual substance has been obvious from the start.

:ind:

 

[sear]

V #374

Great. Gig me on a spelling error! Fabulous!

I've never come close to doing as bad as this:

"Zimmerman (who did no wrong.)" V

"OK
Let's count the wrongs.

1) Z wanted to be a heroic hot-shot, so he got a gun and started prowling neighborhoods, without adequate police training or instinct. That's not wrong?

2) Z fixated on a dark-skinned school boy, and shot him dead within only a few minutes after Zimmerman first saw him. TM had done nothing wrong that evening, until Z forced an armed confrontation, if even then. That's not wrong?

3) Z disregarded both Sanford police dispatch guidance, and Neighborhood Watch.org published standards. Had Zimmerman adhered to either one or the other, Trayvon Martin would still be alive today. And you claim: "Zimmerman (who did no wrong.)"?

4) Z did all this based upon clearly racist distinctions DESPITE confessing to police Z didn't know what his deal is. And you don't have a problem with Z doing that?

Do you actually know what the definition of the word "wrong" is?" s #275

https://www.debatepolitics.com/law-...von-martin-george-zimmerman-revisited-28.html

V,
There's a shortage of talent for "stand-up" comedians at comedy clubs across the nation.

There's one in Poughkeepsie, NY named Bananas.
You take your routine there, you're sure to be a hit.

"Bananas! It has appeal!"

PS
I repeat. Not one single factual error. To this point, one trivial spelling error; which doesn't negate the validity of the assertion.

Oh and btw: The United States Constitution has more spelling errors than that.
Well if you hold me to a higher standard than the United States Constitution, then I've never been more flattered. My sincere thanks to you V.