The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Moderators: Mick, TheGingerMan

Forum rules
IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby SuperSneakyCow » 01 Jul 2012, 18:56

ChewDawg wrote:I don't know why people think justice won't be served or that the judicial system is somewhat biased against African Americans and will favor the Hispanic/White Zimmerman.

The simple fact is that a high percentage of crimes are largely perpetrated by both minorities represented in this case and there are a number of reasons for this (breakdown of double parent families for African Americans is a big reason). Instead of making it a race war, minority activists should be improving the structures within their own communities, instead of exacerbating race issues and targeting another minority. It's sad to see the African American vs. Latino racial war here with different interests supporting one or another. For this specific incident, they should just let the authorities go through with the case instead of sensationalizing it with the help of the media and scumbags like Sharpton.

According to The Department of Justice’s, Uniform Crime Reports, and the FBI Communication’s Division, the Judicial System in the US is not biased against minorities. They simply commit more crimes. African Americans are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery. They are three times more likely to use a hand gun, and twice more likely to use a knife.

Hispanics commit three times more violent crimes than whites. The best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percent of the population that is black and Hispanic. Blacks are 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites then vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit a robbery. Forty-five percent of black crime is against whites, 43 against other blacks, and 10 percent against Hispanic. Blacks are seven times more likely to go to prison, Hispanics three times.

Oh, Iove when people make posts looking down on minority communities.

You're the same guys who make indignant posts about how banks never stopped red-lining poor neighborhoods, right? You're the same guys who always harp on how banks love giving minorities interest rates that skyrocket in the 20's so that they will never be able to afford homes, while the banks have permanent sources of income.

Oh, no? You must be the other guys. The ones who learn as little as you can about "others" so that you can demonize them.

ChewDawg wrote:According to The Department of Justice’s, Uniform Crime Reports, and the FBI Communication’s Division, the Judicial System in the US is not biased against minorities. They simply commit more crimes. African Americans are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery. They are three times more likely to use a hand gun, and twice more likely to use a knife.

Hispanics commit three times more violent crimes than whites. The best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percent of the population that is black and Hispanic. Blacks are 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites then vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit a robbery. Forty-five percent of black crime is against whites, 43 against other blacks, and 10 percent against Hispanic. Blacks are seven times more likely to go to prison, Hispanics three times.


I love that article you didn't post about banks intentionally giving minorities sub-prime loans without telling them, and then betting against those same loans they later collateralized and had insured. You're a regular philanthropist, you.
SuperSneakyCow
Grasshopper (cǎo měng)
 
Posts: 82
Joined: 08 May 2012, 13:47
17 Recommends(s)
2 Recognized(s)



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby Tigerman » 01 Jul 2012, 19:45

SuperSneakyCow wrote:This is particularly why I'm so amazed. It's like people never actually sat down and thought about things. Do you guys understand what fascism is? One of its major tenants is Doublespeak. Logically, you just said the exact opposite what you said before that.


You're rambling incoherently. And ignorantly, too, it seems.

SuperSneakyCow wrote:If its up to the state to prove that someone who has been murdered did not start a fight, while the only other testimony you have is that of the person who killed the guy who cannot testify, then the law that requires such an extraordinary level of evidence allows that person, to kill the other person, and be released without a necessity of extraordinary evidence for that extraordinary claim.


Stop. Think.

Yes. We require the State to prove its accusations. And to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt.

Evidence. Yes. TM is dead and cannot thus testify. But, his testimony and GZ's testimony is not all we have. There is all sorts of other evidence that is consistent with GZ's story. GZ was interrogated several times and gave a re-enactment, too, and each time his story seems to be consistent, and consistent with the injuries both parties suffered, too. Heck, apparently GZ even willingly took a polygraph test and the result was that his testimony was classified as No Deception Indicated... and the investigators concluded that GZ has told substantially the complete truth in regards to this examination...

Yes, the State must prove its case. In some cases of self defense, the assailant dies and thus is not able to testify. That's too bad. But, that fact doesn't mean that the one defending himself is guilty of murder.

SuperSneakyCow wrote:But no, some people couldn't draw a line from one dot to another.


Or, some people draw lines to non-existent dots.
As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

From: All Things Considered - The Error of Impartiality

This post was recommended by Northcoast Surfer (01 Jul 2012, 21:14)
Rating: 4%
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17699
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
263 Recommends(s)
196 Recognized(s)



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby TheGingerMan » 01 Jul 2012, 21:57

I'm not sure who I detest more: the banking industry, the poor, or flakes that hoist either flag.
"Turne ye to the strong hold, ye prisoners of hope,
even to day do I declare that I will render double unto thee:"

~~~ZECHARIAH 9:12

"Or fill high hawkfell of my hand,
with skalds reward for skilled word?"

~~~Egill Skallagrimssøn, c.974


"Opinion is underrated since it is too difficult for most and not understood by the rest."
~~~elektronisk
Forumosan avatar
TheGingerMan
Bureaucrat of the Underworld (cóng dìyù lái de guānliáo)
Bureaucrat of the Underworld (cóng dìyù lái de guānliáo)
 
Posts: 7789
Joined: 29 Aug 2005, 00:38
Location: The Thin Edge Of The Wedge
4 Recommends(s)
245 Recognized(s)
In Taiwan since: 0- 0-2114
Gruntleness: Fully Disgruntled



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby SuperSneakyCow » 02 Jul 2012, 02:04

TheGingerMan wrote:I'm not sure who I detest more: the banking industry, the poor, or flakes that hoist either flag.


Sorry to point out an industry that creates a systemic problem, and crashed the economy of the entire fucking galaxy while doing it. I'm just as bad as the people who blame those victimized and affected most by said system. I apologize. Hey, you know what we should do? Let's not talk about it, let banking executives who rob minorities in 30 different ways walk, then watch as right wingers blame those impoverished. I think I despise most those who only insult others indirectly.

Tigerman wrote:
SuperSneakyCow wrote:This is particularly why I'm so amazed. It's like people never actually sat down and thought about things. Do you guys understand what fascism is? One of its major tenants is Doublespeak. Logically, you just said the exact opposite what you said before that.


You're rambling incoherently. And ignorantly, too, it seems.

SuperSneakyCow wrote:If its up to the state to prove that someone who has been murdered did not start a fight, while the only other testimony you have is that of the person who killed the guy who cannot testify, then the law that requires such an extraordinary level of evidence allows that person, to kill the other person, and be released without a necessity of extraordinary evidence for that extraordinary claim.


Stop. Think.

Yes. We require the State to prove its accusations. And to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt.

Evidence. Yes. TM is dead and cannot thus testify. But, his testimony and GZ's testimony is not all we have. There is all sorts of other evidence that is consistent with GZ's story. GZ was interrogated several times and gave a re-enactment, too, and each time his story seems to be consistent, and consistent with the injuries both parties suffered, too. Heck, apparently GZ even willingly took a polygraph test and the result was that his testimony was classified as No Deception Indicated... and the investigators concluded that GZ has told substantially the complete truth in regards to this examination...

Yes, the State must prove its case. In some cases of self defense, the assailant dies and thus is not able to testify. That's too bad. But, that fact doesn't mean that the one defending himself is guilty of murder.


I've actually thought about it. See, the problem I'm having with you is that you already consider the person who died the assailant. I could stalk a woman, grope her, shove her a couple of times, and when my face gets torn off, I slit her throat. "That's too bad." I'm the one with the gun, and I have all the rights, because no one saw me following you, no one heard you scream for help, and it's your fault anyway for wearing such revealing clothing.

Meanwhile, 73 percent of people who use SYG as a defense in a case of homicide walk. Just sociopaths on the street who are enabled to kill because "that's too bad."

And you never seem to acknowledge that GZ also lied to a judge, which is a felony. If you already forgot, he also assaulted a cop, which is another felony. As well as having abused women, having a horrible temper, getting fired from being a security guard for it, failed at becoming a cop, and having a restraining order against him.

To top it off, Zimmerman actually has changed his story many times, as well as having lied to a judge.

Here I am with my crayon, at my wall, drawing arbitrary lines to non-existent dots.
SuperSneakyCow
Grasshopper (cǎo měng)
 
Posts: 82
Joined: 08 May 2012, 13:47
17 Recommends(s)
2 Recognized(s)



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby Tigerman » 02 Jul 2012, 06:50

Tigerman wrote:
SuperSneakyCow wrote:This is particularly why I'm so amazed. It's like people never actually sat down and thought about things. Do you guys understand what fascism is? One of its major tenants is Doublespeak. Logically, you just said the exact opposite what you said before that.


You're rambling incoherently. And ignorantly, too, it seems.

SuperSneakyCow wrote:If its up to the state to prove that someone who has been murdered did not start a fight, while the only other testimony you have is that of the person who killed the guy who cannot testify, then the law that requires such an extraordinary level of evidence allows that person, to kill the other person, and be released without a necessity of extraordinary evidence for that extraordinary claim.


Stop. Think.

Yes. We require the State to prove its accusations. And to prove them beyond a reasonable doubt.

Evidence. Yes. TM is dead and cannot thus testify. But, his testimony and GZ's testimony is not all we have. There is all sorts of other evidence that is consistent with GZ's story. GZ was interrogated several times and gave a re-enactment, too, and each time his story seems to be consistent, and consistent with the injuries both parties suffered, too. Heck, apparently GZ even willingly took a polygraph test and the result was that his testimony was classified as No Deception Indicated... and the investigators concluded that GZ has told substantially the complete truth in regards to this examination...

Yes, the State must prove its case. In some cases of self defense, the assailant dies and thus is not able to testify. That's too bad. But, that fact doesn't mean that the one defending himself is guilty of murder.


SuperSneakyCow wrote:I've actually thought about it.


Well...

SuperSneakyCow wrote:See, the problem I'm having with you is that you already consider the person who died the assailant.


I readily admit that I do not know in fact what happened. However, the evidence that we have indicates that TM was on top of GZ, repeatedly punching GZ in the face and repeatedly pounding GZ's head against the concrete sidewalk... In such a situation, GZ would be entitled to use self defense, and according to Florida law, even deadly force in defending himself.

SuperSneakyCow wrote:I could stalk a woman, grope her, shove her a couple of times, and when my face gets torn off, I slit her throat. "That's too bad." I'm the one with the gun, and I have all the rights, because no one saw me following you, no one heard you scream for help, and it's your fault anyway for wearing such revealing clothing.


According to Florida law, GZ certainly did not stalk TM. There is no evidence that GZ initiated the physical confrontation with TM. Your fact pattern above is in no way similar to what happened between GZ and TM.

Do you really suggest that we do away with the right to self defense?

SuperSneakyCow wrote:Meanwhile, 73 percent of people who use SYG as a defense in a case of homicide walk. Just sociopaths on the street who are enabled to kill because "that's too bad."


If you're going to cite statistics, please link to the source. Anyway, what is your point? Again, do you think we should do away with the right of self defense?

SuperSneakyCow wrote:And you never seem to acknowledge that GZ also lied to a judge, which is a felony.


I'm not really concerned about that. But, I haven't been following this case as closely in the past month. But, was it GZ or his wife who was charged with perjury?

SuperSneakyCow wrote:If you already forgot, he also assaulted a cop, which is another felony.


Come on... He didn't assault a cop in uniform. He intervened when an undercover cop was hassling his friend at a bar. He was not charged and instead was required to do some anger management class or something... we all know that that is just the cops not letting him go for behavior that otherwise would have been deemed upstanding.

SuperSneakyCow wrote:As well as having abused women, having a horrible temper, getting fired from being a security guard for it, failed at becoming a cop, and having a restraining order against him.


I don't know that he abused any women. I know that he and his ex both had restraining orders issued against each other, but, that no charges were ever filed against each other.

SuperSneakyCow wrote:To top it off, Zimmerman actually has changed his story many times

Has he? I cited and linked to reports regarding his polygraph test. The reports I've read stated that his story has been consistent throughout the investigation.

SuperSneakyCow wrote:as well as having lied to a judge.


Are you talking about GZ's wife?

SuperSneakyCow wrote:Here I am with my crayon, at my wall, drawing arbitrary lines to non-existent dots.


Yes.

Do you have anything to say about TM's past history?
As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

From: All Things Considered - The Error of Impartiality
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17699
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
263 Recommends(s)
196 Recognized(s)



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby ChewDawg » 02 Jul 2012, 07:01

SuperSneakyCow wrote:I love that article you didn't post about banks intentionally giving minorities sub-prime loans without telling them, and then betting against those same loans they later collateralized and had insured. You're a regular philanthropist, you.


For that, you would actually have to blame the Congressional Black Caucus and Democrat appointments in the 90s under Clinton such as Robert Rubin. You see, the CBC wanted everyone minority to have a home for political reasons and the repeal of Glass-Steagall legislation under Clinton helped because it allowed the financial instruments to be created to sell such sub-prime mortgages.

So I guess my point is don't just blame the bankers or Republicans. There is more than enough blame to go around, including on the centre left and left. In fact, I'd put more blame on Rangel, Clinton and Rubin than anyone else.
So I got an expresso and a hot burrito!
Forumosan avatar
ChewDawg
Gravel Truck Driver (suìshí chē sījī)
Gravel Truck Driver (suìshí chē sījī)
 
Posts: 1375
Joined: 06 Sep 2011, 10:27
111 Recommends(s)
95 Recognized(s)



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby Tigerman » 10 Aug 2012, 16:55

George Zimmerman seeks hearing under self-defence law

Lawyers for a Florida man charged in the shooting of black teenager Trayvon Martin said on Thursday they would seek a hearing under the “Stand Your Ground“ self-defence law that could result in the dismissal of criminal charges against him. George Zimmerman’s lawyers said they saw “clear support for a strong claim of self-defence” after prosecutors released much of their evidence in the case.


No surprise in this.
As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

From: All Things Considered - The Error of Impartiality
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17699
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
263 Recommends(s)
196 Recognized(s)



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby Gao Bohan » 11 Aug 2012, 04:30

SuperSneakyCow wrote:Oh, Iove when people make posts looking down on minority communities.


That's not what Chewy did. Not remotely. His post made a great deal of sense. Stop prancing around like an outraged sophmore.
Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal. - John F. Kennedy
Forumosan avatar
Gao Bohan
Thinking of Staging a Coup (xiǎng yào gǎo zhèng biàn)
Thinking of Staging a Coup (xiǎng yào gǎo zhèng biàn)
 
Posts: 6447
Joined: 28 Jun 2004, 03:20
Location: The Glorious American Empire
169 Recommends(s)
306 Recognized(s)



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby fred smith » 13 Aug 2012, 10:54

Stop prancing around like an outraged sophmore


:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

Amen.
Forumosan avatar
fred smith
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17015
Joined: 11 Oct 2002, 17:14
1 Recommends(s)
56 Recognized(s)



Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby SuperSneakyCow » 19 Aug 2012, 02:53

ChewDawg wrote:
SuperSneakyCow wrote:I love that article you didn't post about banks intentionally giving minorities sub-prime loans without telling them, and then betting against those same loans they later collateralized and had insured. You're a regular philanthropist, you.


For that, you would actually have to blame the Congressional Black Caucus and Democrat appointments in the 90s under Clinton such as Robert Rubin. You see, the CBC wanted everyone minority to have a home for political reasons and the repeal of Glass-Steagall legislation under Clinton helped because it allowed the financial instruments to be created to sell such sub-prime mortgages.


Oh, weird. You blame black people again, I'm shocked and chagrined, indignified and bamboozled. It's funny, though. I blame banks that would blanket black communities and refuse to give anyone loans regardless of credit standing, which would, as a direct result, prevent them from attaining any sort of wealth, while draining their communities of it. You see, banks would have started giving out sub-prime loans with exploding interest rates, anyway, since executives working towards short-term profits has been a problem for a long time, and CRA regulated loans made up something like less than 15 percent of all loans that caused the economic collapse. I understand that the idea that blacks should be able to get loans at interest rates identical to individuals in other groups of people with similar credit, seems illogical to you, but understand that not everyone believes in a society run by sociopathic corporations that corrupt government, marginalize minority groups, and intentionally rips off the public.

So I guess my point is don't just blame the bankers or Republicans. There is more than enough blame to go around, including on the centre left and left. In fact, I'd put more blame on Rangel, Clinton and Rubin than anyone else.


I didn't really mention the Republicans. I did mention banks. You view them as one in the same, apparently. Not weird at all, since they're absolutely butt buddies. I think they had a term for governments controlled by private banks back in the 40's, but I can't quite place it. Fastism? Fastist? Cactism? I don't know. It was probably socialism.

Since you mention Republicans, wasn't Glass(Dem)-Steagall(Dem) a law repealed by Graham(Rep)-Leech(Rep)-Bliley(Rep) that allowed all types of banks to merge, hence the popular term, "too big to fail"? It happened under Clinton, but it was written by a group of Republicans, or are you trying to tell me that the Republican party is not the party of deregulation, and that it is in fact the Democrats? Clinton might not have been as great as some make him out to be, but how is the general purpose behind the GLB, of deregulating everything, at all related to Democrats? It's not, see? That's why it's the fault of corporate controlled Republicans, and bankers, who wanted deregulation, and refused to give normal interest rate loans to minorities.

But no, bro. You're right. Blacks caused the economic collapse, as they did the Great Depression, and every other economic instability that didn't fucking exist after democrats passed banking regulation post-depression. Ugh. Why are blacks so evil, and naturally bursting at the seams with crime?
SuperSneakyCow
Grasshopper (cǎo měng)
 
Posts: 82
Joined: 08 May 2012, 13:47
17 Recommends(s)
2 Recognized(s)



FRIENDLY REMINDER
   Please remember that Forumosa is not responsible for the content that appears on the other side of links that Forumosans post on our forums. As a discussion website, we encourage open and frank debate. We have learned that the most effective way to address questionable claims or accusations on Forumosa is by engaging in a sincere and constructive conversation. To make this website work, we must all feel safe in expressing our opinions, this also means backing up any claims with hard facts, including links to other websites.
   Please also remember that one should not believe everything one reads on the Internet, particularly from websites whose content cannot be easily verified or substantiated. Use your common sense and do not hesitate to ask for proof.
PreviousNext




Proceed to International Politics



Who is online

Forumosans browsing this forum: No Forumosans and 2 visitors

Many a man gets weary of clamping down on his rough impulses, which if given occasional release would encourage the living of life with salt in it, in place of dust -- HENRY S. HASKINS