boyst Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) Is anyone here following this story that can explain why this story is getting so much attention? I am seeing that the President is commenting on this and wondering why? It is not something I want to turn in to a political discussion to go to the dark side/PPP. However, I want to know what happened? I saw a few different sides and wonder if the President felt obligated to say something because of the racial aspects of this? So, from start to finish, what is this whole weird thing about? Also, why is every picture showing him as a young teen and not the 17 year old? Edited March 24, 2012 by jboyst62 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsSD Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I'd just go to PPP. I rarely venture there but I've been following the thread and it isn't too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Is anyone here following this story that can explain why this story is getting so much attention? I am seeing that the President is commenting on this and wondering why? It is not something I want to turn in to a political discussion to go to the dark side/PPP. However, I want to know what happened? I saw a few different sides and wonder if the President felt obligated to say something because of the racial aspects of this? So, from start to finish, what is this whole weird thing about? Also, why is every picture showing him as a young teen and not the 17 year old? And why is Skittles mentioned every time? Would the outcome have been different if it had been Reece's pieces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Also, why is every picture showing him as a young teen and not the 17 year old? And why is Skittles mentioned every time? Would the outcome have been different if it had been Reece's pieces. Welcome to media manipulation in the 21st century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thisistheyear Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Welcome to media manipulation in the 21st century. The kid was holding candy not a weapon. That seems like a pretty relevant fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/143585-trayvon-martin-case/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 I saw that thread and it is normal PPP stuff. I was looking for real information, a little bit of facts and a timeline to what events happened to get it to the spotlight. I guess not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 1332621094[/url]' post='2421151']The kid was holding candy not a weapon. That seems like a pretty relevant fact. So why not simply report that he was unarmed, if that is the pertinent fact that needs to be expressed? Since when are crime victims described for the specific, non-lethal contents of their pockets? Oh right, when he media is trying to stir up lemmings to convict the other guy in the public eye. I don't know really happened in this case, and neither do you. But I can recognize the traditional/social media lynch mob in action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I saw that thread and it is normal PPP stuff. I was looking for real information, a little bit of facts and a timeline to what events happened to get it to the spotlight. I guess not? There isn't any real info. Something happened, someone shot someone else, everything you see and hear at this point is so much spin applied by attention whores with a pre-existing axe to grind (yes, Mr. Sharpton, I'm looking at your fat ass. How's Tawana Brawley these days?) that you won't get any real information in this lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 The kid was holding candy not a weapon. That seems like a pretty relevant fact. It goes hand in hand with showing the pictures of him much younger.... It's portraying a man attacking a child. Without interjecting an opinion, as like DC said, we don't know much.... the media wants to paint him as young and innocent as possible and in the spectrum from "skittles" to "candy" to "a snack" to "unarmed" --- skittles is a young carefree and innocent image. Making the story, which is already shocking, even more shocking they catch viewers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I saw that thread and it is normal PPP stuff. I was looking for real information, a little bit of facts and a timeline to what events happened to get it to the spotlight. I guess not? I was wondering this same thing, and read a timeline yesterday. This is ballpark stuff. It happened on the day of the NBA All Star Game, so whenever that was - in February. The shooter isn't arrested or anything and after awhile, the parents start to raise hell about it, which certainly seems to me to be very rational behavior, I believe contacting ABC. ABC sees that some bald Jewish guy shot a black kid with Skittles outside a gated community and outrage ensues.........Although it turns out that George Zimmerman is actually a 250 pound Hispanic 20something and the gated community is not the type we think of in the North - country club style, but working class at best. Talking points about skittles are made, and the media, blogosphere, etc. are whipped into a frenzy culminating in the appearances of Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson. Nobody really knows what happened, but everybody has a very loud opinion on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Dont let details cloud the picture. Here is the 30,000 ft view of what happened: Zimmerman starts following Martin. Zimmerman, a civilian, initiates some sort of confrontation. Zimmerman, a civilian, shoots an unarmed Martin. Zimmerman is not a cop, he is neighborhood watch. Which is just a glorified neighborhood busy-body. He's supposed to observe and report, at best. And let the professionals deal with it. What this comes down to is one citizen confronting another because he didn't like the looks of him, and then killing him when things got heated. IMO, there is NO defending Zimmerman. He had no right to do what he did, regardless of how the confrontation played out. I dont care about the "Stand Your Ground" Law. If anything, that law would only have protected Martin since he was the one accosted while innocently walking home. How far should we take it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Dont let details cloud the picture. Here is the 30,000 ft view of what happened: Zimmerman starts following Martin. Zimmerman, a civilian, initiates some sort of confrontation. Zimmerman, a civilian, shoots an unarmed Martin. Zimmerman is not a cop, he is neighborhood watch. Which is just a glorified neighborhood busy-body. He's supposed to observe and report, at best. And let the professionals deal with it. What this comes down to is one citizen confronting another because he didn't like the looks of him, and then killing him when things got heated. IMO, there is NO defending Zimmerman. He had no right to do what he did, regardless of how the confrontation played out. I dont care about the "Stand Your Ground" Law. If anything, that law would only have protected Martin since he was the one accosted while innocently walking home. How far should we take it? Here's what I think happened; Zimmerman follows and confronts Martin; Martin feels threatened and (ironically), uses a stand-your-ground mentality to attack Zimmerman; someone throws the first punch, they fight, Zimmerman is getting his ass kicked, so he pulls out the gun and fires. No question Zimmerman is guilty of something -- even if it's only horrible judgment. But that doesn't mean we should ignore the larger issues of media/government manipulation of the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 (edited) Dont let details cloud the picture. Here is the 30,000 ft view of what happened: Zimmerman starts following Martin. Zimmerman, a civilian, initiates some sort of confrontation. Zimmerman, a civilian, shoots an unarmed Martin. Zimmerman is not a cop, he is neighborhood watch. Which is just a glorified neighborhood busy-body. He's supposed to observe and report, at best. And let the professionals deal with it. What this comes down to is one citizen confronting another because he didn't like the looks of him, and then killing him when things got heated. IMO, there is NO defending Zimmerman. He had no right to do what he did, regardless of how the confrontation played out. I dont care about the "Stand Your Ground" Law. If anything, that law would only have protected Martin since he was the one accosted while innocently walking home. How far should we take it? You're suggesting we zoom out far enough to blur the details of what happened and look at the situation from an arbitrarily chosen point of abstraction. Your conclusion is that anytime someone confronts another person who he believes is doing something suspicious he is necessarily inviting that person to physically attack him and has forfeited the right to defend himself. Edited March 25, 2012 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 You're suggesting we zoom out far enough to blur the details of what happened and look at the situation from an arbitrarily chosen point of abstraction. Your conclusion is that anytime someone confronts another person who he believes is doing something suspicious he is necessarily inviting that person to physically attack him and has forfeited the right to defend himself. Not of abstraction, but of clarity. I included how Zimmerman lurked, stalked, and confronted Martin In this case, Martin "doing something suspicious" means "walking home". Martin is free to walk home, there is nothing suspicious about it. Zimmerman does not have a right to question him about it. The police might, but Zimmerman is not police. This is what is called "sticking your nose in other people's business". And if I'm walking in my neighborhood and some guy starts following me and then gets out to harass me, you best bet that can be interpreted as an invite to physically attack. Especially since, as KD pointed out, Martin could be "standing his ground". When a citizen lurks and confronts a completely innocent person, it can very easily be argued that the confronter is actually an attacker. The issue here is Zimmerman over-stepping his bounds as a civilian. What he was trying to do, most cops wouldnt get away with. And the police definitely wouldnt have handled it like he did. But that's why they are the trained professionals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Dont let details cloud the picture. Here is the 30,000 ft view of what happened: How far should we take it? I was giving the timeline of how this blew up into a media sensation, which is what I thought boys was looking for. Perhaps he was looking for a timeline of the actual killing, and you having been there, albeit from 30K feet, would better be able to fill him in on that, because I don't know really what happened then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 (edited) I was giving the timeline of how this blew up into a media sensation, which is what I thought boys was looking for. Perhaps he was looking for a timeline of the actual killing, and you having been there, albeit from 30K feet, would better be able to fill him in on that, because I don't know really what happened then. I wast responding to specifically your post at all, bbb. Or any others for that matter. Just commenting on the overall mucking-up of this story. The pictures of a younger Martin, etc shouldnt matter to either side. This was a citizen, regardless of age, that ended up dead because another citizen decided to confront him. I dont care about age, or race, or whatever. Just trying to put it in the perspective of "What if this was you walking home?". Edited March 25, 2012 by DrDareustein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Not of abstraction, but of clarity. I included how Zimmerman lurked, stalked, and confronted Martin In this case, Martin "doing something suspicious" means "walking home". Martin is free to walk home, there is nothing suspicious about it. Zimmerman does not have a right to question him about it. The police might, but Zimmerman is not police. This is what is called "sticking your nose in other people's business". And if I'm walking in my neighborhood and some guy starts following me and then gets out to harass me, you best bet that can be interpreted as an invite to physically attack. Especially since, as KD pointed out, Martin could be "standing his ground". When a citizen lurks and confronts a completely innocent person, it can very easily be argued that the confronter is actually an attacker. The issue here is Zimmerman over-stepping his bounds as a civilian. What he was trying to do, most cops wouldnt get away with. And the police definitely wouldnt have handled it like he did. But that's why they are the trained professionals. 1st bolded point - This is pure speculation. You have no idea what he may have been doing. 2nd bolded point - This is absolutely wrong. You have every right to ask someone what they're doing. There is no law against asking questions. 3rd bolded point - There is no evidence of harassment. Asking someone if he lives in the neighborhood and what he's doing isn't harassment. You don't have to answer but you're not allowed to physically attack someone because they are annoying you. You can stand your ground and you can call the cops, but until that person attacks, or at the very least threatens physical harm, you have no legal right to physically attack that person. On the flip side, if someone is on top of you pumping your face with his fist while you're screaming for help, you actually do have a right to reach into your holster, pull out your gun, point it at your attacker, and pull the !@#$ing trigger until it goes "click". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 (edited) 1st bolded point - This is pure speculation. You have no idea what he may have been doing. 2nd bolded point - This is absolutely wrong. You have every right to ask someone what they're doing. There is no law against asking questions. 3rd bolded point - There is no evidence of harassment. Asking someone if he lives in the neighborhood and what he's doing isn't harassment. You don't have to answer but you're not allowed to physically attack someone because they are annoying you. You can stand your ground and you can call the cops, but until that person attacks, or at the very least threatens physical harm, you have no legal right to physically attack that person. On the flip side, if someone is on top of you pumping your face with his fist while you're screaming for help, you actually do have a right to reach into your holster, pull out your gun, point it at your attacker, and pull the !@#$ing trigger until it goes "click". Not if you started the fight and put yourself in that position in the first place. Point is, Zimmerman shouldnt have been out of his car to begin with. He should have been following him, waiting for the police. But I understand where you are disagreeing, and I'll say fair enough, but I disagree as well. Edited March 25, 2012 by DrDareustein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I wast responding to specifically your post at all, bbb. Or any others for that matter. Just commenting on the overall mucking-up of this story. The pictures of a younger Martin, etc shouldnt matter to either side. This was a citizen, regardless of age, that ended up dead because another citizen decided to confront him. I dont care about age, or race, or whatever. Just trying to put it in the perspective of "What if this was you walking home?". The pictures of a younger Martin should matter to everyone because it is a clear case of intentional misrpresentation. It is intended to give the impression that Zimmerman approached a small child who looked like the one in the picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts