South Carolina church shooting: Nine killed in Charleston

First topic message reminder :

Nine people have died in a shooting at a historic African-American church in Charleston in the US state of South Carolina, officials say.
City police chief Gregory Mullen said eight of the victims were killed inside the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church on Thursday evening, while another person died shortly afterwards.
Police are now searching for a white male suspect in his 20s.
"I do believe it was a hate crime," Mr Mullen said.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33179019

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well no, he's not - he was defending himself.

Do you people never research stuff for yourselves?

Zimmerman was defending himself ? yea that`s bullshit and i know quite a lot about the case actually  as i do watch a lot of American news and did do research and discussed it extensively at the time

Yes, he was. Did you follow the trial?

Are you of the opinion that Jonathan Good was lying?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You don't even know the difference, and it shows.  As I say, you are good at storing facts, but lousy at interpreting them.  I'll bet you've never looked at a set of jury instructions.

Well the jury agreed with me Quill. I did think he might get manslaughter actually - on the grounds that he did stick his nose in, but the verdict was reasonable.

I did a fab job at interpreting the facts - you haven't even looked at the facts, let alone analysed them.

and a jury acquitted OJ Simpson just because they agreed with you doesn`t make it true does it

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
Zimmerman was defending himself ? yea that`s bullshit and i know quite a lot about the case actually  as i do watch a lot of American news and did do research and discussed it extensively at the time

Yes, he was. Did you follow the trial?

Are you of the opinion that Jonathan Good was lying?

yes i did and read the autopsy report and look at the location on goggle maps and saw the police report

And Good said the person on top appeared to be Martin, and the person on the bottom -- and the one who appeared to be yelling for help -- was Zimmerman.

When asked by defense attorney Mark O'Mara if the cry for help was indeed Zimmerman's, Good said, “I never said that -- I said it could have been his, but I’m not 100%,” he said.

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well the jury agreed with me Quill. I did think he might get manslaughter actually - on the grounds that he did stick his nose in, but the verdict was reasonable.

I did a fab job at interpreting the facts - you haven't even looked at the facts, let alone analysed them.

and a jury acquitted OJ Simpson  just because they agreed with you doesn`t make it true does it  

I didn't follow that trial so much. I did follow the Zimmerman trial though. Did you?

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:But this thread is about the evil murder of 9 innocent people and in a church of all places... pure evil!!!

I know.  I used the Zimmerman case as an example, and as often happens someone wants to argue the example and not the issue.

Tommy, even as I agree with you that this was an evil murder, I think there is a reasonable possibility that Mr. Roof will get off on these charges.  It is a southern jury, in a southern state, and the crime is a white man who has murdered black folks.  History shows that white people who commit crimes on black people do not suffer very grave consequences in North Carolina or South Carolina.  There are some very famous cases involving the KKK in which whites walk away cleanly.

All Mr. Roof has to do is come up with a plausible set of facts that leads to a proper legal defense, and he could walk.  A southern jury will favor a white over blacks.  At the very least, he could walk on a temporary insanity defense.  Watch and see if events don't bear me out: he will be lawyered up, the lawyer will look into recent events, he will find some sort of erratic behavior, and he will plead insanity...first, in a pleading to the court, and second, in argument to the jury.

Other defenses may arise as the facts come up.  The point is that any plausible defense will be accepted by a southern jury, where the accused is white and the victim is black.  History shows this.

Rubbish!


I know that waffle gets more credence in your justice system than ours but this evil bastards only possible mitigating defence is insanity...


Not a get out clause by any stretch of The imagination... but most likely that his actions were those of a seriously mentally troubled individual!!!

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, he was. Did you follow the trial?

Are you of the opinion that Jonathan Good was lying?

yes i did and read the autopsy report and look at the location  on goggle maps and saw the police report

And Good said the person on top appeared to be Martin, and the person on the bottom -- and the one who appeared to be yelling for help -- was Zimmerman.

When asked by defense attorney Mark O'Mara if the cry for help was indeed Zimmerman's, Good said, “I never said that -- I said it could have been his, but I’m not 100%,” he said.

That's right - he couldn't be sure, but he was pretty sure as to who was on top. He was very precise when he gave evidence. Zimmerman had injuries to his head - that's a fact.

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
yes i did and read the autopsy report and look at the location  on goggle maps and saw the police report

And Good said the person on top appeared to be Martin, and the person on the bottom -- and the one who appeared to be yelling for help -- was Zimmerman.

When asked by defense attorney Mark O'Mara if the cry for help was indeed Zimmerman's, Good said, “I never said that -- I said it could have been his, but I’m not 100%,” he said.

That's right - he couldn't be sure, but he was pretty sure as to who was on top. He was very precise when he gave evidence. Zimmerman had injuries to his head - that's a fact.

Wrong i provided what he said in court cant you read not 100% sure and "i never said that" please don`t substitute your facts with the given evidence presented in court

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That's right - he couldn't be sure, but he was pretty sure as to who was on top. He was very precise when he gave evidence. Zimmerman had injuries to his head - that's a fact.

Wrong i provided what he said in court cant you read not 100% sure and "i never said that" please don`t substitute your facts with the given evidence presented in court  

What? He was pretty sure about who was on top, but he wasn't sure about who was shouting. It could have been either of them, but logic tells me it was probably Zimmerman. He was the one having his head bashed on the ground.

He testified that he saw a darker-skinned person on top of a lighter skinned person the night Trayvon Martin was shot and killed. Good said the person on top appeared to be Martin, and the person on the bottom -- and the one who appeared to be yelling for help -- was Zimmerman.

When asked by defense attorney Mark O'Mara if the cry for help was indeed Zimmerman's, Good said, “I never said that -- I said it could have been his, but I’m not 100%,” he said.

O'Mara countered that he wasn't asking for 100% certainty, but rather "common sense."


precise i don`t think so

This thread is Not about zimmerman case And has absolutely no relevance So stop diverting this thread.

dont worry...its only a few...as we keep being told

korban dallas wrote:He testified that he saw a darker-skinned person on top of a lighter skinned person the night Trayvon Martin was shot and killed. Good said the person on top appeared to be Martin, and the person on the bottom -- and the one who appeared to be yelling for help -- was Zimmerman.

When asked by defense attorney Mark O'Mara if the cry for help was indeed Zimmerman's, Good said, “I never said that -- I said it could have been his, but I’m not 100%,” he said.

O'Mara countered that he wasn't asking for 100% certainty, but rather "common sense."


precise i don`t think so

He was very precise in that he wouldn't agree to anything he wasn't sure of. He was a good witness. He didn't let either the defence or the prosecution put words into his mouth.

Obviously he didn't know their names at the time, but he was sure of what he saw, unless you're saying that Trayvon Martin had a lighter skin than Zimmerman. He also said the person on the bottom was wearing white or red clothing.

Darkness... I wouldn't ever want to Or dare to try to undermine the seriousness or severity of this pure evil attack on these innocent, fine and decent citizens by this twisted nut case.



But when whites are attacked by Muslim terrorists, the lefties have repeatedly told us how it is only a few and to look at The overwhelming vast majority of Muslims who are not doing such things...

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:He testified that he saw a darker-skinned person on top of a lighter skinned person the night Trayvon Martin was shot and killed. Good said the person on top appeared to be Martin, and the person on the bottom -- and the one who appeared to be yelling for help -- was Zimmerman.

When asked by defense attorney Mark O'Mara if the cry for help was indeed Zimmerman's, Good said, “I never said that -- I said it could have been his, but I’m not 100%,” he said.

O'Mara countered that he wasn't asking for 100% certainty, but rather "common sense."


precise i don`t think so

He was very precise in that he wouldn't agree to anything he wasn't sure of. He was a good witness. He didn't let either the defence or the prosecution put words into his mouth.

Obviously he didn't know their names at the time, but he was sure of what he saw, unless you're saying that Trayvon Martin had a lighter skin than Zimmerman. He also said the person on the bottom was wearing white or red clothing.

doesn`t matter what i say you have made your mind up nothing is going to change your view wrong as it is



both dark skinned individuals and it was night time at distance but i am not going to argue with you over this i myself am pretty sure it was murder
he followed when told not to
he had been to anger-management classes.
Zimmerman's estranged wife, reported that Zimmerman had threatened her and her father with a gun and had punched her father in the face.

Zimmerman's girlfriend called the police alleging that after she had asked Zimmerman to leave her home, he had pointed a shotgun at her and begun breaking her belongings

January 9, 2015, Zimmerman was arrested by Lake Mary police and charged with aggravated assault with a weapon after allegedly throwing a wine bottle at his ex-girlfriend


w
one angry individual

logic tells me if it quacks walks and looks like a duck its a duck

The families of nine people shot dead in an African-American church in Charleston issued an emotional plea to the suspected killer on Friday.
Appearing in court via video-link, Dylann Roof, 21, stood unmoved and emotionless as grandchildren, sisters and sons of those killed gave teary statements.
The daughter of deceased Ethel Lance, 70 and a retired performing arts centre employee, told Roof she "forgave" him and spoke of the pain he had caused her.
HTML5 video is not supported!
"I just want everyone to know, I forgive you," the young woman said.
"You took something very precious away from me.

"I will never talk to her ever ago; I will never be able to hold her again - but I forgive you.
"God have mercy on your soul. You hurt me. You hurt a lot of people.
"God forgive you. I forgive you."
Anthony Thompson, Reverend of Charleston's Holy Trinity REC Church and widowed husband to one of the victims, Myra Thompson, said he also forgave Roof for his actions.
"I would just like him to know that I forgive you," he told the court.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/19/charleston-shooting-dylann-roof-storm-victims_n_7623652.html?utm_hp_ref=uk


Take my hat off to the victims families.

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He was very precise in that he wouldn't agree to anything he wasn't sure of. He was a good witness. He didn't let either the defence or the prosecution put words into his mouth.

Obviously he didn't know their names at the time, but he was sure of what he saw, unless you're saying that Trayvon Martin had a lighter skin than Zimmerman. He also said the person on the bottom was wearing white or red clothing.

doesn`t matter what i say you have made your mind up nothing is going to change your view wrong as it is



both dark skinned individuals and it was night time at distance but i am not going to argue with you over this i myself am pretty sure it was murder
he followed when told not to
he had been to  anger-management classes.
Zimmerman's estranged wife, reported that Zimmerman had threatened her and her father with a gun and had punched her father in the face.

Zimmerman's girlfriend called the police alleging that after she had asked Zimmerman to leave her home, he had pointed a shotgun at her and begun breaking her belongings

January 9, 2015, Zimmerman was arrested by Lake Mary police and charged with aggravated assault with a weapon after allegedly throwing a wine bottle at his ex-girlfriend


w
one angry individual

logic tells me if it quacks walks and looks like a duck    its a duck

He stopped following Trayvon when he was told he didn't need to do that. Why you people persist in the myth that he carried on is a mystery.

The other stuff is not relevant. You'd be angry if you'd been tried for a crime you didn't commit, and been berated all over the press and the internet.

At least you didn't claim that Zimmerman was white though.

Nine black church congregants were killed by a white shooter last night in Charleston, S.C., a shocking event that local police are characterizing as a hate crime. Below are several pieces of critical context on hate crimes and hate groups from the Southern Poverty Law Center, the FBI and other sources. While the number of active hate groups in the United States has fallen in recent years, the hate crime rate remains steady and blacks remain the racial group most likely to experience racially motivated violence.

1. Among racial groups, blacks experience the most hate crime.

 


FBI hate crime data show that more than 50 out of every 1 million black citizens was the victim of a racially motivated hate crime in 2012, the highest among any racial group.

But this is almost certainly an undercount. The FBI is reliant on state and local  law enforcement agencies to categorize and report hate crimes correctly. Some agencies do a much better job of this than others, and there is general agreement that the FBI numbers are significantly lower than they should be.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/18/5-charts-show-the-stubborn-persistence-of-american-hate-crime/





I think the numbers speak for themselves Tommy.

You do not like facts and cannot believe where here we have 9 people murdered and all you can go on about is when whites are victims when all victims matter no matter their ethnicity. Is always wrong hate crimes no matter who commit them. This though is about how 9 innocent Christians who were murdered because they were black. Try not to allow that fact to escape you in regards to this thread.

What next Tommy Blooper. Are you going to say that the Police in the US who have found to be in countless cases discriminating against blacks, are covering up black and white hate crime now in the US?
The answer to that is clearly very unlikely.

All you want to do is make your racial view points which you base on unfounded evidence and poorly deflect this thread showing your disdain for black people. This is about 9 Black Christians who were murdered because they were black. Try to keep that in mind when discussing the topic here.

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
doesn`t matter what i say you have made your mind up nothing is going to change your view wrong as it is



both dark skinned individuals and it was night time at distance but i am not going to argue with you over this i myself am pretty sure it was murder
he followed when told not to
he had been to  anger-management classes.
Zimmerman's estranged wife, reported that Zimmerman had threatened her and her father with a gun and had punched her father in the face.

Zimmerman's girlfriend called the police alleging that after she had asked Zimmerman to leave her home, he had pointed a shotgun at her and begun breaking her belongings

January 9, 2015, Zimmerman was arrested by Lake Mary police and charged with aggravated assault with a weapon after allegedly throwing a wine bottle at his ex-girlfriend


w
one angry individual

logic tells me if it quacks walks and looks like a duck    its a duck

He stopped following Trayvon when he was told he didn't need to do that. Why you people persist in the myth that he carried on is a mystery.

The other stuff is not relevant. You'd be angry if you'd been tried for a crime you didn't commit, and been berated all over the press and the internet.

that`s bull as well he did not stop following him he continued to follow him then lost him for a short time then found him and shot him

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He stopped following Trayvon when he was told he didn't need to do that. Why you people persist in the myth that he carried on is a mystery.

The other stuff is not relevant. You'd be angry if you'd been tried for a crime you didn't commit, and been berated all over the press and the internet.

that`s bull as well he did not stop following him he continued to follow him then lost him for a short time then found him and shot him

No he didn't. How many more times do I need to say that Trayvon could have been home long before Zimmerman even got off the phone with the police dispatcher? Zimmerman couldn't possibly have caught up with him. He didn't just shoot him for no reason - Trayvon was on top of him banging his head on the ground.

I dont think either Tommy or myself allow any fact about this to "escape us"

I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of certain others with this "its only a few nonsense"

clearly throwing it back into the mix is "inconvenient" for the left....

(now waits for the whole hypocritical "you shouldnt say such things at a time like this type whinge"...when of course that is EXACTLY what was said within hours of the london bus bombings etc....)

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
that`s bull as well he did not stop following him he continued to follow him then lost him for a short time then found him and shot him

No he didn't. How many more times do I need to say that Trayvon could have been home long before Zimmerman even got off the phone with the police dispatcher? Zimmerman couldn't possibly have caught up with him. He didn't just shoot him for no reason - Trayvon was on top of him banging his head on the ground.

your just spinning bullshit

Throughout the trial, O'Mara maintained Zimmerman stopped following Trayvon once police told him it was not necessary. The state, O'Mara told jurors, can't prove that Zimmerman did otherwise.

So if he stopped following him how did TVM get shot ? magic bullets perhaps that find there target
to shoot him he had to be following him otherwise he would not have known where he was .....that`s logic that is

and once again you make assumptions that don`t tally with the given evidence given in court

darknessss wrote:I dont think either Tommy or myself allow any fact about this to "escape us"

I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of certain others with this "its only a few nonsense"

clearly throwing it back into the mix is "inconvenient" for the left....

(now waits for the whole hypocritical "you shouldnt say such things at a time like this type whinge"...when of course that is EXACTLY what was said within hours of the london bus bombings etc....)

Sorry Victor, but the wording to say few is a poor way to define numbers in terrorism and hate crimes.
It should be stated as a sizable minority. It certainly is a few compared to the rest, but is this really what the issue is about, words to define numbers?
Is this really what is more important here? Left or right when both are wrong to distort the picture dependent on who is the victims.
What does that achieve?
Nothing except both sides being wrong

The prosecution's most important witness may have been Rachel Jeantel, 19, a young woman who was on the phone with Trayvon moments before he died.

Jeantel said Zimmerman stared at and then followed Trayvon, who tried several times to run away. Trayvon was out of breath, she said. "It was kind of strange that a person kept watching and following," she said. "It was like being stalked.

stalking is a crime in the states

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No he didn't. How many more times do I need to say that Trayvon could have been home long before Zimmerman even got off the phone with the police dispatcher? Zimmerman couldn't possibly have caught up with him. He didn't just shoot him for no reason - Trayvon was on top of him banging his head on the ground.

your just spinning bullshit

Throughout the trial, O'Mara maintained Zimmerman stopped following Trayvon once police told him it was not necessary. The state, O'Mara told jurors, can't prove that Zimmerman did otherwise.

So if he stopped following him how did TVM get shot ?  magic bullets perhaps that find there target
to shoot him he had to be following him otherwise he would not have known where he was .....that`s logic that is

and once again you make assumptions that don`t tally with the given evidence given in court  

O'Mara was right.

Trayvon hid around the corner of a house and then came back to confront Zimmerman, or he went as far as his father's house and then came back whilst Zimmerman was walking down past the T-junction. Trayvon hit Zimmerman in the face - if you have bothered to look, you would have seen those injuries. There was a struggle and some pushing and shoving, and Trayvon got Zimmerman on the floor and started banging his head on the ground.

korban dallas wrote:The prosecution's most important witness may have been Rachel Jeantel, 19, a young woman who was on the phone with Trayvon moments before he died.

Jeantel said Zimmerman stared at and then followed Trayvon, who tried several times to run away. Trayvon was out of breath, she said. "It was kind of strange that a person kept watching and following," she said. "It was like being stalked.

stalking is a crime in the states

She wasn't there. Nobody has said that Zimmerman didn't follow Trayvon at first, but he was not following him when the confontration happened. Rachel also said that Trayvon referred to Zimmerman as a "creepy-ass cracker".

Her testimony was dreadful - they had to keep asking her to speak clearly.

Belatucadros wrote:

darknessss wrote:I dont think either Tommy or myself allow any fact about this to "escape us"

I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of certain others with this "its only a few nonsense"

clearly throwing it back into the mix is "inconvenient" for the left....

(now waits for the whole hypocritical "you shouldnt say such things at a time like this type whinge"...when of course that is EXACTLY what was said within hours of the london bus bombings etc....)

Sorry Victor, but the wording to say few is a poor way to define numbers in terrorism and hate crimes.
It should be stated as a sizable minority. It certainly is a few compared to the rest, but is this really what the issue is about, words to define numbers?
Is this really what is more important here? Left or right when both are wrong to distort the picture dependent on who is the victims.
What does that achieve?
Nothing except both sides being wrong

oh I agree didge...

but see I dont really care WHO the victims were/are (thats not to say I dont care for the victims themselves BTW)

what boils my p*** is that "its only a few" (and by implication therfore insignificant and trivial) is EXACTLY what was thrown in everyones face by some appologists when the atrocities here were commited.....

and yet to say the same thing in this case is somehow considered taboo and wrong??

a VERY strong case of the left inhabiting two places at once.....


anyway I'll shurrup about it for the moment since it is somewhat inappropriate here and now....

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
your just spinning bullshit

Throughout the trial, O'Mara maintained Zimmerman stopped following Trayvon once police told him it was not necessary. The state, O'Mara told jurors, can't prove that Zimmerman did otherwise.

So if he stopped following him how did TVM get shot ?  magic bullets perhaps that find there target
to shoot him he had to be following him otherwise he would not have known where he was .....that`s logic that is

and once again you make assumptions that don`t tally with the given evidence given in court  

O'Mara was right.

Trayvon hid around the corner of a house and then came back to confront Zimmerman, or he went as far as his father's house and then came back whilst Zimmerman was walking down past the T-junction. Trayvon hit Zimmerman in the face - if you have bothered to look, you would have seen those injuries. There was a struggle and some pushing and shoving, and Trayvon got Zimmerman on the floor and started banging his head on the ground.

if i bothered ? i did look injury's that did not need stitches and he refused hospital treatment till the next day and where superficial in nature with little blood

you ever had your head banged in to concrete your head bleeds quite a lot in theses injury's so if his head was banged repeatedly in to concrete where's all the blood

but this was years ago i forget most of the details and as i say your mind is made up an Q is quite right Your doubts are not facts. They are assumptions They are pieces of a story…by a person with a motive to lie and i agree your not very good at interpreting the facts.

but i have no interest in re litigating it
you have your view i have mine lets leave it at that

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

O'Mara was right.

Trayvon hid around the corner of a house and then came back to confront Zimmerman, or he went as far as his father's house and then came back whilst Zimmerman was walking down past the T-junction. Trayvon hit Zimmerman in the face - if you have bothered to look, you would have seen those injuries. There was a struggle and some pushing and shoving, and Trayvon got Zimmerman on the floor and started banging his head on the ground.

if i bothered ? i did look injury's that did not need stitches and he refused hospital treatment till the next day  and where superficial in nature with little blood

you ever had your head banged in to concrete  your head bleeds quite a lot in theses injury's  so if his head was banged repeatedly in to concrete where's all the blood

but this was years ago i forget most of the details and as i say your mind is made up an Q is quite right Your doubts are not facts.  They are assumptions  They are pieces of a story…by a person with a motive to lie and i agree your not very good at interpreting the  facts.

but i have no interest in re litigating it
you have your view i have mine lets leave it at that

Nevertheless, Zimmerman did have injuries, and they weren't self-inflicted. Someone hit him, and someone banged his head on the ground. Would you not agree? I daresay he was able to resist up to a point so the injuries were not serious, but the point is that if he thought he would be seriously injured, he was entitled to defend himself.

Quill is wrong, and you are wrong. You are the ones who are making assumptions and ignoring the evidence. That's because you're both biased.

You want to talk about interpretation of the facts? Answer this then.

Where do you think Zimmerman was all the time he was talking on the phone to the dispatcher? You heard him get out of his vehicle, and we know where that was parked. Where do you think that Trayvon was all the time Zimmerman was on the phone to the dispatcher? Remember that after Zimmerman got out of his vehicle he was on the phone for nearly another two minutes, and remember that Trayvon had a head start on him and that he was pretty close to his father's house.

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
if i bothered ? i did look injury's that did not need stitches and he refused hospital treatment till the next day  and where superficial in nature with little blood

you ever had your head banged in to concrete  your head bleeds quite a lot in theses injury's  so if his head was banged repeatedly in to concrete where's all the blood

but this was years ago i forget most of the details and as i say your mind is made up an Q is quite right Your doubts are not facts.  They are assumptions  They are pieces of a story…by a person with a motive to lie and i agree your not very good at interpreting the  facts.

but i have no interest in re litigating it
you have your view i have mine lets leave it at that

Nevertheless, Zimmerman did have injuries, and they weren't self-inflicted. Someone hit him, and someone banged his head on the ground? Would you not agree? I daresay he was able to resist up to a point so the injuries were not serious, but the point is that if he thought he would be seriously injured, he was entitled to defend himself.

Quill is wrong, and you are wrong. You are the ones who are making assumptions and ignoring the evidence. That's because you're both biased.

You want to talk about interpretation of the facts? Answer this then.

Where do you think Zimmerman was all the time he was talking on the phone to the dispatcher? You heard him get out of his vehicle, and we know where that was parked. Where do you think that Trayvon was all the time Zimmerman was on the phone to the dispatcher? Remember that after Zimmerman got out of his vehicle he was on the phone for nearly another two minutes, and remember that Trayvon had a head start on him and that he was pretty close to his father's house.  

both biased. FFs
grow up for fuck sake why would i be biased i only care about justice and facts not assumptions and making statements that i can t prove that nobody can prove
all the evidence is one sided for the most part from what i consider to be guy trying to avoid jail

and that is my last comment on the subject please just have your view and i have mine
i think your badly wrong
the end

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nevertheless, Zimmerman did have injuries, and they weren't self-inflicted. Someone hit him, and someone banged his head on the ground? Would you not agree? I daresay he was able to resist up to a point so the injuries were not serious, but the point is that if he thought he would be seriously injured, he was entitled to defend himself.

Quill is wrong, and you are wrong. You are the ones who are making assumptions and ignoring the evidence. That's because you're both biased.

You want to talk about interpretation of the facts? Answer this then.

Where do you think Zimmerman was all the time he was talking on the phone to the dispatcher? You heard him get out of his vehicle, and we know where that was parked. Where do you think that Trayvon was all the time Zimmerman was on the phone to the dispatcher? Remember that after Zimmerman got out of his vehicle he was on the phone for nearly another two minutes, and remember that Trayvon had a head start on him and that he was pretty close to his father's house.  

both biased. FFs
grow up for fuck sake why would i be biased i only care about justice and facts not assumptions and making statements that i can t prove that nobody can prove
all the evidence is one sided for the most part from what i consider to be guy trying to avoid jail  

and that is my last comment on the subject please just have your view and i have mine
i think your badly wrong
the end

If Zimmerman had been following Trayvon all the time he was on the phone and after he got off the phone, he would have got a lot further than he did.

You grow up. You've been given the facts, but you can't see beyond your own bias. You can't answer the questions because if you could, you'd have to admit that your argument is illogical.

Of course Quill is biased. He thinks that all black people must be victims by default.

Raggamuffin wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
both biased. FFs
grow up for fuck sake why would i be biased i only care about justice and facts not assumptions and making statements that i can t prove that nobody can prove
all the evidence is one sided for the most part from what i consider to be guy trying to avoid jail  

and that is my last comment on the subject please just have your view and i have mine
i think your badly wrong
the end

If Zimmerman had been following Trayvon all the time he was on the phone and after he got off the phone, he would have got a lot further than he did.

You grow up. You've been given the facts, but you can't see beyond your own bias. You can't answer the questions because if you could, you'd have to admit that your argument is illogical.

so have you talk about bias your the one who is wilfully biased peppered with assumptions and comments that can`t be proven except in your own head ,he would have ,he could have he did this he did that none of which you can prove and is the very essence of bias
now i have given you my view
Yet like a dog with a bone you keep it going when i have said 4 times just leave it at that

I cant change your mind you cant change mine and its not because i can`t its because its a pointless exercise

and quite frankly boring as shit
i did this when it happened it might be your pet subject its not mine any more

you accuse me of bias because i don`t agree with your view BIg surprise there then
I see the facts differently than you do
i don`t make assumptions like you do
or go of in a tangent
I think he got away with murder you don`t fine ok i get it
we will have to agree to disagree

Raggamuffin wrote:Of course Quill is biased. He thinks that all black people must be victims by default.

yea your goto accusation when you are challenged it must be hard being the victim all the time

Violent crime against whites happens every day but hardly ever classified as racist or hate crimes.





Even though whites are specifically targeted by blacks in majority of these crimes.

Tommy Monk wrote:Violent crime against whites happens every day but hardly ever classified as racist or hate crimes.





Even though whites are specifically targeted by blacks in majority of these crimes.

Generally not because they're white, though. A hate crime is a crime that has the additional intention of intimidating a community. If a white guy gets mugged by a black guy, that's probably not a hate crime.

(edited by Ben to size the photo better)

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Violent crime against whites happens every day but hardly ever classified as racist or hate crimes.





Even though whites are specifically targeted by blacks in majority of these crimes.

Generally not because they're white, though. A hate crime is a crime that has the additional intention of intimidating a community. If a white guy gets mugged by a black guy, that's probably not a hate crime.

What if target of attack was subject to racial profiling...!?



Otherwise why are black on white crimes so disproportionately high...!?

First of all, you have to establish your claim that black-on-white crime is disproportionately high. Which you can't do:

Statistics are cut-and-dry, and they do not lie. According to the FBI’s most recent homicide numbers available, from 2011, a staggering 83 percent of white murder victims were killed by fellow Caucasians. (Of murders committed by Blacks, only 14 percent were of whites.) And because whites are the majority in the country — there are six times as many whites as there are Blacks — that means they commit the most murders.

http://atlantablackstar.com/2015/03/03/9-facts-white-white-crime-far-exceeds-black-black-crime-media-conceals/2/

Second, "racial profiling" is something law enforcement does, not civilians. If you're trying to say, what if the victim was targeted because of their race? If that can be proven, then a hate crime has been committed. Hate crime is more than just a member of one group committing a crime against a member of a different group; that's why there's a fundamental difference between a crime like this church shooting and something like the Waco biker shootout.

So again in a nation where blacks are often discriminated against by the Police. Now Tommy thinks they are skewing the stats in their favour.  By Tommy's unsubstantiated claim in regards to white victims as not classing some crimes as hate crimes. Even though it would be in their interest to do so to make black suspects of hate crime face punishment far longer through sentencing. Yeah your illogical views fall apart very quickly Tommy The reality of how blacks are by far the most victims of hate crimes stands against yo. Where it is more probable the numbers by the Police classing crimes where blacks are victims as hate crimes as under reported making sense of the discrimination that is rife in the US Police.
Tommy Blooper proves why he lives in a fantasy world

Ben_Reilly wrote:First of all, you have to establish your claim that black-on-white crime is disproportionately high. Which you can't do:

Statistics are cut-and-dry, and they do not lie. According to the FBI’s most recent homicide numbers available, from 2011, a staggering 83 percent of white murder victims were killed by fellow Caucasians. (Of murders committed by Blacks, only 14 percent were of whites.) And because whites are the majority in the country — there are six times as many whites as there are Blacks — that means they commit the most murders.

http://atlantablackstar.com/2015/03/03/9-facts-white-white-crime-far-exceeds-black-black-crime-media-conceals/2/

Second, "racial profiling" is something law enforcement does, not civilians. If you're trying to say, what if the victim was targeted because of their race? If that can be proven, then a hate crime has been committed. Hate crime is more than just a member of one group committing a crime against a member of a different group; that's why there's a fundamental difference between a crime like this church shooting and something like the Waco biker shootout.

Tommy struggles with facts.
In fact he only believes what he wants to believe even if made up, where to him everything is a cover up and conspiracy.


Right am off to bed, cheers Ben

Black on white crime is of hugely disproportionate levels... as I have shown many times before...



This pure evil attack we are discussing is undoubtedly of racist motivation... and I condemn it unequivocally!!!




The racist intent part is about as plainly visible as can be.




Black on white crime is hugely disproportionate but always unexplained as of a racial nature but on The other hand can only really be because of racial targeting to end up being so racially disproportionate in the first place...!?

Among black people, black-on-black crime is far more prevalent than black-on-white.

Starting to feel like we're talking about porn here ....

While white on black crime is almost non existent...




Black on white crime is huge in occurrence and hugely disproportionate.

Tommy Monk wrote:While white on black crime is almost non existent...




Black on white crime is huge in occurrence and hugely disproportionate.

Tommy, I've shown you the facts -- I should have remembered going in that you can't accept facts that you can't fit into your worldview; that's my mistake.

Frankly, it's pretty disgusting that you'd bring up black-on-white violence in this thread -- it seems like you're trying to say these murders were justified as some sort of payback.

That old chestnut...




Ho hum...



Shows when an argument has been lost when they have to bring out the twisty tactics...!!!



But not so quick to tell us how it's 'only a few' although white on black crime is such a rare occurrences...

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:While white on black crime is almost non existent...




Black on white crime is huge in occurrence and hugely disproportionate.

Tommy, I've shown you the facts -- I should have remembered going in that you can't accept facts that you can't fit into your worldview; that's my mistake.

Frankly, it's pretty disgusting that you'd bring up black-on-white violence in this thread -- it seems like you're trying to say these murders were justified as some sort of payback.

You could cover his entire body a million times over with post it notes stating these facts, (as you will need that many based on the staggering amount of evidence there is) and he would still stick his head in the sand, going "blah, blah, blah, I'm not listening, blah, blah, blah"

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If Zimmerman had been following Trayvon all the time he was on the phone and after he got off the phone, he would have got a lot further than he did.

You grow up. You've been given the facts, but you can't see beyond your own bias. You can't answer the questions because if you could, you'd have to admit that your argument is illogical.

so have you talk about bias your the one who is wilfully biased peppered with assumptions and comments that can`t be proven except in your own head ,he would have ,he could have he did this he did that none of which you can prove and is the very essence of bias
now i have given you my view
Yet like a dog with a bone you keep it going when i have said 4 times just leave it at that

I cant change your mind you cant change mine and its not because i can`t its because its a pointless exercise

and quite frankly boring as shit
i did this when it happened it might be your pet subject its not mine any more
 
you accuse me of bias because i don`t agree with your view BIg surprise there then
I see the facts differently than you do
i don`t make assumptions like you do
or go of in a tangent
I think he got away with murder you don`t fine ok i get it
we will have to agree to disagree

If you wanted to leave it, you shouldn't have posted in this thread about it. You just couldn't bear to be challenged on your bias. You haven't even said how you see the facts - you haven't even mentioned any facts. You're the one making assumptions and refusing to look at the evidence.

korban dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Of course Quill is biased. He thinks that all black people must be victims by default.

yea your goto accusation when you are challenged it must be hard being the victim all the time  

You're the one playing the victim. You stuck your beak in and then you said you didn't want to discuss it any more. That's because you can't back up what you're saying, and you know it.