Mother-fuck. It's happened again.

First topic message reminder :

New York (CNN) -- Protesters poured onto the streets of New York late Wednesday, upset over a grand jury's decision not to indict a police officer in the death of Eric Garner.

They marched at the same time U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that federal officials were moving ahead with a civil rights investigation.

Garner, an unarmed black man, died in July after a white officer, Daniel Pantaleo, put him in a chokehold. Garner's death was later ruled a homicide.

"This fight ain't over. It just begun. I'm determined to get justice for my husband because he shouldn't have been killed in that way. He shouldn't have been killed in any way," said Esaw Garner, his widow.

"He should be here, celebrating Christmas and Thanksgiving and everything else, with his children and his grandchildren. And he can't. Why? Because a cop did wrong. Somebody that gets paid to do right did wrong and he's not held accountable for it. But my husband's death will not be in vain. As long as I have a breath in my body I will fight the fight till the end."

Protesters gathered at various points in Manhattan, including Times Square and Union Square, marching peacefully north as crowds formed near Rockefeller Center for the lighting of the Christmas tree. Columbus Circle was blocked for a time.

There were demonstrations in other cities too, including Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Oakland, California.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/03/justice/new-york-grand-jury-chokehold/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

There's also no evidence that Zimmerman ignored the advice that he didn't need to follow Trayvon. He said he started to walk back towards his car, and there's no evidence that he didn't do that.

He wasn't "ordered" to stop by the way.

Original Quill wrote:

It's complicated, I know.  You can't make any assumptions.  I'll go over it again.

The night Zimmerman killed Trayvon, his wife had left him and started divorce proceedings.  She had moved out of the house and moved into her father's home.  So, that was the day of remorse and depression.  Then he kills Trayvon.

It's quite strange that Shellie Zimmerman was at the trial if she wanted to divorce Zimmerman. She also lied about their finances in order to support him after the shooting. That's not the actions of someone who wants a divorce IMO. Sure she did later - after the trial.

Original Quill wrote:

Of course he would.  Zimmerman actually fancied himself a member of law enforcement.  Wouldn't a real cop call in to inform 'Central' of his actions?  A pretend, or wannabe cop tries to emulate the legitimate cop in every way.  He had become a member of the neighborhood watch, as I say, because he wanted to vent his aggressiveness under the ruse of legitimacy.  He is a passive aggressive.

What he probably didn't count on, was the police not along with his ploy.  He fancied himself the real thing, and was probably shocked when they treated him like a normal person.  People with delusions of grandeur are often surprised when they are laughed at.  That's probably why Zimmerman didn't listen to the order to cease stalking Trayvon...so he needed to prove his stripes (legitimacy), perhaps by killing a black...after all, killing a black in the South ain't so bad.  Then--in his mind--he would gain respect and be the hero.  He was already in a tizzy what with his wife leaving; being rebuffed by the police probably just spurred him on.

You've completely ignored the evidence at the trial that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman. There's no evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon after he was advised to stop. In fact, he said that he didn't know where he was.

Raggamuffin wrote:There's also no evidence that Zimmerman ignored the advice that he didn't need to follow Trayvon. He said he started to walk back towards his car, and there's no evidence that he didn't do that.

He wasn't "ordered" to stop by the way.

We know Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon, without hesitation. I think Bee is right...you've got some bad information.  Trayvon was on the phone with his friend the whole time, and there is no evidence of any such thing.

The story is obviously and embarrassment to the RW, and you know how Republicans lie (WMD's in Iraq; Obama's a Muslim; death panels in AFA).  Lol.  I don't even go so far as to attribute lies on the matter to the KKK.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's complicated, I know.  You can't make any assumptions.  I'll go over it again.

The night Zimmerman killed Trayvon, his wife had left him and started divorce proceedings.  She had moved out of the house and moved into her father's home.  So, that was the day of remorse and depression.  Then he kills Trayvon.

It's quite strange that Shellie Zimmerman was at the trial if she wanted to divorce Zimmerman. She also lied about their finances in order to support him after the shooting. That's not the actions of someone who wants a divorce IMO. Sure she did later - after the trial.

I think you have missed the import of the point about Shellie.

George Zimmerman had severe marital problems all along. But a very significant thing happened on the night before Zimmerman murdered Trayvon. Shellie walked out on him. She told him it was final. Now it is beyond human capability to see into the future, and if the two reconciled later that could not have been known at the time. The fact is that night was monumental in George's perception at the time.

George was disturbed and upset. A reasonable inference is that he was angry at the time of the encounter with Trayvon, and he was going to take it out on someone. Given his remark responding to the police operator when told to cease and desist the stalking ("...they [blacks] always get away with it"), it is clear he was consumed with his anger. He was profiling a black child, and in his mind killing of a black was acceptable because "...they always get away with it."

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's complicated, I know.  You can't make any assumptions.  I'll go over it again.

The night Zimmerman killed Trayvon, his wife had left him and started divorce proceedings.  She had moved out of the house and moved into her father's home.  So, that was the day of remorse and depression.  Then he kills Trayvon.

It's quite strange that Shellie Zimmerman was at the trial if she wanted to divorce Zimmerman. She also lied about their finances in order to support him after the shooting. That's not the actions of someone who wants a divorce IMO. Sure she did later - after the trial.

Reconciliation efforts after the initial separation in a divorcing couple are not uncommon.  But you cannot predict the future.  On the night Zimmerman murdered Trayvon, he was upset and was going to take it out on someone.  Profiling a black child, he was destined for something worse.

As to Shellie "lying" I have to laugh somewhat...as a lawyer I know what typically goes on.  The reason why Shellie misspoke about finances is because she didn't know about them.  George Zimmerman became a cause célèbre for the right wing.  Money began pouring in from rich Republicans as a war chest.  Of course, without strings that money becomes his.  Shellie didn't know; she was separated.  By the time they got back together, she had no idea so much money had been accumulated.

Zimmerman continues to be a rich man today.  That's how important his cause was.  That's the reason why gf Samantha shut up about her separation from George.  Typically, when the evidence is solely narrative, money changes hands.  I speculate that George's handlers were able to buy her...that's what typically happens.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Of course he would.  Zimmerman actually fancied himself a member of law enforcement.  Wouldn't a real cop call in to inform 'Central' of his actions?  A pretend, or wannabe cop tries to emulate the legitimate cop in every way.  He had become a member of the neighborhood watch, as I say, because he wanted to vent his aggressiveness under the ruse of legitimacy.  He is a passive aggressive.

What he probably didn't count on, was the police not along with his ploy.  He fancied himself the real thing, and was probably shocked when they treated him like a normal person.  People with delusions of grandeur are often surprised when they are laughed at.  That's probably why Zimmerman didn't listen to the order to cease stalking Trayvon...so he needed to prove his stripes (legitimacy), perhaps by killing a black...after all, killing a black in the South ain't so bad.  Then--in his mind--he would gain respect and be the hero.  He was already in a tizzy what with his wife leaving; being rebuffed by the police probably just spurred him on.

You've completely ignored the evidence at the trial that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman. There's no evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon after he was advised to stop. In fact, he said that he didn't know where he was.

The only evidence to that effect comes from Zimmerman himself...not exactly a disinterested party. Haha... Let's face it, the most dependable thing you can say about a crook is...they lie!

But I can believe that in a tussle like that one or both are going to be on top at one point or another. It's a physically active fight, not a pose for a photographic portrait. So I can believe it.

It doesn't change anything. Zimmerman was stalking a black child with a loaded gun in his pocket. He was in such a mental state that he intended to use that gun. He did use it. The black child was killed.

Now...the only reason Zimmerman is walking around today is the Jury was all Southerners, and they wanted to vindicate the white man. A black child was profiled, stalked and killed. The only one left to tell any story is the white man. And crooks lie. Under any other circumstances, Zimmerman would be under a death sentence today. But American racism saved him.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:There's also no evidence that Zimmerman ignored the advice that he didn't need to follow Trayvon. He said he started to walk back towards his car, and there's no evidence that he didn't do that.

He wasn't "ordered" to stop by the way.

We know Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon, without hesitation.  I think Bee is right...you've got some bad information.  Trayvon was on the phone with his friend the whole time, and there is no evidence of any such thing.

The story is obviously and embarrassment to the RW, and you know how Republicans lie (WMD's in Iraq; Obama's a Muslim; death panels in AFA).  Lol.  I don't even go so far as to attribute lies on the matter to the KKK.

You know nothing of the sort. Zimmerman was advised that he didn't need to keep following Trayvon, and he said OK. You have no idea what he did then. You also heard him say that he didn't know where Trayvon was - if you bothered to listen to the phone call that is. You will also realise that if he carried on following Trayvon, he didn't go very far - nowhere near as far as Trayvon could have gone in that two minutes.

Trayvon told his friend that he wasn't going to run any more. I think he decided to confront Zimmerman instead.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's quite strange that Shellie Zimmerman was at the trial if she wanted to divorce Zimmerman. She also lied about their finances in order to support him after the shooting. That's not the actions of someone who wants a divorce IMO. Sure she did later - after the trial.

I think you have missed the import of the point about Shellie.

George Zimmerman had severe marital problems all along.  But a very significant thing happened on the night before Zimmerman murdered Trayvon.  Shellie walked out on him.  She told him it was final.  Now it is beyond human capability to see into the future, and if the two reconciled later that could not have been known at the time.  The fact is that night was monumental in George's perception at the time.

George was disturbed and upset.  A reasonable inference is that he was angry at the time of the encounter with Trayvon, and he was going to take it out on someone.  Given his remark responding to the police operator when told to cease and desist the stalking ("...they [blacks] always get away with it"), it is clear he was consumed with his anger.  He was profiling a black child, and in his mind killing of a black was acceptable because "...they always get away with it."

He didn't have severe marital problems all along. Shellie said that herself. They had a row the night before and she went to her father's house. She did not say it was final. She supported him throughout the trial. She did not file for divorce until after the court case. That's because he changed after that - she said so herself.

Assuming that he wanted to kill a black person because he had a row with his wife is just absurd. He didn't say blacks always got away with it. I don't think you've listened to the phone call have you?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's quite strange that Shellie Zimmerman was at the trial if she wanted to divorce Zimmerman. She also lied about their finances in order to support him after the shooting. That's not the actions of someone who wants a divorce IMO. Sure she did later - after the trial.

Reconciliation efforts after the initial separation in a divorcing couple are not uncommon.  But you cannot predict the future.  On the night Zimmerman murdered Trayvon, he was upset and was going to take it out on someone.  Profiling a black child, he was destined for something worse.

As to Shellie "lying" I have to laugh somewhat...as a lawyer I know what typically goes on.  The reason why Shellie misspoke about finances is because she didn't know about them.  George Zimmerman became a cause célèbre for the right wing.  Money began pouring in from rich Republicans as a war chest.  Of course, without strings that money becomes his.  Shellie didn't know; she was separated.  By the time they got back together, she had no idea so much money had been accumulated.

Zimmerman continues to be a rich man today.  That's how important his cause was.  That's the reason why gf Samantha shut up about her separation from George.  Typically, when the evidence is solely narrative, money changes hands.  I speculate that George's handlers were able to buy her...that's what typically happens.

Shellie admitted that she lied about the finances - she pleaded guilty.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You've completely ignored the evidence at the trial that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman. There's no evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon after he was advised to stop. In fact, he said that he didn't know where he was.

The only evidence to that effect comes from Zimmerman himself...not exactly a disinterested party.  Haha...  Let's face it, the most dependable thing you can say about a crook is...they lie!

But I can believe that in a tussle like that one or both are going to be on top at one point or another.  It's a physically active fight, not a pose for a photographic portrait.  So I can believe it.

It doesn't change anything.  Zimmerman was stalking a black child with a loaded gun in his pocket.  He was in such a mental state that he intended to use that gun.  He did use it.  The black child was killed.

Now...the only reason Zimmerman is walking around today is the Jury was all Southerners, and they wanted to vindicate the white man.  A black child was profiled, stalked and killed.  The only one left to tell any story is the white man.  And crooks lie.  Under any other circumstances, Zimmerman would be under a death sentence today.  But American racism saved him.

What he said is backed up by common sense. You have repeatedly ignored my question about why Trayvon did not manage to get home. I suggest that you know that Trayvon did not go home - he waited for Zimmerman, or he doubled back. Have you actually looked at a map of the area?

George Zimmerman is not white - he doesn't look white to me anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

We know Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon, without hesitation.  I think Bee is right...you've got some bad information.  Trayvon was on the phone with his friend the whole time, and there is no evidence of any such thing.

The story is obviously and embarrassment to the RW, and you know how Republicans lie (WMD's in Iraq; Obama's a Muslim; death panels in AFA).  Lol.  I don't even go so far as to attribute lies on the matter to the KKK.

You know nothing of the sort. Zimmerman was advised that he didn't need to keep following Trayvon, and he said OK. You have no idea what he did then. You also heard him say that he didn't know where Trayvon was - if you bothered to listen to the phone call that is. You will also realise that if he carried on following Trayvon, he didn't go very far - nowhere near as far as Trayvon could have gone in that two minutes.

Trayvon told his friend that he wasn't going to run any more. I think he decided to confront Zimmerman instead.

You are just wrong on this, Raggs. Zimmerman continued to stalk Trayvon. We know this because he said so:

Decoded Science wrote:At one point during the conversation, Zimmerman tells the phone dispatcher that Martin is now running. After getting some specific information as to where the teen was running, the dispatcher asks Zimmerman if he is [still] following him.

Seconds later, he murdered Taryvon.

At this point Zimmerman answers “yeah.” This is when the dispatcher says, “Ok, we don’t need you to do that.” Zimmerman replies “Ok.”

[quote="Raggamuffin"]

Original Quill wrote:

I think you have missed the import of the point about Shellie.

George Zimmerman had severe marital problems all along.  But a very significant thing happened on the night before Zimmerman murdered Trayvon.  Shellie walked out on him.  She told him it was final.  Now it is beyond human capability to see into the future, and if the two reconciled later that could not have been known at the time.  The fact is that night was monumental in George's perception at the time.

George was disturbed and upset.  A reasonable inference is that he was angry at the time of the encounter with Trayvon, and he was going to take it out on someone.  Given his remark responding to the police operator when told to cease and desist the stalking ("...they [blacks] always get away with it"), it is clear he was consumed with his anger.  He was profiling a black child, and in his mind killing of a black was acceptable because "...they always get away with it."

Raggamuffin wrote:He didn't have severe marital problems all along. Shellie said that herself. They had a row the night before and she went to her father's house. She did not say it was final. She supported him throughout the trial. She did not file for divorce until after the court case. That's because he changed after that - she said so herself.

She filed divorce papers the next day. They are divorced today. Sounds pretty final to anyone with any sense.

Raggamuffin wrote:Assuming that he wanted to kill a black person because he had a row with his wife is just absurd. He didn't say blacks always got away with it. I don't think you've listened to the phone call have you?

I think you are wrong. His exact words were: 'Fucking punks, these assholes always get away'.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Reconciliation efforts after the initial separation in a divorcing couple are not uncommon.  But you cannot predict the future.  On the night Zimmerman murdered Trayvon, he was upset and was going to take it out on someone.  Profiling a black child, he was destined for something worse.

As to Shellie "lying" I have to laugh somewhat...as a lawyer I know what typically goes on.  The reason why Shellie misspoke about finances is because she didn't know about them.  George Zimmerman became a cause célèbre for the right wing.  Money began pouring in from rich Republicans as a war chest.  Of course, without strings that money becomes his.  Shellie didn't know; she was separated.  By the time they got back together, she had no idea so much money had been accumulated.

Zimmerman continues to be a rich man today.  That's how important his cause was.  That's the reason why gf Samantha shut up about her separation from George.  Typically, when the evidence is solely narrative, money changes hands.  I speculate that George's handlers were able to buy her...that's what typically happens.

Shellie admitted that she lied about the finances - she pleaded guilty.

And George didn't have to go back to jail, did he? It's understandable that you don't get it...you haven't spent much time in trials, right?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The only evidence to that effect comes from Zimmerman himself...not exactly a disinterested party.  Haha...  Let's face it, the most dependable thing you can say about a crook is...they lie!

But I can believe that in a tussle like that one or both are going to be on top at one point or another.  It's a physically active fight, not a pose for a photographic portrait.  So I can believe it.

It doesn't change anything.  Zimmerman was stalking a black child with a loaded gun in his pocket.  He was in such a mental state that he intended to use that gun.  He did use it.  The black child was killed.

Now...the only reason Zimmerman is walking around today is the Jury was all Southerners, and they wanted to vindicate the white man.  A black child was profiled, stalked and killed.  The only one left to tell any story is the white man.  And crooks lie.  Under any other circumstances, Zimmerman would be under a death sentence today.  But American racism saved him.

What he said is backed up by common sense. You have repeatedly ignored my question about why Trayvon did not manage to get home. I suggest that you know that Trayvon did not go home - he waited for Zimmerman, or he doubled back. Have you actually looked at a map of the area?

Pure nonsense.  You are a victim of an overactive imagination.  Trayvon Martin did not make it home because he was shot dead by George Zimmerman.  That's not even the disputed part.

Raggamuffin wrote:George Zimmerman is not white - he doesn't look white to me anyway.

He's more white than Trayvon Martin.  The real story here is not the cause of death of Trayvon Martin, but that a jury sanctioned the murder of a black man--once again.

He's half-white and not half-black -- in modern America, that counts ... no joke.

Ben_Reilly wrote:
He's half-white and not half-black -- in modern America, that counts ... no joke.

THAT'S WHY those great racist southerners invented the label "coloureds" back in the day...

GAVE them another faux_racial group when neither "white" nor "black" described various crossbreeds, who are either too pale to be called "black"/brown or who don't have any Afro' ancestry at all..

I think if you polled the NRA and KKK memberships they will have already tagged Zimmerman as an honorary "white" man.

I often have a darker complexion than Zimmerman (but not near as dark as his mother..) ~ and I'm still classed as Caucasian..       << family portrait of one of my great-grandfathers..      

The term is also 'high yellow' or 'high yeller' or 'hi yeller' meaning a light-skinned black person:

Off That wrote:“High yellow” (sometimes “yaller” or “yeller”) is a 19th century colloquialism for a black person with light skin, traditionally due to having a proportion of white ancestry. The term is sometimes considered an epithet in modern-day useage.

Off That wrote:The term has especially been associated with the Louisiana Creole, and Beyoncé’s mother and Jay’s mother-in-law Tina Knowles (above) has Louisiana Creole ancestry.

Zimmerman is Hispanic.  Hispanics are generally considered 'Whites' when it comes to race:

Salon--Isa Hopkins wrote:In the cascade of social media responses to the verdict in the death of young, black Trayvon Martin, the racial and ethnic identity of assailant George Zimmerman has been as bifurcated as the rage and relief. To those grieving an injustice, Zimmerman was a white man; those who celebrate his acquittal have been quick to point out that Zimmerman is, in fact, not white at all, but Hispanic. How can such a basic fact of a man be so disputed?

The truth is, Zimmerman is both: white and Hispanic, one a racial category and the other a marker of ethnicity, an accusation and an exoneration, respectively, inverted from their usual exculpatory order.  Both are social constructions, but the former relies on skin color and ostensibly biological features, while the latter is a designation based on country of origin. Many Hispanics are dark-skinned, but many are not. It’s a confusing identity in a land that has traditionally preferred its divisions to be more clean-cut, and it’s one that even we white Hispanics struggle to understand.

I grew up in Cleveland, a town without much of a Hispanic population, and in that black-and-white racial dichotomy I knew myself as white — part of a white family with a few odd habits, like eating beans and speaking Spanish, but white nonetheless.  When the time came to apply to college I checked the box marked “Hispanic” and my (white) friends laughed, told me I was a “fake Hispanic.” It wasn’t until I began a pre-frosh program for minority students at the California Institute of Technology (a school not generally known for promoting liberalism, racial awareness or political action of any kind) that I began to locate myself within the matrix of identities possible in contemporary America, and to understand that, while the “white” half of my labeling contained the potential for full membership in the hegemonic class, its follow-up — my Hispanic status — threatened to undercut any such privilege, a dirty little secret that could exclude me at the whim of those whose whiteness went unqualified.  I didn’t know what any of it meant until I got to California, found a community of the varyingly brown, and recognized that being Hispanic stood, in the minds of many, in opposition to whiteness, although not so oppositional as being black.

America is multi-ethnic, which is not to say that there aren't other forms of discrimination than racial.  White hatred of blacks derives from an emphasis on biological differences and earlier myths about the 'noble savage' (which also applied to Native Americans).  You can see this noble savage theme everywhere in 17th-century literature--for example, Shakespeare's The Tempest, and the character Caliban (the subhuman son of the malevolent witch, Sycorax).

But Hispanics are derived from the very exalted country of Spain--once a great western nation.  American Hispanics are looked down upon primarily for economic reasons--they were the famous Mexican braceros who worked the cash-cropping farms of the American west, very often as illegals (in which cast they were called wet-backs, a term derived from someone who swam the Rio Grand River to get to America).  They were often identified by Southerners with the so-called field niggas of the deep-south cotton farms during slavery.  More recently, they are despised because they allegedly take away jobs from white Americans (jobs, incidentally, that most whites will not take).  The result, really, is a three-tier system in which whites are the nobility, blacks are clearly the serfs, and in-between are Hispanics, who pass genetic muster but are just, well, lower-class.

But Raggs does touch upon a good point.  Is Zimmerman a racist if he, too, is picked on for his genealogy?  This goes back to the wannabe notion that I introduced earlier.  Hispanics fit in between whites and blacks.  I learned this while working for the NAACP to desegregate schools in the American Southwest.  For example, in the Tucson School District No. 1 case, segregation was alleged on behalf of Africans (by the NAACP) as well as on behalf of Hispanics, by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.  

Typically Hispanics want relief from discrimination--the same as blacks--but they do not want to be associated with a different racial category.  They consider themselves white.  But their ambiguous situation leads to feelings of inferiority...and various degrees of compensatory behavior.

One such compensatory urge is the 'wannabe' syndrome, in which Hispanics tend to 'prove' their whiteness by trying almost too much to be white. They typically turn their back on common Hispanic occupations (cooks and gardeners) and try to emulate whites.

Very typical would be an Hispanic who tries to become a police officer...a position that not only legitimizes, but lends a degree of authority to the individual.   If, for some reason, he doesn't achieve the status of a police officer, he may become an insurance investigator, or a loss prevention officer in a department store, or join an auxiliary police unit, or perhaps a neighborhood watch program.  He tries overmuch to be not only white, but white with a vengeance...if you get my emphasis.

Sound familiar?  That describes Zimmerman almost precisely.

Original Quill wrote:

You are just wrong on this, Raggs.  Zimmerman continued to stalk Trayvon.  We know this because he said so:

Decoded Science wrote:At one point during the conversation, Zimmerman tells the phone dispatcher that Martin is now running. After getting some specific information as to where the teen was running, the dispatcher asks Zimmerman if he is [still] following him.

Seconds later, he murdered Taryvon.

At this point Zimmerman answers “yeah.” This is when the dispatcher says, “Ok, we don’t need you to do that.” Zimmerman replies “Ok.”

The dispatcher did not ask Zimmerman if he was "still" following Trayvon. He asked if he was following Trayvon. Why do you keep adding things in which didn't happen?

After Zimmerman said "OK" he continued to talk to the dispatcher for the next minute and a half at least, so nothing happened "seconds" later.

Trayvon wasn't there then was he? He could have got home in that time. Why do you keep on and on ignoring that fact? Zimmerman did not know where Trayvon was at that point, otherwise he would have told the dispatcher where he was.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:



She filed divorce papers the next day.  They are divorced today.  Sounds pretty final to anyone with any sense.



I think you are wrong. His exact words were:  'Fucking punks, these assholes always get away'.

The next day when? Shellie did not file for divorce until after the trial. Stop lying.

I know what Zimmerman said - it was you who claimed that he said blacks always get away. Stop making things up.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Shellie admitted that she lied about the finances - she pleaded guilty.

And George didn't have to go back to jail, did he?  It's understandable that you don't get it...you haven't spent much time in trials, right?

That post makes no sense whatsoever.

Ben_Reilly wrote:He's half-white and not half-black -- in modern America, that counts ... no joke.

Well you must have a different idea of what a white person looks like than I have. If I just saw a photo of Zimmerman, I would not describe him as white.

Original Quill wrote:

Pure nonsense.  You are a victim of an overactive imagination.  Trayvon Martin did not make it home because he was shot dead by George Zimmerman.  That's not even the disputed part.

Raggamuffin wrote:George Zimmerman is not white - he doesn't look white to me anyway.

He's more white than Trayvon Martin.  The real story here is not the cause of death of Trayvon Martin, but that a jury sanctioned the murder of a black man--once again.

Please tell me why Trayvon did not manage to get home in the two minutes after he ran - when Zimmerman was still on the phone to the dispatcher. If you can't do that, you are clearly trolling - you've been asked that question several times now.

The jury was right to acquit Zimmerman - Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman trying to bash his head on the ground. Did you not watch the evidence at all?

More white? Now I know you're trolling.

If anyone wants to analyse the phone call, it's here.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7qEcD8R-8

The word "Hispanic" doesn't mean much to me but maybe that's because I don't really encounter Hispanic people in the UK. If I had never seen George Zimmerman before, and someone showed me a photo of him and asked me to say which race he is, I would probably say that looked Polynesian to me. That's because I've been to New Zealand and met lots of Samoan people though. If I hadn't done that, I'm not sure how I would describe him racially, but I certainly wouldn't describe him as white.

This is why I find it a bit weird when people say that Zimmerman is white and that other white people only stick up for him because he's the same race as them, and so they must be racist. One might as well say that those who are convinced of Zimmerman's guilt are racist because he's Hispanic, yes?

ONCE AGAIN, Ragg's continually but feebly attempts to rewrite history through her constant "cherry picking" of selected evidence to suit her pro-KKK/NRA/'White Supremacist' anti-blacks agendas...

PRETTY pathetic behaviour for a supposedly grown and educated woman, really..

Lone Wolf wrote:

ONCE AGAIN, Ragg's continually but feebly attempts to rewrite history through her constant "cherry picking" of selected evidence to suit her pro-KKK/NRA/'White Supremacist' anti-blacks agendas...

PRETTY pathetic behaviour for a supposedly grown and educated woman, really..  

You can't answer any of my questions can you?

You're just a racist as well as a liar.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You are just wrong on this, Raggs.  Zimmerman continued to stalk Trayvon.  We know this because he said so:

The dispatcher did not ask Zimmerman if he was "still" following Trayvon. He asked if he was following Trayvon. Why do you keep adding things in which didn't happen?

It's from the transcript of the call. If you disagree, do you have an alternative transcript? And if so, why? Also if so, why do we believe it over the 'official' transcript?

Raggamuffin wrote:After Zimmerman said "OK" he continued to talk to the dispatcher for the next minute and a half at least, so nothing happened "seconds" later.

Weak. You are splitting hairs. Minutes are measured in seconds. Why argue such a silly point?

Raggamuffin wrote:Trayvon wasn't there then was he? He could have got home in that time. Why do you keep on and on ignoring that fact? Zimmerman did not know where Trayvon was at that point, otherwise he would have told the dispatcher where he was.

Trayvon could not get home because he was lying dead on the ground, murdered by the monster Zimmerman. How many times must that be repeated?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The next day when? Shellie did not file for divorce until after the trial. Stop lying.

I read that she first filed initial papers when she was staying with her father on the date in question.

Raggamuffin wrote:I know what Zimmerman said - it was you who claimed that he said blacks always get away. Stop making things up.

Yep, that's what he said. Follow the facts.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

And George didn't have to go back to jail, did he?  It's understandable that you don't get it...you haven't spent much time in trials, right?

That post makes no sense whatsoever.

Think about the subject, not your next retort.  We are talking about Shellie's frame of mind.  She had no original knowledge of how much money George had accumulated.

The pair was hauled into court for lying about finances on the bail form.  Having no knowledge, Shellie could not have lied about the amount of money George had...she didn't know. But she took the fall, saying she lied, because to do otherwise would mean George would be held 'no bail'.

Remember, the pair were temporarily reconciled at this time.  They had lawyers who were orchestrating all of the proceedings. They were working together.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:He's half-white and not half-black -- in modern America, that counts ... no joke.

Well you must have a different idea of what a white person looks like than I have. If I just saw a photo of Zimmerman, I would not describe him as white.

What he looks like is of no consequence. It's a fact. Hispanic is an ethnic origin; black is a race.

I think many of the problems of the world stems from too much concern about what people look like, and not enough concern about who they are or what they did.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Pure nonsense.  You are a victim of an overactive imagination.  Trayvon Martin did not make it home because he was shot dead by George Zimmerman.  That's not even the disputed part.



He's more white than Trayvon Martin.  The real story here is not the cause of death of Trayvon Martin, but that a jury sanctioned the murder of a black man--once again.

Please tell me why Trayvon did not manage to get home in the two minutes after he ran - when Zimmerman was still on the phone to the dispatcher. If you can't do that, you are clearly trolling - you've been asked that question several times now.

The question is wrong in the premises.  Trayvon didn't run, he walked.  Zimmerman was also walking as he was speaking on the phone.  Because Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon, the two were bound to cross paths.  

Zimmerman being the aggressor, the most reasonable inference would be, he (Zimmerman) started the physical altercation and, finding himself losing, pulled his gun and murdered Trayvon.

Raggamuffin wrote:The jury was right to acquit Zimmerman - Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman trying to bash his head on the ground. Did you not watch the evidence at all?

We have only George Zimmerman's testimony as to what occurred.  The other witness was murdered by Zimmerman.  That makes the sole witness' testimony--that of the murderer--highly suspect.  After all, crooks lie to get out of the trouble they are in; that's just a basic axiom of Anglo-American jurisprudence.

That leaves us with only the powers of reasonable inference to reconstruct what happened.  We know Zimmerman, already in a foul mood because of his altercation with his wife, was probably out in the evening looking for trouble.   He spots a lone black child walking home from the store.  Carrying a loaded firearm, and assuming his faux mantle as some kind of official, he plays this game of stalking the black child...he want's someone to beat up on, to appease his foul mood.  What better victim than an inexperienced child, of the wrong race.  Zimmernan eventually catches up to the child.  He is abusive and confrontational, and the meeting turns into a physical altercation.  Incredibly, Zimmerman finds himself losing the fight that he started, so he pulls his gun and kills the child.

Now that is the story that comes closest to the truth, taking into account the total situation.  It ties together all of the relevant facts, and takes into account the motives to lie of the one witness...who is also the killer.  It is the most reasonable inference of the total picture...and the most likely narrative of what happened.

The jury was a flock of rednecks, who would believe anything that disagreed with the black.  They are Southerners, after all.  They felt no responsibility toward their duty to make the law work.  They just voted for racism.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lone Wolf wrote:

ONCE AGAIN, Ragg's continually but feebly attempts to rewrite history through her constant "cherry picking" of selected evidence to suit her pro-KKK/NRA/'White Supremacist' anti-blacks agendas...

PRETTY pathetic behaviour for a supposedly grown and educated woman, really..  

You can't answer any of my questions can you?

You're just a racist as well as a liar.

     YOU FUCKING SLANDEROUS MORON !!!

AS MANY people here know for a fact that I am neither ~ ALL that you have proven by your libellous outburst is just what a stupid, empty and pathetic filthy little trollop you yourself truly are, at heart !

YOU depraved and vacuous fool ~ you're the biggest single racist on this forum, and you dare to spew your false and baseless accusations against your betters on here..

ROT in hell, you despicable piece of racist trash...

Raggamuffin wrote:If anyone wants to analyse the phone call, it's here.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7qEcD8R-8

See?  Everything I said is in there, exactly as I described it.  Also, note there is no allegation of wrongdoing (on Trayvon's part) by Zimmerman...no reason to be stalking him, nor any reason to call the police.  Zimmerman twice mentions Trayvon is black, which he alleges as if it is some sort of a crime (indeed, that is precisely the way that Southerners think--it's a crime to be black!).  He alleges that Trayvon has something in his waistband that he is reaching for, which was probably a make-weight lie because Trayvon had no weapon.

And that's the best that the defense had. Yet the jury acquitted him. See? It's the perfect storm of racism.

THAT foul mouthed bitch Ragg's is losing it...

RESORTING to her empty slander against us shows that she has nothing..

AND doesn't she know it !

Raggamuffin wrote:The word "Hispanic" doesn't mean much to me but maybe that's because I don't really encounter Hispanic people in the UK. If I had never seen George Zimmerman before, and someone showed me a photo of him and asked me to say which race he is, I would probably say that looked Polynesian to me. That's because I've been to New Zealand and met lots of Samoan people though. If I hadn't done that, I'm not sure how I would describe him racially, but I certainly wouldn't describe him as white.

That's why appearances are so unreliable. More's the concern when you are talking about racism. Hatred because of the way someone looks is a dangerous, bigoted game.

Raggamuffin wrote:This is why I find it a bit weird when people say that Zimmerman is white and that other white people only stick up for him because he's the same race as them, and so they must be racist. One might as well say that those who are convinced of Zimmerman's guilt are racist because he's Hispanic, yes?

In America, people are a lot more knowledgeable about race v. ethnicity...especially in Florida. Florida is a Southern state, with plenty of blacks. It was also the target of a huge migration of Cubans (Hispanics) from the Cuban revolution in the 1950's.

Incidentally, where do you classify Italians...particularly those from Reggio de Calabria in the south? They look very much like Cubans.

There is simply no issue in the US based upon your own inexperience with race or ethnicity. In America people understand without a thought that Hispanic is a national origin, and is white, and that black is a race, and non-white.

Lone Wolf wrote:

THAT foul mouthed bitch Ragg's is losing it...

RESORTING to her empty slander against us shows that she has nothing..

AND doesn't she know it !

It is disconcerting. But I take Raggs at her word...that she is totally inexperienced in these kinds of things, and therefore she is only questioning things.

Only, I query why, if one is only inexperienced, does one start with a presumption that a black child must have been in the wrong. That was Zimmerman's assumption--aided by a few mental problems he no doubt has--and it is what caused this whole crime to take place. If you are truly neutral, you wouldn't start with such a one-sided view.

It is compounded by the fact that such a biased beginning is precisely the way the jury approached it. In any other criminal inquiry you would begin with: Did you do this? Then you would ask, Why did you do this? When there is no other witness than the perp, you give him a 50-50 truthful quotient, at best. That should leave you in the middle. But somehow this jury found itself way over on the white man's side.

That's gotta be racism.

Original Quill wrote:

It's from the transcript of the call.  If you disagree, do you have an alternative transcript?  And if so, why?  Also if so, why do we believe it over the 'official' transcript?

The dispatcher did not ask if Zimmerman was "still" following Trayvon. He said "Are you following him". There was no "still" about it.

Original Quill wrote:

Weak.  You are splitting hairs.  Minutes are measured in seconds.  Why argue such a silly point?

Nonsense. If you had bothered to look at a map of the area, you would see how short the distance between where Trayvon started to run and the house where he was going was.

Original Quill wrote:

Trayvon could not get home because he was lying dead on the ground, murdered by the monster Zimmerman.  How many times must that be repeated?

Not when Zimmerman was on the phone for a further two minutes after Trayvon ran - which bit of that do you not understand? He was probably waiting for Zimmerman somewhere.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I know what Zimmerman said - it was you who claimed that he said blacks always get away. Stop making things up.

Yep, that's what he said.  Follow the facts.

No, he didn't say that "blacks" always get away - he said "these assholes, they always get away".

You follow the facts rather than make up your own version of what was said.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well you must have a different idea of what a white person looks like than I have. If I just saw a photo of Zimmerman, I would not describe him as white.

What he looks like is of no consequence.  It's a fact.  Hispanic is an ethnic origin; black is a race.

I think many of the problems of the world stems from too much concern about what people look like, and not enough concern about who they are or what they did.

Zimmerman is not white - end of. If you're going to bring race into it, you can't suddenly say that it doesn't matter.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:If anyone wants to analyse the phone call, it's here.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7qEcD8R-8

See?  Everything I said is in there, exactly as I described it.  Also, note there is no allegation of wrongdoing (on Trayvon's part) by Zimmerman...no reason to be stalking him, nor any reason to call the police.  Zimmerman twice mentions Trayvon is black, which he alleges as if it is some sort of a crime (indeed, that is precisely the way that Southerners think--it's a crime to be black!).  He alleges that Trayvon has something in his waistband that he is reaching for, which was probably a make-weight lie because Trayvon had no weapon.

And that's the best that the defense had.  Yet the jury acquitted him.  See?  It's the perfect storm of racism.

No - you've misquoted from it at least twice. Listen to it again.

Zimmerman was asked if Trayvon was white, black, or Hispanic. Zimmerman just said he was black - your interpretation of how he said it is just that - your interpretation, and you're biased. Zimmerman didn't say anything about Trayvon reaching for something - he just said Trayvon had his hand in his waistband.

Seriously Quill, you're clutching at straws now.

Lone Wolf wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:
You can't answer any of my questions can you?

You're just a racist as well as a liar.

     YOU FUCKING SLANDEROUS MORON !!!

AS MANY people here know for a fact that I am neither ~ ALL that you have proven by your libellous outburst is just what a stupid, empty and pathetic filthy little trollop you yourself truly are, at heart !

YOU depraved and vacuous fool ~ you're the biggest single racist on this forum, and you dare to spew your false and baseless accusations against your betters on here..

ROT in hell, you despicable piece of racist trash...

You're clearly racist against Hispanic people, you filthy bigot.

Original Quill wrote:

Lone Wolf wrote:

THAT foul mouthed bitch Ragg's is losing it...

RESORTING to her empty slander against us shows that she has nothing..

AND doesn't she know it !

It is disconcerting.  But I take Raggs at her word...that she is totally inexperienced in these kinds of things, and therefore she is only questioning things.

Only, I query why, if one is only inexperienced, does one start with a presumption that a black child must have been in the wrong.  That was Zimmerman's assumption--aided by a few mental problems he no doubt has--and it is what caused this whole crime to take place.  If you are truly neutral, you wouldn't start with such a one-sided view.

It is compounded by the fact that such a biased beginning is precisely the way the jury approached it.  In any other criminal inquiry you would begin with: Did you do this?  Then you would ask, Why did you do this?  When there is no other witness than the perp, you give him a 50-50 truthful quotient, at best.  That should leave you in the middle.  But somehow this jury found itself way over on the white man's side.  

That's gotta be racism.

You're assuming that Zimmerman thought that Trayvon was suspicious because he was black. Zimmerman said nothing to indicate that at all.

Original Quill wrote:

I think you are wrong. His exact words were:  'Fucking punks, these assholes always get away'.

That is incorrect - listen to it again.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The word "Hispanic" doesn't mean much to me but maybe that's because I don't really encounter Hispanic people in the UK. If I had never seen George Zimmerman before, and someone showed me a photo of him and asked me to say which race he is, I would probably say that looked Polynesian to me. That's because I've been to New Zealand and met lots of Samoan people though. If I hadn't done that, I'm not sure how I would describe him racially, but I certainly wouldn't describe him as white.

That's why appearances are so unreliable.  More's the concern when you are talking about racism.  Hatred because of the way someone looks is a dangerous, bigoted game.

Raggamuffin wrote:This is why I find it a bit weird when people say that Zimmerman is white and that other white people only stick up for him because he's the same race as them, and so they must be racist. One might as well say that those who are convinced of Zimmerman's guilt are racist because he's Hispanic, yes?

In America, people are a lot more knowledgeable about race v. ethnicity...especially in Florida.  Florida is a Southern state, with plenty of blacks.  It was also the target of a huge migration of Cubans (Hispanics) from the Cuban revolution in the 1950's.

Incidentally, where do you classify Italians...particularly those from Reggio de Calabria in the south?  They look very much like Cubans.

There is simply no issue in the US based upon your own inexperience with race or ethnicity.  In America people understand without a thought that Hispanic is a national origin, and is white, and that black is a race, and non-white.

You're the one who said that Zimmerman is white, so why are you bringing his appearance into it? I can't help it if Americans say he's white - I say he's not white. If people are going to bring race into it at all, they can't concentrate on Trayvon's race only.

Original Quill wrote:

Lone Wolf wrote:

THAT foul mouthed bitch Ragg's is losing it...

RESORTING to her empty slander against us shows that she has nothing..

AND doesn't she know it !

It is disconcerting.  But I take Raggs at her word...that she is totally inexperienced in these kinds of things, and therefore she is only questioning things.

Only, I query why, if one is only inexperienced, does one start with a presumption that a black child must have been in the wrong.  That was Zimmerman's assumption--aided by a few mental problems he no doubt has--and it is what caused this whole crime to take place.  If you are truly neutral, you wouldn't start with such a one-sided view.

It is compounded by the fact that such a biased beginning is precisely the way the jury approached it.  In any other criminal inquiry you would begin with: Did you do this?  Then you would ask, Why did you do this?  When there is no other witness than the perp, you give him a 50-50 truthful quotient, at best.  That should leave you in the middle.  But somehow this jury found itself way over on the white man's side.  

That's gotta be racism.

The jury heard the evidence and concluded that Zimmerman did not murder Trayvon based on that evidence. They didn't side with "the white man" because Zimmerman is not white.

Original Quill wrote:

I read that she first filed initial papers when she was staying with her father on the date in question.

I read that Shellie filed for divorce in September 2013.

Original Quill wrote:

The question is wrong in the premises.  Trayvon didn't run, he walked.  Zimmerman was also walking as he was speaking on the phone.  Because Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon, the two were bound to cross paths.  

How so? Trayvon had a head start on Zimmerman, and he really wasn't far from his father's house.

How do you know that Trayvon didn't run?