Zimmerman TrialFollow

So, I ask again. What evidence do you have to support the speculation that Martin was about to commit a crime?

"Never start a fight, but always End one"

Guess now you know how the rest of us feel when you post.

You do understand the definition of "speculation", right?


How do you get from me speculating, to an absolute requirement that said speculation must be proven, otherwise Zimmerman is guilty of murder? That's a stretch, don't you think? Zimmerman had every right to get out of his car. He had every right to follow Martin. He does not have to prove that Martin is or will commit a crime, to do so. So the fact that he got out of his car and followed Martin does not make him a murderer.

You didn't answer the question. Facts are what differentiate "speculation" from "prejudice". You know that Martin was on the phone with a bag of skittles. So what facts do you have that supports the speculation of Martin about to commit a crime? If you have no facts, then by definition, you are prejudging not speculating. Maybe you're the one who needs to understand those definitions.

If you misspoke, just man up and admit it.

Seriously? Way to prove my point.



I used precisely the correct word (yes, I chose that dictionary for a reason. gotta keep things as simple as possible):

1 : to think about something and make guesses about it : to form ideas or theories about something usually when there are many things not known about it [no obj] ▪ She could only speculate about/on her friend's motives. ▪ He speculated as to whether she would come. ▪ We don't know what happened—we can only speculate. [+ obj] — + that ▪ Scientists speculate that the illness is caused by a virus.


Speculations, by definition, do not require proof. Cause they're... wait for it... speculations. WTF!?

Edited, Jul 16th 2013 6:24pm by gbaji

Which is Gbaji speak for "I'm talking out my ***".

Uh? I'm not sure where you got that nonsense from. That's the reason why I'm attacking this one point at a time, because you seem to mix stuff together with stuff that you made up. Very common on this forum.

Uppity black folk. How dare they attempt to stand up for their rights!

What right does someone have to be a black youth in this country after getting into an altercation with a creepy dude whom outweighs him by 100lbs & was arrested & charged with "resisting officer with violence" and "battery of law enforcement officer" (but got off because his Dad was a magistrate & he went to rehab), after being stalked both in a truck & on foot, to swing back?

None, in Florida, apparently. But if Martin had a legal gun on him, I'm supposed to believe he would have found innocent if Zimmerman died?

Laughable.

Sigh...




Are we done with your ridiculous line of nutty reasoning now? I'm not even sure what point you're arguing. I said at the very beginning that this was just speculation on my part. However, it's as legitimate (more legitimate IMO) a line of speculation as the idea that Martin thought Zimmerman was some kind of crazed killer out to get him. Hell. Martin's girlfriend even gave an interview this week where she said straight out that "Craka" in her vocabulary (and Martin's) didn't refer to a white person but to a person of authority (police, security, etc). Which kinda does support my speculation that Martin thought Zimmerman was a member of the watch who was calling the police on him, and that's why he ran.

Add in the fact that he chose not to call 911 (which you'd think he'd do if he really thought there was a criminal chasing him rather than a watch member), and that he chose not to run directly home, and it further strengthens the idea that he might have been fleeing Zimmerman, not because he thought Zimmerman was a criminal, but because he saw Zimmerman as an extension of the law.

Again, this is speculation on my part. But I think it's pretty reasonable speculation. It certainly fits the facts better than "Black kid fleeing from someone he thought was a mugger/rapist/killer".

What rights are we talking about? I'm talking about the idea that in many cases it's not a difference in skin color that causes differences in outcomes, but differences in behavior, and that those differences of behavior themselves arise from black kids being taught to distrust and even fear law enforcement of any kind. Can you really be so sure that if a white kid had behaved exactly as Martin did that night that the outcome would have been different? I'm presenting for consideration the idea that whatever rate of actual racial discrimination towards black males that may exist among our law enforcement is significantly outweighed by the rate of fear based behavior by black males creating reactions from the police which cause negative outcomes for black males.

This is *not* a violation of anyone's rights, nor is it racial discrimination unless you can really argue that if a white kid had done exactly what Martin did, that the outcome would have been different. And I don't think you can really make a strong argument for that.



He has precisely the same rights to do those things as a white person does. The statistic is less about the other guy treating Martin differently because he's black, as it is about Martin acting differently because he's black. So maybe that's the problem? Just a thought.



Sure. If he'd been the one with the busted up nose, and witnesses reporting him on his back being punched by Zimmerman just before he fired, why assume otherwise? Ever consider that maybe that assumption is the root of the problem here? Perception not matching reality and all of that?



Is it? Or do you just assume it is? The problem is that the media only reports stories that fit the narrative you're acting on. Clearly there are cases of shootings by black people of white people that do not result in murder/manslaughter convictions. Hell, the PBS article link clearly shows that there are since it measures how much more often the shooter is released based on SYG laws being present). Happens all the time. You just don't hear about it. Black man being found not guilty, or even not being charged, on the basis of self defense doesn't make the news. But it does happen.

Nah. I usually don't get on to read this site until later in the day PST, so I'm often responding to several posts which responded to whatever I posted the day before. That and not enough threads going on.