I know I vowed never to post on this thread again, but how do you guys feel about Zimmerman saving a family in a car wreck? Do you think this'll affect the protests or will people think it was a set up just for Zimmerman to get sympathy? Discuss.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Serious Zimmerman Acquitted
- Thread starter Nastyjungle
- Start date
- Status
Just gonna leave this one here for the people that think the verdict had anything to do with race:
http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/
http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/
It couldn't have been a setup, obviously. But I don't see why his admirable actions should affect whether line 2A of that statute is a good or bad idea.
I get that people who want to bury their head in the sand and deny that institutional racism exists need this case to be the reverse race version of the Zimerman case but it isn't. Quick rundown of the differences: Zimmerman treated Martin as a criminal because of racial profiling. Scott treated Cervini as a criminal because he was actively engaging in a crime right in front of Scott. Zimmerman's weapon was concealed (this is not something Z did wrong, it is the law there). Scott announced he had a weapon. Martin had no criminal record and wasn't breaking any laws so he had no motive to attack Zimmerman except out of fear. (speculation) Cervini's cousin who was there had a criminal record including brandishing a knife on a ten year old and was engaged in criminal activity when Scott confronted the three teens and so there was motive for Cervini to attack to let his cousin get away. And finally Martin was alone and not breaking any laws while Cervini was with two accomplices and was engaged in criminal activity.
To preempt dummies; I know Martin was suspended for having jewelry in his bag but he had no criminal record.
To preempt dummies; I know Martin was suspended for having jewelry in his bag but he had no criminal record.
Apparently you still have a hard time reading. I never mentioned anything about the actions leading up to either of these trials. I'm strictly talking about the verdict here. There are plenty of people saying that if the races of Zimmerman and Martin were switched, then the verdict would have been completely different. The verdict of the other case should explain that both men were found not guilty because all of the evidence against them was pure speculation and there was no absolute way to prove that either of them were guilty.
I'll repeat myself for a third time, since the third time is a charm and all of that. Race played no role in the outcome of either of these trials.
I'll repeat myself for a third time, since the third time is a charm and all of that. Race played no role in the outcome of either of these trials.
Except the Scott case was not the Zimmerman case with races reversed. The cases were completely different. You can take a condescending tone all you want it doesn't make you any more right or your argument sound any less stupid. Verdicts are based on the particulars of the case. There are people that feel that the particulars of the Zimmerman case would have been enough for a guilty verdict had Martin been white. To counter that you provided a case where the particulars are immensely different than the Zimmerman case.
Also, to add another difference between the cases that shows a racial element: Scott was arrested and charged with murder immediately.
It must be nice to sit as a God on your almighty perch, burning down strawmen at a breakneck pace.
There's nothing vile about acknowledging the reality that the world is a brutal place, and that reserving criticism solely for Western civilization is foolish.
I don't propagate racism OR bigotry, you just like to charge that because it's the only arrow in your debate quiver. You literally cannot debate me without putting words in my mouth. You are the product of invincible ignorance, a moral preener of the highest order. Your infantile behavior is disgusting to all logic and every moral person. You don't discuss, you just browbeat and pray to God (or whatever secularist deity) someone doesn't call you out on it.
Crux said:
What a load of self-serving nonsense.
Disenfranchisement is an excuse for causing crime? So how do you propose we enfranchise people? Give them free stuff? That worked so well in Detroit, which collapsed under the weight of all the gifties and goodies it offered. How about we just make saying racial epithets unacceptable in polite society? Done a long time ago. How about we create all-powerful police states that can force the crooked timber of humanity to comply with proper elite consensus? Tried that - the societies defined by it were famous for death camps and gulags. While the rest of your stuff is just strawmen so contemptible they are beneath wasting my intelligence responding to them, I will address free market capitalism.
The fact is, free market capitalism has replaced starvation with obesity as the greatest health problem among the poor. Free market capitalism has driven the innovation that even lets us have this discussion online. Free market capitalism - which is based on the founding principles of Lockean Natural Law to which the Founding Fathers subscribed - built a nation of the most industrious and innovative people on earth, and then exported it across the globe. Free Market Capitalism has led to societies that abolish slavery while societies that opposed free market capitalism set up death camps, gulags, or quite frankly never developed past tribalism and its attendant slavery in the first place. Even the ones that didn't descend into tyranny are instead ruled by the cartoonishly stupid, like Francois Hollande's France. To whatever extent the United States has problems, it's because the interventionist / "too big to fail" / intrusive superstate was selected to address the problem rather than letting the market work itself out.
At some point Crux you have to break out of the leftist / statist bubble, stop pretending scorching strawmen is a valid discussion tactic, and pull your head out of the collective's ass long enough to breathe in some reality. It isn't going to hurt, I promise. You don't have to believe everyone who disagrees with you is inherently evil or irredeemably racist or bigoted. You can change, if only you open your heart and give peace a chance.
Regardless of how people feel, Florida law specifically, word for word, letter for letter says that regardless of whether or not Zimmerman initiated the conflict by profiling, stalking, chasing after when he fled, yelling, and reaching toward his waistband, whether or not this whole situation would never have happened had he stayed in his car, Zimmerman still had the legal right to use lethal force when:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html
Whether Zimmerman was black or white, under current Florida law he had the right to do what he did. He doesn't even need to be sorry. It's his legal right. Under current Florida law, it doesn't matter that he was an idiot and should have let the police do the chasing, when Martin started punching and slamming him (which he had the legal right to do too by the way), current Florida law says that he could freely, with a clean conscience and the full support of the law, draw his gun and kill that poor, innocent minor.
Whether that's right or wrong, that's what the law says right now. Those words are plain and understandable. Race is not a factor in whether or not those words of that law are applied. Race is not the problem. Those words are the problem.
[edit]
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c500-599/5630000031.htm
Well good! Missouri doesn't have that terrible Florida law. In Missouri, if you start a fight you've got the responsibility to communicate that you want to stop, and try to flee. It's nice to know that strangers who obviously aren't law enforcement can't chase you down in the night, kill you when you reasonably try to defend yourself, and then get off scott free in Missouri. I was doing the research to see if we had that law, and if so, to organize letters and petitions and the like, against it.
http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/zimmerman-acquitted.3485875/page-3#post-4761767
At least you didn't say he was her ex-husband though.
And you were doing so well, DK.
Yeah, see the issue is no one is doing that whole "reserving criticism only for the west" thing. No one is being blind to the rest of the problems of the world. Only in your deluded perspective of the leftist criticisms of society do you see this.
Moreover, your response to these criticisms is to point out that other places have more severe problems? Really? Tell me, has pointing out that murder takes place ever once lessened the severity of rape? Saying "The Native Americans had their own shit before we came" doesn't ever fucking mean that genocide is ever fucking okay. "African Tribes sold their PoW into slavery" doesn't make taking the slaves in the first place at all justified. That level of blame-shifting is mind-numbingly ridiculous!
You sure as fuck love accusing people of straw man arguments, YET HERE YOU ARE DOING ONE YOURSELF. Impressive.
You don't get to cherry pick one word out of an analysis and then go off on a tangent about how solving that issue is, in your opinion, impossible, as if that has any bearing on what he's saying. His analysis was in point of fact, a refutation aimed at your assertion that the reason blacks are arrested/incarcerated at higher rates is because blacks just actually commit more crime, and thusly isn't necessarily about race. He agrees it's not about race, but actually because of poverty and the disadvantages tied to it. Black people are "more likely" to commit crime not by virtue of being black (as you were implying), but because more black people are impoverished, and therefore disenfranchised, than any other race.
Beautiful heart-warming speech about how gloriously outstanding capitalism is, and how gloriously outstanding America is. I mean no one mentioned criticisms on capitalism so I don't know why you bring it up, and honestly don't want to go through explaining why nearly 100% of that paragraph was pure propaganda, and not factually sincere in any possible way.
I will however point out how incredibly hilarious that last sentence is. U.S. problems are caused by the interventionist state not letting the free market work itself out? And you say this while quoting a phrase that is literally from the direct antithesis to your fucking point? The lack of interventionist state regulation is precisely what allowed the banks to manipulate the free-market into the bubble that popped in 2008. This self-same bubble pop being the provenance of your "too big to fail" quote. Tier 1 Analysis skills there, bro.
I'm sorry, but trying to imply that genocide of the Native Americans, or the enslavement of Africans were at all okay because "they did bad shit too", or that black people are simply more likely to commit crimes than other races by virtue of being black is practically the textbook definition of propagating racism/bigotry.
Yeah, see the issue is no one is doing that whole "reserving criticism only for the west" thing. No one is being blind to the rest of the problems of the world. Only in your deluded perspective of the leftist criticisms of society do you see this.
Moreover, your response to these criticisms is to point out that other places have more severe problems? Really? Tell me, has pointing out that murder takes place ever once lessened the severity of rape? Saying "The Native Americans had their own shit before we came" doesn't ever fucking mean that genocide is ever fucking okay. "African Tribes sold their PoW into slavery" doesn't make taking the slaves in the first place at all justified. That level of blame-shifting is mind-numbingly ridiculous!
You sure as fuck love accusing people of straw man arguments, YET HERE YOU ARE DOING ONE YOURSELF. Impressive.
You don't get to cherry pick one word out of an analysis and then go off on a tangent about how solving that issue is, in your opinion, impossible, as if that has any bearing on what he's saying. His analysis was in point of fact, a refutation aimed at your assertion that the reason blacks are arrested/incarcerated at higher rates is because blacks just actually commit more crime, and thusly isn't necessarily about race. He agrees it's not about race, but actually because of poverty and the disadvantages tied to it. Black people are "more likely" to commit crime not by virtue of being black (as you were implying), but because more black people are impoverished, and therefore disenfranchised, than any other race.
Beautiful heart-warming speech about how gloriously outstanding capitalism is, and how gloriously outstanding America is. I mean no one mentioned criticisms on capitalism so I don't know why you bring it up, and honestly don't want to go through explaining why nearly 100% of that paragraph was pure propaganda, and not factually sincere in any possible way.
I will however point out how incredibly hilarious that last sentence is. U.S. problems are caused by the interventionist state not letting the free market work itself out? And you say this while quoting a phrase that is literally from the direct antithesis to your fucking point? The lack of interventionist state regulation is precisely what allowed the banks to manipulate the free-market into the bubble that popped in 2008. This self-same bubble pop being the provenance of your "too big to fail" quote. Tier 1 Analysis skills there, bro.
I'm sorry, but trying to imply that genocide of the Native Americans, or the enslavement of Africans were at all okay because "they did bad shit too", or that black people are simply more likely to commit crimes than other races by virtue of being black is practically the textbook definition of propagating racism/bigotry.
Yeah no. Very different scenarios.
I wonder how people will feel if they found out Zimmerman spoke up when a police officer's son beat up a homeless man(who was black) in 2010. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-racially-tinged-2010-police-corruption-case/
Also Charles Barkley agrees with the verdict. Though I do disagree with the racial profiling. During the dispatcher conversation when Zimmerman was asked what race the suspicious person was, he said he looks black. That's not something that's positive since it was dark, raining, and they were wearing a hoodie.
I'm saying that I disagree with him when it came to racial profiling. I never said "one black person said it wasn't racism because he agrees with the verdict". I suggest you get your eyes checked out.
And I'm saying that you're using him being black to justify your opinion. It doesn't matter what Charles Barkley thinks about the case or the verdict, no more than it matters what any person in this thread thinks about it. He isn't an authority on the case, the only connection he could possibly have to it is that he's black. If you weren't trying to go for "a black person thought it was justified, so you're all wrong if you disagree", then why would you even link that shit? Who could possibly care about an ex-basketballer's opinion on the subject?
Edit: Should we start linking the opinions of youtube users Bostonfan79V1, 44SCB and Tanisha Adjokatcher while we're at it?
Edit: Should we start linking the opinions of youtube users Bostonfan79V1, 44SCB and Tanisha Adjokatcher while we're at it?
You really do need to get your eyes check. I said I agree with what he says, except racial profiling. I'm not using him because he's black(what does his race have anything to do with it anyway?). Stop trying to twist my words. It was one of the first youtube videos I saw when I went to youtube, so I used it(I avoided the whole thing, so I wouldn't have to deal with sensationalism and media bias).
- Status