PDA

View Full Version : Jeb Bush: Self defence dosen't cover teen's death



mrveggieman
03-30-2012, 12:44 PM
Wow even Jeb Bush chimed in on this. What do you have to say about that.

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/jeb-bush-self-defense-1396787.html

AUTaxMan
03-30-2012, 01:10 PM
“Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn’t mean chase after somebody who’s turned their back.”

I didn't realize that's what happened in this case, especially since the evidence indicates otherwise.

Wickabee
03-30-2012, 01:12 PM
He flat out told 911 he was following him.

shrewsbury
03-30-2012, 01:13 PM
then when 911 said to stop, he said ok. and a witness says trayvon came back to confront zimmerman.

Wickabee
03-30-2012, 01:14 PM
What motive would Trayvon have to turn around and go after a guy who wasn't following him?

shrewsbury
03-30-2012, 01:18 PM
the same motive to run when he was doing nothing wrong, the same reason he didn't call 911 when he thought a nut was following him

maybe a teenage punk who thought he was a bad a**?

or maybe you are right and he didn't come back and the witness is giving a false report because they are part of the cover up?

AUTaxMan
03-30-2012, 01:18 PM
What motive would Trayvon have to turn around and go after a guy who wasn't following him?

Because he knew that he was being followed, felt threatened by it, and wanted to make sure that it never happened again.

Wickabee
03-30-2012, 01:28 PM
the same motive to run when he was doing nothing wrong, the same reason he didn't call 911 when he thought a nut was following him
So wait. Are you saying that anyone who runs is guilty? Man all the joggers I see in the morning must be horrible, horrible people.

Or are you saying that everyone should always call 911 over the tiniest little thing? Maybe Trayvon didn't call 911 because he figured it was just some nut and the police don't need to be bothered?
Maybe he just doesn't trust the police. Young black man being followed by someone with much lighter skin in Florida? Yeah, I probably wouldn't bother calling them either.


maybe a teenage punk who thought he was a bad a**?
I hear he had a tattoo. That equals guilt right there.


or maybe you are right and he didn't come back and the witness is giving a false report because they are part of the cover up?
This seems unlikely, but more likely than your other speculations.

Wickabee
03-30-2012, 01:30 PM
Because he knew that he was being followed, felt threatened by it, and wanted to make sure that it never happened again.
So the reason he attacked someone who wasn't following him at that point is because he knew he was being followed?

That makes less than no sense.

habsheaven
03-30-2012, 01:32 PM
then when 911 said to stop, he said ok. and a witness says trayvon came back to confront zimmerman.

Did a witness actually say that?

mrveggieman
03-30-2012, 01:35 PM
Did a witness actually say that?


According to the geraldo and glenn beck they said it. :thumb:

AUTaxMan
03-30-2012, 01:36 PM
So the reason he attacked someone who wasn't following him at that point is because he knew he was being followed?

That makes less than no sense.

Why would you assume that he would act rationally?

Monsterx
03-30-2012, 01:37 PM
I'd say Bush is going with popular opinion to cover his . What else would he say if he chimed in?


Wow even Jeb Bush chimed in on this. What do you have to say about that.

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/jeb-bush-self-defense-1396787.html

Wickabee
03-30-2012, 01:45 PM
Why would you assume that he would act rationally?
Why would you assume he wouldn't?
A person acting rationally is more plausible than one who wouldn't, unless other evidence is present. Evidence like dozens of unnecessary 911 calls...

AUTaxMan
03-30-2012, 01:48 PM
Why would you assume he wouldn't?
A person acting rationally is more plausible than one who wouldn't, unless other evidence is present. Evidence like dozens of unnecessary 911 calls...

Because he was a 17-year-old kid. I don't know too many of those who act rationally, especially ones with twitter feeds like Trayvon had, whcih clearly indicate that we was an upstanding young man.

mrveggieman
03-30-2012, 01:51 PM
Because he was a 17-year-old kid. I don't know too many of those who act rationally, especially ones with twitter feeds like Trayvon had, whcih clearly indicate that we was an upstanding young man.

So because a kid post something stupid online (many much older adults have done the same thing) that in some way suggests that he should be murdered in cold blood?

Wickabee
03-30-2012, 01:51 PM
Because he was a 17-year-old kid. I don't know too many of those who act rationally, especially ones with twitter feeds like Trayvon had, whcih clearly indicate that we was an upstanding young man.
So you're prejudiced against youth. Got it.

AUTaxMan
03-30-2012, 01:55 PM
So you're prejudiced against youth. Got it.

Yes. Youth, for thousands of years, have established that they are much less capable of making informed, rational decisions than adults.

AUTaxMan
03-30-2012, 01:59 PM
So because a kid post something stupid online (many much older adults have done the same thing) that in some way suggests that he should be murdered in cold blood?

Is that what I said? Please use your brain before posting.

Wickabee
03-30-2012, 02:00 PM
Yes. Youth, for thousands of years, have established that they are much less capable of making informed, rational decisions than adults.
So your argument is he must be guilty because he's 17?

I've dealt with bigots like you my whole life. It's my experience that youth's are much MUCH more trustworthy than the people who say they can't be rational because they're young.
What you're doing is called agism.

AUTaxMan
03-30-2012, 02:17 PM
So your argument is he must be guilty because he's 17?

I've dealt with bigots like you my whole life. It's my experience that youth's are much MUCH more trustworthy than the people who say they can't be rational because they're young.
What you're doing is called agism.

I never said he is guilty of anything. I just said that you can't assume he would have acted reasonably.

BGT Masters
03-30-2012, 02:18 PM
So your argument is he must be guilty because he's 17?

I've dealt with bigots like you my whole life. It's my experience that youth's are much MUCH more trustworthy than the people who say they can't be rational because they're young.
What you're doing is called agism.

Give me a break. You're attacking the guy because he said youth aren't as likely to make rational decisions. With age comes wisdom. Calling him a bigot is a bit harsh. Of course from your point of view I guess he is, from my point of view a lot of what you and veggie say comes off as plain paranoia and racism. To me when I read some of your threads, and the posting you guys come off just as racist as the people you're crying about.

Its not enough some 17 year old kid was shot and killed, you have to turn it into a hate crime. Way to add fuel to the fire. All the information can come out, witnesses could come out seeing Trayvon hit George from behind and repeatidly punch him in the face and slam his head on the ground, they could have close up shots of George's busted nose and head and you'd still blame the guy just because he made the mistake of keeping on eye on someone. And it appears the only reason some people give a darn is because the kid is black. If the kid was asian you wouldn't give two turds. Heck even if its black of on black crime you don't hear this type of outcry. Which to me says something.

I guess if in my general area if people's homes were repeatedly robbed once a month I'd be a little suspicious as well. And the whole hoodie thing is a joke. The police asked for a description, he gave it to them. If someone had to give a description of me and they asked if I was black, hispanic or white and they said a white guy, and then asked what I was wearing and they said a blue t-shirt and blue jeans on. Whats the big deal if that's what I look like?

Wickabee
03-30-2012, 02:19 PM
I never said he is guilty of anything. I just said that you can't assume he would have acted reasonably.
Yet you can assume he wouldn't act rationally? Give me a break.

AUTaxMan
03-30-2012, 02:20 PM
So your argument is he must be guilty because he's 17?

I've dealt with bigots like you my whole life. It's my experience that youth's are much MUCH more trustworthy than the people who say they can't be rational because they're young.
What you're doing is called agism.

I never said he is guilty of anything. I just said that you can't assume he would have acted reasonably, especially because (a) he was a teenager, and (b) his twitter feed is full of posts that can be chalked up to (i) immorality, (ii) irrationality, or (iii) just being a typical teenager who doesn't think about the consequences of making idiotic posts on the internet.

Star_Cards
03-30-2012, 02:23 PM
So your argument is he must be guilty because he's 17?

I've dealt with bigots like you my whole life. It's my experience that youth's are much MUCH more trustworthy than the people who say they can't be rational because they're young.
What you're doing is called agism.

He didn't say that youthful people can't act rationally or I didn't read it that way. He said that they typically aren't as rational as older people. It's a pretty widely known that people grow and learn as they age. That said, I doubt he believes that all youth never act rationally. In this case, if martin attacked zimmerman the way the current reports say then in my opinion he wasn't acting rationally.

lloydr04
03-30-2012, 02:23 PM
So your argument is he must be guilty because he's 17?

I've dealt with bigots like you my whole life. It's my experience that youth's are much MUCH more trustworthy than the people who say they can't be rational because they're young.
What you're doing is called agism.
:love0030:

Wickabee
03-30-2012, 02:24 PM
I never said he is guilty of anything. I just said that you can't assume he would have acted reasonably, especially because (a) he was a teenager, and (b) his twitter feed is full of posts that can be chalked up to (i) immorality, (ii) irrationality, or (iii) just being a typical teenager who doesn't think about the consequences of making idiotic posts on the internet.
Stupid posts like sweeping comments about teenagers?

Face it, you're pulling out stuff that has nothing to do with anything and saying "He must have been in the wrong because he's a teenager". You're admittedly biased and prejudiced against youth. People like you are no different from racists and sexists.

I'm going to stop talking to you now. There's no reasoning with a bigot.

Star_Cards
03-30-2012, 02:27 PM
Yet you can assume he wouldn't act rationally? Give me a break.

outside of this case because we don't know what exactly happened... would you classify punching a guy in the face and then getting over him while he's on the ground and beating him while he yelled for help to be rational behavior?

in my opinion, if that's what happened, I would say that isn't rational behavior.

lloydr04
03-30-2012, 02:29 PM
outside of this case because we don't know what exactly happened... would you classify punching a guy in the face and then getting over him while he's on the ground and beating him while he yelled for help to be rational behavior?

in my opinion, if that's what happened, I would say that isn't rational behavior.
dude you don't even know what happened for sure

Star_Cards
03-30-2012, 02:34 PM
How do you know there wasn't an argument and the guy flashed his gun and that's when it happened

I don't. that's why if you read my post I've said "if the current reports are right"... we don't have many facts of this case and lots of people have their side of the case all set in stone. Anything I've ever posted about this case has been said with the disclaimer of "if this happened" because we simply don't know. It sad that so many people have their minds made up about this case without any real knowledge of what happened.

If it comes out that zimmerman physically confronted martin and then martin defensed himself by punching zimmerman or zimmerman just chased him down and shot him, then my feelings on the case will change.

It's pretty certain from what I have heard that zimmerman did not just chase him down and shoot him. Although first reports kind of gave you the impression that is what happened.

Star_Cards
03-30-2012, 02:39 PM
dude you don't even know what happened for sure

dude, read my posts. it clearly says IF THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED.


in my opinion, if that's what happened, I would say that isn't rational behavior.

There are a few trayvon posts on SCF and I have always said "if that is what happened". I've never claimed to know what happened and always preface my thoughts with that. Don't try to say I've been one posting that I have knowledge of what happened. My point is no one knows what happens and therefore should be able to see both sides depending on what actually happened. There are lots of different things that could have happened to cause it to be a case of self defense or murder. Until we get all of the facts no one knows.

in summary, I have NEVER claimed to know what happened.

lloydr04
03-30-2012, 02:41 PM
dude, read my posts. it clearly says IF THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED.



There are a few trayvon posts on SCF and I have always said "if that is what happened". I've never claimed to know what happened and always preface my thoughts with that. Don't try to say I've been one posting that I have knowledge of what happened. My point is no one knows what happens and therefore should be able to see both sides depending on what actually happened. There are lots of different things that could have happened to cause it to be a case of self defense or murder. Until we get all of the facts no one knows.

in summary, I have NEVER claimed to know what happened.

:confused0024: Honest mistake

habsheaven
03-30-2012, 02:42 PM
We really need a "fact" by "fact" timeline accompanied by the "source" of each "fact". Too many on here are either; stating what the living participant says as fact, or "expanding/surmising" facts on what eye-witnesses have said. It all amounts to a whole bunch of nothing.

Monsterx
03-30-2012, 02:45 PM
We really need a "fact" by "fact" timeline accompanied by the "source" of each "fact". Too many on here are either; stating what the living participant says as fact, or "expanding/surmising" facts on what eye-witnesses have said. It all amounts to a whole bunch of nothing.
And barely of the responses address the actual question of the thread....

AUTaxMan
03-30-2012, 02:47 PM
He didn't say that youthful people can't act rationally or I didn't read it that way. He said that they typically aren't as rational as older people. It's a pretty widely known that people grow and learn as they age. That said, I doubt he believes that all youth never act rationally. In this case, if martin attacked zimmerman the way the current reports say then in my opinion he wasn't acting rationally.

Thanks for, as usual, applying logic and reason to an emotional argument.

Star_Cards
03-30-2012, 02:48 PM
:confused0024: Honest mistake

apology accepted. :) :hug:

BGT Masters
03-30-2012, 02:50 PM
We really need a "fact" by "fact" timeline accompanied by the "source" of each "fact". Too many on here are either; stating what the living participant says as fact, or "expanding/surmising" facts on what eye-witnesses have said. It all amounts to a whole bunch of nothing.

So far here is what I take as fact.

George followed Trayvon.

Someone is on tape screaming Help me, Help me about a minute before you hear a gunshot.

Unless the police report was a lie, George had a bloody nose and cuts on the back of his head.

Star_Cards
03-30-2012, 02:56 PM
Thanks for, as usual, applying logic and reason to an emotional argument.

I get that teens get angry when older people say things that they are less likely to react to situations as rationally as older people, but there is truth to it. I'm in no way old, being 37, but I was a pretty responsible teenager and when I look back on things I've grown a lot since then and even a lot in the last 5-6 years. It's not really about being bigoted, it's more about growth patterns of people. Experience allows us to learn many things including how to react to certain aspects. I get that there are cases of agism and some people look at the youth as not being valuable, but I don't think that is what you intended and how you feel in general.

On top of that, there are valid reasons as to why there are age limits to things like voting, driving, drinking, smoking, legal age of sexual consent and so on. It's a simple fact that people develop as they age, but that's not to say that teens are completely void of rationality or that older people aren't unable to be irrational or worse.

AUTaxMan
03-30-2012, 02:57 PM
We really need a "fact" by "fact" timeline accompanied by the "source" of each "fact". Too many on here are either; stating what the living participant says as fact, or "expanding/surmising" facts on what eye-witnesses have said. It all amounts to a whole bunch of nothing.

Here are the facts as I understand them. I am not going to document them, because I don't have time, but here is what we know.

1. Martin was walking down the street in a neighborhood in which he did not live, and he had been at a convenience store.

2. Zimmerman saw him walking, started following Martin, and phoned the police.

3. The 911 operator told him to stop following Martin.

4. Witness says there was yelling, and a fight occurred.

5. Witness says one guy was beating the other, and the assailee was crying for help (presumably Martin beating Zimmerman).

6. Police report says Zimmerman had a wet shirt and injuries to the nose and the back of his head.

7. Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.

8. Funeral director says Martin had no signs of injury to his face or hands.

9. Zimmerman says he stopped following Martin and that Martin later confronted him and assaulted him.

10. Zimmerman is an idiot cop wannabe, but that doesn't mean that he is lying.

11. Martin appears to have been a punk teenager, but that doesn't mean he assaulted Zimmerman.

You have to draw your own conclusions about the credibility of the witnesses.

BGT Masters
03-30-2012, 02:59 PM
Here are the facts as I understand them. I am not going to document them, because I don't have time, but here is what we know.

1. Martin was walking down the street in a neighborhood in which he did not live, and he had been at a convenience store.

2. Zimmerman saw him walking, started following Martin, and phoned the police.

3. The 911 operator told him to stop following Martin.

4. Witness says there was yelling, and a fight occurred.

5. Witness says Martin one guy was beating the other, and the assailee was crying for help (presumably Martin beating Zimmerman).

6. Police report says Zimmerman had a wet shirt and injuries to the nose and the back of his head.

7. Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.

8. Funeral director says Martin had no signs of injury to his face or hands.

9. Zimmerman says he stopped following Martin and that Martin later confronted him and assaulted him.

10. Zimmerman is an idiot cop wannabe, but that doesn't mean that he is lying.

11. Martin appears to have been a punk teenager, but that doesn't mean he assaulted Zimmerman.

You have to draw your own conclusions about the credibility of the witnesses.

Your list is better than mine. I intentionally left out anything that came from a source that wasn't a recorded phone conversation or police related.

Wickabee
03-30-2012, 03:00 PM
punk teenager

I would think you'd find that redundant...

AUTaxMan
03-30-2012, 03:03 PM
I would think you'd find that redundant...

I would suggest that you should read Star_Cards commentary on my posts, because they are spot-on.

Wickabee
03-30-2012, 03:07 PM
I would suggest that you should read Star_Cards commentary on my posts, because they are spot-on.
I would suggest you go back and read your own prejudiced posts and see where I lost all respect for your opinion.

AUTaxMan
03-30-2012, 03:09 PM
I would suggest you go back and read your own prejudiced posts and see where I lost all respect for your opinion.

Are you incapable of rational thought yourself, or are you just being bull-headed? Reason seems to have escaped you this morning.

Wickabee
03-30-2012, 03:17 PM
Are you incapable of rational thought yourself, or are you just being bull-headed? Reason seems to have escaped you this morning.
I'm perfectly capable of rational though. First and foremost being "The older person is not always in the right and the younger not always in the wrong"

Like I said I've had to deal with people like you my whole life. People who would follow me around stores because I was young while others were stealing from them. People who stop me and ask me "What the hell are you doing here?" as I'm walking to a friend's house. People who believe that my co-worker who is older must know more about the job than I, despite the fact that I've been doing the job in question for years longer.

Yes I've dealt with people like you my whole life. No matter the situation you will choose age over experience, knowledge or genuine justice.

You can respond however you like. You've already shown your true colours.

habsheaven
03-30-2012, 03:23 PM
Your list is better than mine. I intentionally left out anything that came from a source that wasn't a recorded phone conversation or police related.

I agree, except for #9. This is a KEY factor. As far as I have seen no one witnessed the beginning of the altercation.

AUTaxMan
03-30-2012, 03:27 PM
I agree, except for #9. This is a KEY factor. As far as I have seen no one witnessed the beginning of the altercation.

Agreed.

BGT Masters
03-30-2012, 03:28 PM
I'm perfectly capable of rational though. First and foremost being "The older person is not always in the right and the younger not always in the wrong"

Like I said I've had to deal with people like you my whole life. People who would follow me around stores because I was young while others were stealing from them. People who stop me and ask me "What the hell are you doing here?" as I'm walking to a friend's house. People who believe that my co-worker who is older must know more about the job than I, despite the fact that I've been doing the job in question for years longer.

Yes I've dealt with people like you my whole life. No matter the situation you will choose age over experience, knowledge or genuine justice.

You can respond however you like. You've already shown your true colours.

If that's your beef we are all victims. I never actually thought about whining on a public board because when I was younger some "bigot" judged me, or followed me around a store, or yelled at me for being somewhere. Now its all clear, I've been a victim all these years and never realized it. If this is really the thought process now, no wonder we're all going soft. When you're done with it can I borrow your book of blame and excuses so I can feel better about myself?

BGT Masters
03-30-2012, 03:29 PM
I agree, except for #9. This is a KEY factor. As far as I have seen no one witnessed the beginning of the altercation.

I heard a mention of that possibility last night on one of the many channels covering it. Who knows though since the media obviously doesn't thrive too much on facts.

Wickabee
03-30-2012, 03:37 PM
If that's your beef we are all victims. I never actually thought about whining on a public board because when I was younger some "bigot" judged me, or followed me around a store, or yelled at me for being somewhere. Now its all clear, I've been a victim all these years and never realized it. If this is really the thought process now, no wonder we're all going soft. When you're done with it can I borrow your book of blame and excuses so I can feel better about myself?
So what you're saying is that it's okay to judge someone based on age?

You've changed my mind. In fact we should lock up all children until they're 18. Then there'd be no crime at all!

And all those accusations of sexual abuse out there are obvious lies, as the eldest is ALWAYS more trustworthy.

You may come back and say that isn't what you said, but it is the logical conclusion to what you're saying.

AUTaxMan
03-30-2012, 03:41 PM
I'm perfectly capable of rational though. First and foremost being "The older person is not always in the right and the younger not always in the wrong"

Like I said I've had to deal with people like you my whole life. People who would follow me around stores because I was young while others were stealing from them. People who stop me and ask me "What the hell are you doing here?" as I'm walking to a friend's house. People who believe that my co-worker who is older must know more about the job than I, despite the fact that I've been doing the job in question for years longer.

Yes I've dealt with people like you my whole life. No matter the situation you will choose age over experience, knowledge or genuine justice.

You can respond however you like. You've already shown your true colours.

One thing I will always attempt to do when engaging an a disputed political discussion is to apply logic and reason over emotion, something you have clearly been unable to do in this conversation. You obviously have a chip on your shoulder about the age issue. I do not.

I am merely looking at this from an objective standpoint, and I have a reasonable basis for my statement that you cannot assume Martin would have acted like a reasonable person. Based on the facts that we know, it would be reasonable for one to conclude that Martin was a punk kid who had discipline issues at school, was a thug or wannabe thug, and (as is the case with most teens) lacked the perspective to understand the long-term implications of his behavior. Based on that reasonable conclusion, I stand by my assertion that you cannot assume that Martin would act reasonably.

Wickabee
03-30-2012, 03:42 PM
One thing I will always attempt to do when engaging an a disputed political discussion is to apply logic and reason over emotion, something you have clearly been unable to do in this conversation. You obviously have a chip on your shoulder about the age issue. I do not.

I am merely looking at this from an objective standpoint, and I have a reasonable basis for my statement that you cannot assume Martin would have acted like a reasonable person. Based on the facts that we know, it would be reasonable for one to conclude that Martin was a punk kid who had discipline issues at school, was a thug or wannabe thug, and (as is the case with most teens) lacked the perspective to understand the long-term implications of his behavior. Based on that reasonable conclusion, I stand by my assertion that you cannot assume that Martin would act reasonably.
How can you even pretend that's true when you've already admitted you're prejudiced on this issue?

tndcollectables
03-30-2012, 03:48 PM
It seems on this issue everyone has already been blaming one or the other. Logic, for some, has gone completely out in left field. I think Obama needs to have a beer summit and invite everyone to partake in it.

mrveggieman
03-30-2012, 03:55 PM
It seems on this issue everyone has already been blaming one or the other. Logic, for some, has gone completely out in left field. I think Obama needs to have a beer summit and invite everyone to partake in it.


Nice idea unfortunatley one of the witnesses is no longer with us. Besides he is under 21. :winking0071:

AUTaxMan
03-30-2012, 03:56 PM
How can you even pretend that's true when you've already admitted you're prejudiced on this issue?

1. Is it prejudiced not to give 17-year-olds the ability to vote in elections, to serve in the military or to purchase alcohol?

2. Are such laws reasonably justified?

3. If you do agree that they are reasonably justifiable, does that opinion prevent you from being able to objectively draw conclusions about fact scenarios possibly involving the judgment exercised by a teenager?

The correct answers here are (1) yes, (2) yes, and (3) no.

Wickabee
03-30-2012, 04:00 PM
1. Is it prejudiced not to give 17-year-olds the ability to vote in elections, to serve in the military or to purchase alcohol?

2. Are such laws reasonably justified?

3. If you do agree that they are reasonably justifiable, does that opinion prevent you from being able to objectively draw conclusions about fact scenarios possibly involving the judgment exercised by a teenager?

The correct answers here are (1) yes, (2) yes, and (3) no.
That doesn't answer my question one bit. Nice deflection, but a real answer would be nice.

How can you even pretend to be objective when you've already stated your bias and the fact that you are prejudiced?

AUTaxMan
03-30-2012, 04:05 PM
That doesn't answer my question one bit. Nice deflection, but a real answer would be nice.

How can you even pretend to be objective when you've already stated your bias and the fact that you are prejudiced?

Prejudice does not equal bigotry. The point is that some prejudice is justified, especially with respect to youth, as we have laws enacted for their protection based on the general prejudice against them that they are incapable of acting as reasonably and responsibly as adults. The drafters and supporters of those laws are not bigoted, and they are not incapable of objective commentary with respect to teenagers. How do you not understand this point?

Instead of just calling me a bigot, how about you address my assertion and tell me where it is unreasonable?

Wickabee
03-30-2012, 04:09 PM
Prejudice does not equal bigotry. The point is that some prejudice is justified, especially with respect to youth, as we have laws enacted for their protection based on the general prejudice against them that they are incapable of acting as reasonably and responsibly as adults. The drafters and supporters of those laws are not bigoted, and they are not incapable of objective commentary with respect to teenagers. How do you not understand this point?

Instead of just calling me a bigot, how about you address my assertion and tell me where it is unreasonable?
Instead of deflecting from the question why can't you just answer it.
How can you pretend to be objective when you've already stated your prejudice?

AUTaxMan
03-30-2012, 04:12 PM
Instead of deflecting from the question why can't you just answer it.
How can you pretend to be objective when you've already stated your prejudice?

I am answering your question, and I am not pretending to be objective. I am being objective. Show me the prejudice in my opinion. You are playing semantics to avoid discussing the issue.

Star_Cards
03-30-2012, 04:24 PM
So what you're saying is that it's okay to judge someone based on age?

You've changed my mind. In fact we should lock up all children until they're 18. Then there'd be no crime at all!

And all those accusations of sexual abuse out there are obvious lies, as the eldest is ALWAYS more trustworthy.

You may come back and say that isn't what you said, but it is the logical conclusion to what you're saying.

you seem to be greatly exaggerating Taxes posts in my opinion. I completely get the issues with being young and being taken seriously whether it be on the job or just in public. It's definitely a stereotype that happens. At the same time it's a stereotype that does have some basis of truth. Of course it's not always the case. Everyone has to put up with it at one time or another. I never read Taxes posts as if he was trying to say that he doesn't see value in a person who is young. Saying that its a logical conclusion that he'd want all children locked up until 18 is completely absurd. I don't know how you can honestly believe that.

Also, he wasn't using martin's age alone. He was using knowledge of the things that he posted to make the majority of his opinions. I agree that it's a rather narrow sample to actually know a person by their twitter posts, but he wasn't making his opinions solely on that of age... in my opinion at least.

Wickabee
03-30-2012, 04:25 PM
Show me the prejudice in my opinion.
ok

So you're prejudiced against youth. Got it.

Yes. Youth, for thousands of years, have established that they are much less capable of making informed, rational decisions than adults.

Pretty clear there, whether you feel it's justified or not. By your logic every youth who has claimed abuse must be lying because the alleged abuser is older.


You are playing semantics to avoid discussing the issue.
You have not answered my question and I will not answer yours until you do. If you want semantics, look in the mirror or read your posts.

So, again, how can you say you are objective when you have already clearly stated your bias and prejudice?

mrveggieman
03-30-2012, 04:26 PM
IMO you can't judge martin by his online posts. The internet wasn't really popular when most of us were kids but I'm sure if it was and we had access all of us would have posted something that would have came back and bit us in the rear end.

Star_Cards
03-30-2012, 04:26 PM
1. Is it prejudiced not to give 17-year-olds the ability to vote in elections, to serve in the military or to purchase alcohol?

2. Are such laws reasonably justified?

3. If you do agree that they are reasonably justifiable, does that opinion prevent you from being able to objectively draw conclusions about fact scenarios possibly involving the judgment exercised by a teenager?

The correct answers here are (1) yes, (2) yes, and (3) no.

also... do you have a problem with car insurance companies charging more for younger drivers because they are less experienced and I'd assume statistically more likely to have claims?

AUTaxMan
03-30-2012, 04:28 PM
you seem to be greatly exaggerating Taxes posts in my opinion. I completely get the issues with being young and being taken seriously whether it be on the job or just in public. It's definitely a stereotype that happens. At the same time it's a stereotype that does have some basis of truth. Of course it's not always the case. Everyone has to put up with it at one time or another. I never read Taxes posts as if he was trying to say that he doesn't see value in a person who is young. Saying that its a logical conclusion that he'd want all children locked up until 18 is completely absurd. I don't know how you can honestly believe that.

Also, he wasn't using martin's age alone. He was using knowledge of the things that he posted to make the majority of his opinions. I agree that it's a rather narrow sample to actually know a person by their twitter posts, but he wasn't making his opinions solely on that of age... in my opinion at least.

I just mentioned his twitter posts, but we also know of his not exactly being a poster child at school also.

Wickabee
03-30-2012, 04:29 PM
also... do you have a problem with car insurance companies charging more for younger drivers because they are less experienced and I'd assume statistically more likely to have claims?
What percentage of the prison population is black?
Would it be fair to say that point to black people being inherent criminals?

Star_Cards
03-30-2012, 04:30 PM
IMO you can't judge martin by his online posts. The internet wasn't really popular when most of us were kids but I'm sure if it was and we had access all of us would have posted something that would have came back and bit us in the rear end.

I tend to agree. I post some things that could easily be taken out of context on facebook. Mostly for humor, but it someone doesn't really know me I can see how they'd be taken completely out of context. Although that's not to say that it can't be used to some degree.

habsheaven
03-30-2012, 04:30 PM
I'm getting a headache.

AUTaxMan
03-30-2012, 04:32 PM
also... do you have a problem with car insurance companies charging more for younger drivers because they are less experienced and I'd assume statistically more likely to have claims?

Exactly my point. I do not understand how it is escaping wickabee.

boba
03-30-2012, 04:36 PM
wickabee, spend a day at your local public high school.

Then I think you would understand whats being said.

Wickabee
03-30-2012, 04:46 PM
wickabee, spend a day at your local public high school.

Then I think you would understand whats being said.
I don't need to. I understand perfectly well what's being said.

Before any facts about the case come out, people like Tax are automatically on Zimmerman's side simply for the fact he's older.

Star_Cards
03-30-2012, 04:49 PM
What percentage of the prison population is black?
Would it be fair to say that point to black people being inherent criminals?

I don't know what percentage is black. It wouldn't be fair at all, but that doesn't mean that young drivers aren't more of a risk to insurance companies. Comparing experience and skin color isn't exactly the same as comparing apples to apples. Saying a person that's black is an inherent criminal is saying that solely by his skin color and nothing else. I get where you are going but saying that a 16 year old is more of a potential risk for car insurance takes many other things into factor... mostly inexperience in driving which is a fact the majority of the time. Of course that's not to say that a 16 year old can't be less of a risk than anyone else. I've only been in two accidents and it was when I was 26 and 35. I think you're missing the point that Taxman isn't saying that an older person is always going to act more rationally than a younger person. That was what he was saying as I read it. Anyone that would claim that would be crazy.

not to get hung up on car insurance rates... IF Martin attacked zimmerman as he was walking back to his car and zimmerman did nothing more than just follow martin, martin would, in my opinion, have acted irrationally in breaking his nose and continuing to beat him once he had zimmerman on the ground... if that is what actually happened. Now, I'd also agree that zimmerman acted irrationally in following a guy who he said he thought was on drugs and acting weird and reaching for his waste (I assumed zimmerman was concerned he was reaching for a weapon). If I'm concerned that a person may be easily provoked and carrying a weapon I'm not going to follow him around and especially not on foot.

AUTaxMan
03-30-2012, 04:52 PM
I don't need to. I understand perfectly well what's being said.

Before any facts about the case come out, people like Tax are automatically on Zimmerman's side simply for the fact he's older.

I am on no one's side. I want to know the truth. You, however, are CLEARLY on Martin's.

Star_Cards
03-30-2012, 04:53 PM
I don't need to. I understand perfectly well what's being said.

Before any facts about the case come out, people like Tax are automatically on Zimmerman's side simply for the fact he's older.

it's actually working both ways. That;'s why this is such a polarizing story. People already have vested interests in once side or the other for some reason. I am completely on the fence on the actual case. I have my opinions when thinking about different scenarios, but haven't on either side. to me it sounds like they both made quite a few very stupid mistakes.

AUTaxMan
03-30-2012, 04:54 PM
I don't need to. I understand perfectly well what's being said.

Before any facts about the case come out, people like Tax are automatically on Zimmerman's side simply for the fact he's older.

What this boils down to is that we have two differing opinions:

Mine - You cannot assume Martin would have acted like a reasonable person. Facts that we know: (a) Martin had discipline issues at school, (b) Martin was a thug or wannabe thug, and (c) Martin's posted a lot of ignorant/idiotic things on twitter. Based on those facts, it is reasonable to conclude that either (i) Martin lacked the perspective to understand the long-term implications of his behavior (typical of most teens), or (ii) Martin understood the consequences of his immature behavior and simply did not care about the consequences thereof. Based on either of those reasonable conclusions, I stand by my assertion that you cannot assume that Martin would have acted reasonably.

Yours - You have to assume that Martin would have acted reasonably.

Although you may disagree with it, mine has a reasonable basis. Yours has no basis in anything. In fact, we shouldn't be making any assumptions. We should be basing our opinions on the evidence.

Wickabee
03-30-2012, 04:55 PM
I don't know what percentage is black. It wouldn't be fair at all, but that doesn't mean that young drivers aren't more of a risk to insurance companies. Comparing experience and skin color isn't exactly the same as comparing apples to apples. Saying a person that's black is an inherent criminal is saying that solely by his skin color and nothing else. I get where you are going but saying that a 16 year old is more of a potential risk for car insurance takes many other things into factor... mostly inexperience in driving which is a fact the majority of the time. Of course that's not to say that a 16 year old can't be less of a risk than anyone else. I've only been in two accidents and it was when I was 26 and 35. I think you're missing the point that Taxman isn't saying that an older person is always going to act more rationally than a younger person. That was what he was saying as I read it. Anyone that would claim that would be crazy.

not to get hung up on car insurance rates... IF Martin attacked zimmerman as he was walking back to his car and zimmerman did nothing more than just follow martin, martin would, in my opinion, have acted irrationally in breaking his nose and continuing to beat him once he had zimmerman on the ground... if that is what actually happened. Now, I'd also agree that zimmerman acted irrationally in following a guy who he said he thought was on drugs and acting weird and reaching for his waste (I assumed zimmerman was concerned he was reaching for a weapon). If I'm concerned that a person may be easily provoked and carrying a weapon I'm not going to follow him around and especially not on foot.
If you want to go to car insurance, fine. Did you know people with red vehicles have higher rates?
Is it fair to raise rates based on vehicle colour?

My city is full of retirees and every so often one of them actually drives into a building. No teenagers that I know of have done that here, yet they have higher rates, does that make sense?

If an adult is accused of something by a teen, people like Tax will first side with the adult, regardless of actual evidence and will look for all the circumstantial evidence they can find to support their pre-judging of the situation.

If a teen is accused of something by an adult, people like Tax will first side with the adult, regardless of actual evidence and will look for all the circumstantial evidence they can find to support their pre-judging of the situation.

I'm not saying the will always, in the end, side with the adult, but they do make it 1000 times more difficult on the teen, simply for lack of age. Not wisdom, not maturity, not credibility but age.

It's wrong, plain and simple.

AUTaxMan
03-30-2012, 04:58 PM
If an adult is accused of something by a teen, people like Tax will first side with the adult, regardless of actual evidence and will look for all the circumstantial evidence they can find to support their pre-judging of the situation.

If a teen is accused of something by an adult, people like Tax will first side with the adult, regardless of actual evidence and will look for all the circumstantial evidence they can find to support their pre-judging of the situation.

No, you are actually pre-judging me based on one comment that I made that you clearly do not understand. Actually, all I care about is the evidence. You care about getting Zimmerman convicted.

BGT Masters
03-30-2012, 05:08 PM
If you want to go to car insurance, fine. Did you know people with red vehicles have higher rates?
Is it fair to raise rates based on vehicle colour?

My city is full of retirees and every so often one of them actually drives into a building. No teenagers that I know of have done that here, yet they have higher rates, does that make sense?

If an adult is accused of something by a teen, people like Tax will first side with the adult, regardless of actual evidence and will look for all the circumstantial evidence they can find to support their pre-judging of the situation.

If a teen is accused of something by an adult, people like Tax will first side with the adult, regardless of actual evidence and will look for all the circumstantial evidence they can find to support their pre-judging of the situation.

I'm not saying the will always, in the end, side with the adult, but they do make it 1000 times more difficult on the teen, simply for lack of age. Not wisdom, not maturity, not credibility but age.

It's wrong, plain and simple.

This is untrue by the way. One of many misconceptions based on rumor and not facts. Matter of fact I don't believe my insurance company has ever, EVER asked what color car I even drive. Its a myth.

Wickabee
03-30-2012, 05:08 PM
No, you are actually pre-judging me based on one comment that I made that you clearly do not understand. Actually, all I care about is the evidence. You care about getting Zimmerman convicted.
I don't care if he's convicted or walks free.
What I do care about is people who are prejudiced pretending they're not. Ie: You.

And yes I am basing it on one post. The post where you admitted your bias. If anyone isn't understanding, it's you who isn't understanding me, but I would venture to guess you aren't to worried about understanding others.

DunkingDurant35
03-30-2012, 05:17 PM
Here are the facts as I understand them. I am not going to document them, because I don't have time, but here is what we know.

1. Martin was walking down the street in a neighborhood in which he did not live, and he had been at a convenience store.

2. Zimmerman saw him walking, started following Martin, and phoned the police.

3. The 911 operator told him to stop following Martin.

4. Witness says there was yelling, and a fight occurred.

5. Witness says one guy was beating the other, and the assailee was crying for help (presumably Martin beating Zimmerman).

6. Police report says Zimmerman had a wet shirt and injuries to the nose and the back of his head.

7. Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.

8. Funeral director says Martin had no signs of injury to his face or hands.

9. Zimmerman says he stopped following Martin and that Martin later confronted him and assaulted him.

10. Zimmerman is an idiot cop wannabe, but that doesn't mean that he is lying.

11. Martin appears to have been a punk teenager, but that doesn't mean he assaulted Zimmerman.

You have to draw your own conclusions about the credibility of the witnesses.

Well done. Everything beyond this is speculation, whether in favor of one person or the other. Here is why I have the opinions I do:

From what else I have read, Martin was 6'3" and between 140 to 160 pounds whereas Zimmerman was 5'9" and 250. Also, given that Zimmerman had taken law enforcement courses, one would think he could defend himself against a skinny teenager without shooting him to death. So that is why I am reluctant to take his self-defense argument.

BGT Masters
03-30-2012, 05:27 PM
Well done. Everything beyond this is speculation, whether in favor of one person or the other. Here is why I have the opinions I do:

From what else I have read, Martin was 6'3" and between 140 to 160 pounds whereas Zimmerman was 5'9" and 250. Also, given that Zimmerman had taken law enforcement courses, one would think he could defend himself against a skinny teenager without shooting him to death. So that is why I am reluctant to take his self-defense argument.

I took a couple years of criminal justice courses and they never taught self defense or how to fight. I guess it all depends on what courses he took. The video of Zimmerman sure didn't make it look like he weighs 250 pounds. Even if he does, who cares. I have friends that weigh 50-80 more than I do and when we get rowdy I have no problem man handling some of them. I'm 180, 6ft tall in between Greg and Trayvon. If someone is on top of you and has a good reach advantage thats all it can take. Its all going to come down to who's voice we hear screaming for help for about a minute or so. If its George's it just helps his case, if its Trayvon's well then it changes everything.

DunkingDurant35
03-30-2012, 05:38 PM
It disturbs me greatly to think law enforcement officials sometimes aren't taught to defend themselves well. There are a lot of dangerous people out there who can fight against arrest, so I would hope the law would be able to corral criminals beyond just using deadly force. Is that too much to expect from training these days? Apparently so, if the courses aren't that thorough.

boba
03-30-2012, 05:44 PM
Well done. Everything beyond this is speculation, whether in favor of one person or the other. Here is why I have the opinions I do:

From what else I have read, Martin was 6'3" and between 140 to 160 pounds whereas Zimmerman was 5'9" and 250. Also, given that Zimmerman had taken law enforcement courses, one would think he could defend himself against a skinny teenager without shooting him to death. So that is why I am reluctant to take his self-defense argument.


This is the only reason I'm not leaning either way yet. Zimmerman doesn't look like a guy who would get beat up so bad he had to scream for help.

Wickabee
03-30-2012, 05:56 PM
I am on no one's side. I want to know the truth. You, however, are CLEARLY on Martin's.
I am on no one's side. It doesn't affect my life in the least.
It's your hypocrisy I'm against.

BGT Masters
03-30-2012, 06:06 PM
It disturbs me greatly to think law enforcement officials sometimes aren't taught to defend themselves well. There are a lot of dangerous people out there who can fight against arrest, so I would hope the law would be able to corral criminals beyond just using deadly force. Is that too much to expect from training these days? Apparently so, if the courses aren't that thorough.

Taking courses and getting actual training are two different things. Obviously he isn't a cop so he didn't go through police academy or anything along those lines and isn't trained like a police officer would be. For all we know he just took a few common courses as part of being a community watch captain.

I've never been in a watch group so its beyond my knowledge. From personal experience though someone could say I took criminal justice courses and should have been trained to defend myself. In reality they were just courses that taught you about the basics of laws, terms/definitions, due process, ect nothing to do with actual defense training.

shrewsbury
03-30-2012, 06:11 PM
so I would hope the law would be able to corral criminals beyond just using deadly force

police are not well trained at self defense, but there are officers you use outside sources to learn better ways of defending themselves, but most do not. folks like john painters group go way out of their way to help law enforcement improve upon these skils, but it is a small group and not alot of time.

the problem is, the only true way to defend yourself requires you to hurt, maim, or kill. otherwise you would always have to be stronger, faster, better trained, and larger than your opponent, and there is always someone bigger, faster, stronger, and better trained than you.

some one training in self defense might get a lucky eye poke or groin kick in, but they are still very vulnerable to being hurt. it's already hard enough for a police officer to hand cuff someone who doesn't want to be handcuffed, while not hurting them. it would be much easier to subdue you if they busted your nose, poked your eye, hit your groin, busted your knee, or struck your throat, but the lawsuits would be never ending. sure a wrist lock or arm bar sounds good and looks good in practice, but if your opponent is larger, stronger, and resisting, it is really, really hard to use these seizing and locking methods.

the only way the police can improve is if they are granted more rights and allowed to really do what needs to be done, but this will never happen, racism, excessive force, and a slue of other things will always stop this. there would have to be some way to weed out the bad ones from the good, spend a lot of time training them, then allow them many freedoms.

one basic example is they cannot search your car without probable cause, why? just because they pulled you over for speeding, but "illegally" searched and found dope you get off? that's crap!!! if you have dope, you should be busted, if you have nothing on you or in your car what is the problem with letting the police search it? well the answer is, abuse of power, when this can be controlled, then law enforcement officers could do their jobs unhindered and be much more effective.

Wickabee
03-30-2012, 06:19 PM
police are not well trained at self defense, but there are officers you use outside sources to learn better ways of defending themselves, but most do not. folks like john painters group go way out of their way to help law enforcement improve upon these skils, but it is a small group and not alot of time.

the problem is, the only true way to defend yourself requires you to hurt, maim, or kill. otherwise you would always have to be stronger, faster, better trained, and larger than your opponent, and there is always someone bigger, faster, stronger, and better trained than you.

some one training in self defense might get a lucky eye poke or groin kick in, but they are still very vulnerable to being hurt. it's already hard enough for a police officer to hand cuff someone who doesn't want to be handcuffed, while not hurting them. it would be much easier to subdue you if they busted your nose, poked your eye, hit your groin, busted your knee, or struck your throat, but the lawsuits would be never ending. sure a wrist lock or arm bar sounds good and looks good in practice, but if your opponent is larger, stronger, and resisting, it is really, really hard to use these seizing and locking methods.

the only way the police can improve is if they are granted more rights and allowed to really do what needs to be done, but this will never happen, racism, excessive force, and a slue of other things will always stop this. there would have to be some way to weed out the bad ones from the good, spend a lot of time training them, then allow them many freedoms.

one basic example is they cannot search your car without probable cause, why? just because they pulled you over for speeding, but "illegally" searched and found dope you get off? that's crap!!! if you have dope, you should be busted, if you have nothing on you or in your car what is the problem with letting the police search it? well the answer is, abuse of power, when this can be controlled, then law enforcement officers could do their jobs unhindered and be much more effective.
I agree with most of this post, but that particular law exists because "If you have nothing to hide you won't mind me rifling through your stuff" doesn't hold much water.

shrewsbury
03-30-2012, 06:29 PM
I agree with most of this post, but that particular law exists because "If you have nothing to hide you won't mind me rifling through your stuff" doesn't hold much water.
__________

I agree and i understand why and because of human nature we will never get past this. i just think it sucks, when the cops can't get the real "bad guy" because there hands are tied.

Wickabee
03-30-2012, 06:34 PM
I agree and i understand why and because of human nature we will never get past this. i just think it sucks, when the cops can't get the real "bad guy" because there hands are tied.
It is sad that that is the end resultbut at the same time it's sad that we need to police our police because they aren't always trustworthy.

shrewsbury
03-30-2012, 06:38 PM
at the same time it's sad that we need to police our police because they aren't always trustworthy.

this should get the best post of the day award!!!

mikesilvia
03-31-2012, 09:46 AM
Wow even Jeb Bush chimed in on this. What do you have to say about that.

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world...e-1396787.html

I didn't realize Jeb Bush was a judge and Jury. I guess the case is closed and we can send Zimmerman to jail for life because yet another person with "some" knowledge of the case and is a celebrity makes an opinion.

Thank GOD that our justice system is based on a stronger basis than that.