It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

George Zimmerman punched in face after BRAGGING about shooting Trayvon Martin

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar


Loved how you had to point out that he was a "black" kid. I would have given your response more merit if you just had said kid. You instantly targeted Zimmerman as a racist. That's pretty much what anyone seems to see on one side of the fence. It's all about a "black" kid, so it must be racist.

You know... I feel like had this been simply a person on kid instance, people would have looked at this whole thing totally different but just and only because TM was "black", it made all the difference.

Retell the tale with 2 white people. What is the outcome? Retell with 2 black people. What is the outcome? You can say what you will but I believe, just like you believe that Z is guilty of a race crime, it's all based on race but the truth of the matter is, the end result was justified. Everything prior? Naw, I wouldn't have suggest anyone go that way in tracking down a suspicious person. Everything up to that fight didn't matter UNLESS you can prove his intent was to kill TM and I highly doubt that was the reason. If he did, he sure in the hell might not have called it in. Z was stupid in his actions but justified in saving his own life.

The other side of that coin, what I see people trying to justify, if TM had killed Z, he would have been justified in doing so and I don't believe that for one second. All because he was being followed because he was a suspicious character.




posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: WintersHere


I swear all these people who go out of their way to to get involved in these cases are just like Zimmerman. Nosey, busy bodies whom like getting in other peoples business. So maybe the next time you're out and about getting in other people's business and you turn around and are being pummelled to death, better just die, or live G. Zimmerman's life.

What happened to: Judge and be Judged.

One was (I presume) a moment of circumstance with split second decisions an the other is a conscious act of hostility.

Get over yourself people.


I came for the beer


I thought about just passing on without a look but I wanted to see if anyone would actually say... "Where you there? Did you see first hand what caused this guy to get punched in the face". No one stops to think that this guy may very well be a target simply because of who he is. I've seen groups of people lie on an individual to justify a friends actions. Birds of a feather. Maybe this guy got tired of people messing with him everywhere he went so he had to stand up for himself and people turned it against him because of who he was. People even say that he has no right to being in public that he's just asking for trouble.

(added)
Look at how these forums go. No one here knows the guy personally but most of you say he's guilty! For this reason, it would not surprise me if the story had actually gone a totally different way than people are saying. Even the owner would have had to stick up for everyone else to keep business. I wanna see camera footage! I can't make a judgment because unless I was there, I can't say one way or the other. Anyone else doing say is clueless and doesn't have a say anyways.
(Back to original content)

Yeah... I don't understand that kinda logic. So the guy is a victim of circumstance but yet he has to be a hermit and not go anywhere because people hate him. What? All rights stripped!

I just don't see many people walking up to someone saying "Hey, I killed some guy... Look at me"!

So I'm with you... Though you and I both walked in this forum so I suppose that's our own fault. We came in to make our own statements so we're not any different than the rest.

Still...








edit on 8-8-2016 by StallionDuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

As I recall, Treyvon left the scene, hadn't committed any crime, was just a person of interest for being in the area, because there had 'been other crimes'.

Walking while black.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: Ohanka
a reply to: 3danimator2014

No crime was committed by shooting an armed, dangerous criminal. That's why he never went to jail.


He was armed with skittles and tea. Details don't bother you much, huh? An unarmed teenager walking to his Dad's home, with a little bag of skittles and a bottle of tea. Five minutes later he was dead on the ground, gunned down by Zimmerman, after a scuffle.

"armed, dangerous criminal". Right. He was a kid.


You obviously don't know the details of the case...

1) He was not at his father's home. He was at his father's "side piece" house, Brandy Green. The reason he was there was because he had been expelled from school and his "mother" kicked him out the house. I put mother in quotations, because Sabrina Fulton, who is often paraded around as his mother is only biologically the mother. Trayvon was actually raised by a woman named Alicia Stanley for most of his life up until about a year before when he moved back in with Sabrina Fulton.

2) Trayvon was a known thug in the school system. This is why he was kicked out of school and his mother sent him to be with his father. She couldn't control him. Some of his sealed juvenile records show he was a likely perpetrator of a robbery.

3) All the evidence shows that GZ was getting his ass kicked by Trayvon. He was not the little 12 year old kid in a football jersey that gets shown. He was an athletic 5'11 tall teenager vs the pudgy out of shape GZ.

4) When he was buying "skittles and tea" he was actually also buying weed and looking for ingredients to make "lean".

5) The kids death was tragic, but all the evidence points to GZ simply being a concerned homeowner who confronted a kid he didn't recognize at night in his neighborhood which had recently been burglarized. Unfortunately, the tempermental kid decided to fight and it cost him his life.


1&2 have absolutely nothing to do with what happened the night the shooting took place. Let's stick with actual facts and avoid character assassinations.

3. If I'm walking home at night from a convenience store and some guy starts following me when I know I've done nothing wrong, chances are pretty high that I'm going to perceive that individual as a potential danger. Zimmerman was told by 911 dispatch to disengage as units were on their way and they would deal with it.

4. Do you have anything that supports those claims? Trayvon wasn't found with any cannabis on him after the shooting. Even if he was, it's a violation in most States, not a Capital Offense. Toxicology did show trace amounts of THC in his system. The levels show that he hadn't smoked or otherwise consumed and the day of the incident. Marijuana had nothing to do with the shooting. At all. Is there any evidence at all that the skittles and drink were going to be mixed with cough syrup or is it just an assumption?

5. Zimmerman called 911 and was told by dispatchers to disengage, officers were on their way. Zimmerman was
Following the kid from the safety of his car. He never would have been in a position to participate in a physical altercation with Martin had he stayed in his vehicle or listened to police dispatch. Zimmerman chose, of his own volition, to engage Martin. It's nowhere near simplified version of concerned home owner you're trying to paint him as. Sure,
There had been recent break ins. Zimmerman saw ablack kid he didn't recognize and assumed the worst. He then escalated events, on his own, and a kid is dead. Far more of the blame rests on the shoulders of the paranoid adult than on the dead kid IMO


Some people don't analyse, Zimmerman was told to stand down and he didn't, in many ways...no not in many ways, in one way only that is the nub of things, Zimmerman brought on the crisis entirely by himself, and his actions.
Besides there are huge anomalies in the trial evidence. Forensically the gun could have been fired at a distance between 0.4 inches to 4 feet, with only loose gun muzzle contact with Martin's clothing. There was no Zimmerman DNA on Martin's digits found, while there was DNA exchanged between each others clothing.
However, the defense lawyer decided to pursue the case as a non, 'stand your ground' self defense, probably on a provable close contact basis, but that's just my thinking, thing is how close is close? there was no Martin's DNA on Zimmerman's gun either.
Would I speculate on the above/yes I fecking would, but I would like to hear someone else come up with the same as I think..not that it will ever matter now.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   
I know the details of the case. I know the courts decision. I still maintain Zimmerman is scum.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck

You've got a solid point and normally, I would have avoided any implication or connotation of race. In this instance however, do you really think Zimmerman would have blinked twice had it been a white kid walking through his neighborhood? I could be wrong and it's been awhile since this case was something I have more than a passing thought to, but I thought that the reason Zimmerman said he followed the kid in the first place was because the alleged previous breaking were alleged to have been committed by makes of African-American persuasion. Over all though, I think you're spot on with everything in your post and I agree with you for calling me to task on the inclusion of Martin's racial background. 9 times out of 10 maybe even higher (95/100?) the race of neither party has anywhere near the weight attributed by the media outlet reporting the story. However, just to double check and see how my memory was on this I found a recording of the 911 call Zimmerman made where he makes comments like "these assholes always get away" and the one that makes race an issue here, after a comment about Martin to the dispatcher, he refers to "F'ing coons". Not sure about where you live but even in upstate NY, it's a pretty well known and widely used slur for black people. Again, I agree with you that the narrative should have been about a middle aged man following a teen aged boy(Zimmerman ID's him as being in his late teens so there was no mistaking him for another adult). But Zimmerman made the derogatory racial epithet on tape. There no mistaking it for anything more benign. With his own words all but indicting his rhetoric as racist, the qualifier of "black" before kid in my earlier post is pertinent and not thrown in arbitrarily in this instance.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

he didn't say coons, CNN made that sh@@ up and even back tracked saying decided for yourself when called on it.
CNN is known for making sh@@ up


On Wednesday, the network took a different tone when it released "new enhanced 911 audio." Zimmerman's attorneys told CNN that the word in question was "punks," not the racial slur. CNN checked this out with forensic audio expert Tom Owen, who agreed with Zimmerman's lawyers.
CNN Backtracks, Now Thinks George Zimmerman Didn't Call Trayvon Martin A 'Coon'



edit on 8-8-2016 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

I didn't get that from CNN. I just listened to the 911 recording. Didn't even know CNN reported on it. If it's been enhanced and properly checked by an expert then Inretract my statement. It sure as hell sounded like coons to me when I listened to it though.


edit on 8-8-2016 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

and another thing about him being racist makes no sense, zimmerman is part black he must hate himself, his mother is of African -Peruvian decent.


But in a September 2012 interview on Univision with Jorge Ramos, Zimmerman's brother Robert spoke out against media characterizations of George as "white," while George's mother Gladys said she came from a family that was proud of its Afro-Peruvian roots.

Gladys Zimmerman, Mother Of George Zimmerman, Says Her Family Is 'Proudly Afro-Peruvian,' But Do His Black Roots Matter In Trayvon Martin Case?


edit on 8-8-2016 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

There's not a whole lot about racism and racist attitudes that makes sense to me. Hitlery had Jewish ancestry and look what he did? I know guys who ran with DMS and before that, the sunset skins. A couple of them were part African- American but because they grew up in a predominantly Spanish neighborhood and raised by Spanish women, they were as racist against their black heritage as a KKK Grand Wizard. Sometimes there's no rhyme or reason. It's like when predominant Evangelical preachers get caught smoking meth with gay prostitutes they same weekend they give a riveting homophobic sermon or when legislators who sponsor vitriolic anti gay legislation and get caught in a Craigslist sting when they respond to ads for gay sex. Or my favorite one, the rabid anti second amendment congressman from
California who got caught running an international gun smuggling ring. None of it makes sense but it happens all the time. Assuming Zimmerman is immune from the same failings the rest of humanity suffers from is a little naive. Like I said above though, if an expert enhanced the audio and analyzed it and they say Zimmerman said punks then I will happily admit I misheard what I thought he was saying. Take a listen for yourself and tell me if it sounds like George says Coons or Punks. I made an honest mistake and am man enough to admit it. I didn't go in looking for racist comments in the audio. I was just listening to it to refresh my memory as it's been quite awhile since I looked into any of this.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar


Hitlery had Jewish ancestry and look what he did? I know guys who ran with DMS and before that, the sunset skins.


there is no definitive prof of hitler being form jewish roots, the E1b1b haplogroup runs in other semtic groups. if your talking about the rumor that his father was the illegitimate child of a jewish man, and that man father was also his mothers grandfather. that's all it is, a rumor. technically in order to be a Judain / israelite ones mother must be jewish, his was catholic.

there are also rumors that his supposed jewish father use to beat him regularly, and that his sister said that hitler also bullied her. sounds like a dysfunctional family to me.
but if it were true, one might understand his hatred for jews. of his father beat him it's almost for certain that he beat his wife and the rest of the family.
plus most real scholars say that that there is no solid proof of him being jewish.


A couple of them were part African- American but because they grew up in a predominantly Spanish neighborhood and raised by Spanish women, they were as racist against their black heritage as a KKK Grand Wizard. S


seeing how they were raised to dislike blacks that makes perfect sense, in other words they were brain washed by the lady that raised them. children are very subject to being influenced when young. if they were constantly subjected to blacks are this, blacks are that, from the women they perceived to be their mother and they cared for those women, as in loved them. there is no reason to think they wouldn't pick up on their prejudiced racism.

now as far as the other examples, i can't say much about the preachers, other than saying that sound more hypocritical than prejudice. the congressman sounds more like he was hiding criminal activity behind anti gun rhetoric. which if you think about it is a smart tactic if you don't want to get caught doing something illegal using your political potions to hide your crimes. which most politicians do.

now if you listen to gz's mother, father, and brother. he and they were proud of his heritage and that he wasn't a raciest. with no other proof, but hearsay from people that say they knew him and that he was.

but on the other hand if we listen to tm mother and father he was a little angel, but we have police records videos and text that show he was a thievin violent thug.

but that's neither here or there is it?

now i ask you what is more naive, to believe the parents or hear say evidence, or facts presented to a jury?
the jury said that there was not enough evidence to convict gm, they saw more than we did and i trust their verdict.

and as far as listening to the tape i have many times and it doesn't sound like coons to me, it sounds like cold cause you can hear the d in the enhanced version, it defiantly doesn't sound like punks.



edit on 9-8-2016 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 01:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: NerdGoddess
Does he WANT to be a celebrity for his actions? Why on earth would he introduce himself in that manner? Who would honestly be impressed by knowing they were talking to THAT George Zimmerman? He is definitely one bizarre human being.

Reading this I could just hear Hank Hill..... "dangit Bobby...."



-Alee


Well, if someone had visibly displayed racist tattoos then it doesn't seem too weird that Zimmerman would assume that the bearer of those racist tattoos would be one of his "supporters" If that is indeed how this went down, details seem to be conflicting.

One thing people need to realize, is that being a crappy person doesn't mean you aren't allowed to defend yourself. I have no doubt Zimmerman is a scumbag. But if someone is throwing violence at him I'll support his right to throw back lead. Asking what someone is doing in the neighborhood is not a threat to ones life. Pummeling someones face in the concrete, however, is a threat t someone's life.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 02:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: ghostrager


It's one thing to defend yourself in an attack, it's another to brag about it.

Ergo , it wasn't self defense.

How could it be, he chased Treyvon down in his car.



He did not "chase" Martin down in his car, he followed him so he could keep eyes on until the police arrived.

Was it necessary? I don't think so - but Martin attacked Zimmerman first, regardless. And just like all the bleeding hearts claim Zimmerman had no right to follow Martin, Martin had no right to attack Zimmerman.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: chuck258

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: ghostrager


It's one thing to defend yourself in an attack, it's another to brag about it.

Ergo , it wasn't self defense.

How could it be, he chased Treyvon down in his car.



He did not "chase" Martin down in his car, he followed him so he could keep eyes on until the police arrived.

Was it necessary? I don't think so - but Martin attacked Zimmerman first, regardless. And just like all the bleeding hearts claim Zimmerman had no right to follow Martin, Martin had no right to attack Zimmerman.

Once Martin left the property, George was out of his jurisdiction. He did more than 'follow' him, he killed him.

Now he's apparently bragging about it...



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr



Once Martin left the property, George was out of his jurisdiction. He did more than 'follow' him, he killed him.


martin never left the property/neighborhood, his father house was in the neighborhood.
he told his girlfriend that he had lost gz near his fathers house, which she tried to get him to go into. she said that on the stand.

also the fight and the shooting took place in the middle of the neighborhood, between the two rows of houses on a sidewalk.and grass of a back yard

edit on 9-8-2016 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
3. If I'm walking home at night from a convenience store and some guy starts following me when I know I've done nothing wrong, chances are pretty high that I'm going to perceive that individual as a potential danger. Zimmerman was told by 911 dispatch to disengage as units were on their way and they would deal with it.


This does not make assaulting someone alright, no matter what the situation. Martin had a phone--if he was that concerned, he could have called the police. Instead, he chose to continue talking to his girlfriend (or just friend) on the phone about GZ following him, then decided it was appropriate to attack him.


Also, 911 dispatch is not someone that you must listen to, so just because GZ didn't stop following Martin (who he thought was suspicious) until officers arrived doesn't mean that he broke the law or did anything wrong.


5. Zimmerman called 911 and was told by dispatchers to disengage, officers were on their way. Zimmerman was
Following the kid from the safety of his car. He never would have been in a position to participate in a physical altercation with Martin had he stayed in his vehicle or listened to police dispatch. Zimmerman chose, of his own volition, to engage Martin. It's nowhere near simplified version of concerned home owner you're trying to paint him as. Sure,
There had been recent break ins. Zimmerman saw ablack kid he didn't recognize and assumed the worst. He then escalated events, on his own, and a kid is dead. Far more of the blame rests on the shoulders of the paranoid adult than on the dead kid IMO


Umm...Martin escalated the events by assaulting GZ. You can have your opinion, just don't present it as fact. Like I said, it's not illegal to follow someone in your neighborhood who you think might be suspicious and the cause of some recent break-ins. It is illegal, however, to assault someone following you unless they initiate an attack on you.

You're painting TM with rose-colored goggles and GZ with malicious intent that is not shown by any evidence. I'm not saying that I agree with how GZ handled the situation, but I will certainly say that, legally speaking, he did nothing wrong.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

It was an HOA, not a 'Neighborhood'.


Donald O'Brien, the HOA president, testified that Zimmerman and the neighborhood watch were not affiliated with the HOA. O'Brien said he felt that Zimmerman was the coordinator of the program because Zimmerman had taken the initiative to get the program started, and that the watch program had instructed participants not to follow suspects but call 911.


I live in an HOA, we have been briefed by the police about our own neighborhood watch ROE. It states emphatically to not chase, follow or confront any suspicious persons, but to call 911 and "observe", period.

Let alone patrol armed, 'looking for people who don't belong'.


The prosecution made a thirty-minute opening statement. Prosecutor John Guy began by quoting remarks made by Zimmerman during the non-emergency call: "F---ing punks, these assholes always get away." The prosecution's statement focused on the lack of evidence of bodily harm to both Zimmerman and Martin, and portrayed Zimmerman as a liar who would be contradicted by witnesses and evidence. Guy also compared Zimmerman's and Martin's physical size, and commented on how small Martin was. The prosecution said Zimmerman was a "wannabe cop" who had trained in martial arts, that he was looking for "people who didn't belong," and that he profiled Martin as "someone about to commit a crime in his neighborhood."


Wiki link
edit on 9-8-2016 by intrptr because: spelling

edit on 9-8-2016 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr



It was an HOA, not a 'Neighborhood'.

same difference, or is not the area that a HOA enforces the rules in, not considered a 'Neighborhood'. i think if you look into it you will find out that it is.
here from the SFGate on HOA's

Not all neighborhoods are overseen by a homeowners association (HOA), but many newer subdivisions are. A term that is sometimes incorrectly used as a synonym for HOA is CID (common interest development); however, CID refers to the physical neighborhood and an HOA is the committee that enforces neighborhood regulations[/color]. If you are purchasing a new home, your real estate expert will help you find, or avoid, communities that are managed by a HOA.
Does Every Neighborhood Have a Homeowners Association?



I liven an HOA, we have been briefed by the police about our nowneighborhood watch ROE. It states emphatically to not chase follow or confront any suspicious persons, but to call 911 and "observe", period. Let alone patrol armed, 'looking for people who don't belong'.


funny in the beginning of your post, you say that it's "was an HOA and not a 'Neighborhood'". then further on you say it is, by saying you have a neighborhood watch. so which is it? isn't it fair to say it's is?

also gz wasn't on patrol, he was on his way to the store, it is perfectly legal to carry when not on patrol and follow someone you think suspicious. on his way out of the "HOA"he saw tm, then called 911 watched him, then followed him while in his vehicle. then when tm ran, he exited the vehicle and went up the sidewalk cut through to the back street where he could see where the back entrance was. when the 911 dispatcher told him they didn't need him to follow him( which that 911 can't give oders due to liablity reasons the dispatcher said that on the stand), he was returning to his truck back down the cut through. where at the intersection of the sidewalks the one that run behind the houses in the back yards and the the cut through that run from street to street in between the houses. that is where tm came out from behind some bushes and engaged with gz and the fight started. his girl friend said that she heard tm ask why gz was following him and heard the fight start.

it's all there in the court records, just look it up.


edit on 9-8-2016 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)


ETA
h don't go back and edit your post, so it read differently. not calling it a neighborhood.
edit on 9-8-2016 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)

one more ETA: just because the HOA says not to follow, as other posters have said and and as far as i know there is no FL law that says you can't follow someone that you think suspicious.
edit on 9-8-2016 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: StallionDuck

You've got a solid point and normally, I would have avoided any implication or connotation of race. In this instance however, do you really think Zimmerman would have blinked twice had it been a white kid walking through his neighborhood? I could be wrong and it's been awhile since this case was something I have more than a passing thought to, but I thought that the reason Zimmerman said he followed the kid in the first place was because the alleged previous breaking were alleged to have been committed by makes of African-American persuasion. Over all though, I think you're spot on with everything in your post and I agree with you for calling me to task on the inclusion of Martin's racial background. 9 times out of 10 maybe even higher (95/100?) the race of neither party has anywhere near the weight attributed by the media outlet reporting the story. However, just to double check and see how my memory was on this I found a recording of the 911 call Zimmerman made where he makes comments like "these assholes always get away" and the one that makes race an issue here, after a comment about Martin to the dispatcher, he refers to "F'ing coons". Not sure about where you live but even in upstate NY, it's a pretty well known and widely used slur for black people. Again, I agree with you that the narrative should have been about a middle aged man following a teen aged boy(Zimmerman ID's him as being in his late teens so there was no mistaking him for another adult). But Zimmerman made the derogatory racial epithet on tape. There no mistaking it for anything more benign. With his own words all but indicting his rhetoric as racist, the qualifier of "black" before kid in my earlier post is pertinent and not thrown in arbitrarily in this instance.





I do understand what you're saying and I see where it could stem from.

Let me go in a slightly different direction...

Growing up in a small town, we've always had the "south side of the tracks". If 'white boy' walked into that neighborhood, most often than not, and I do stress "most", it's for a specific reason. Drugs. Now, there are those few times where there may be an actual friendship based reason or something dealing with a relationship. Rewind to the past... (and I know I'm going to go all over the place on this one but everything will conjoin to make one point) White people didn't go to the black side of town and white people didn't go to the white side of town (unless there were firm friendships involved which did happen among the much older generation ... odd huh?) In the last 10 years, white guys went to the black side of town for drugs and black guys went over to the white side of town because they were dating some guys daughter. There were few black/white plutonic friendships where one was welcome on either side without half of the block staring you down in either case.

In all cases, on either side, didn't matter if you were a white boy on the south side or a black boy on the north side, you would be stared down and even questioned. Now... If you were a white boy in that neighborhood, you would be crowded by 5 or more black guys wanting to know why you are there. Mostly, those same guys are there to make sure the drugs you're going for are going to be bought from them and no one else. If that person was there just to hang out with a buddy, they would have the same greeting. Who are you? What are you doing here? That person could not pass go unless he went through this gang of people and even the same from distant onlookers.

Reverse that...

A black guy wouldn't get harassed by 5 people all at once, but whoever's property he's on, he'll be met by the owner wanting to know every detail. If he's just hanging out in the area, then unless he ends up on someone's property, law enforcement will go to him and want to know what and why.

Now some will think that this is profiling and it is... But based on what I've written so far, you might get a feel for as to why. It plays in the backs of everyone's mind. Something is out of place. It's not normal. Until it becomes the norm, it'll always be not normal


Now.. You might think it's unfair by how the cops reacted but... I didn't mention it yet for good reason but I will now. If a white boy goes to the black side of town and hangs out on no certain property... Law enforcement will most definitely go to him and do the exact same thing to him. Not to protect him but because they know it's probably drug related. If it's relationship based, they'll give him the heat the first time but once they know why, they'll leave him alone and the same is true on both sides.

Now... all that being said... This is just my hometown. Though, one thing I've learned, living in a small town and in huge cities, the same is true no matter where you go. You just understand it more in a small town because it's not as sparse as a large city.


Now back to your response.

I think there is more of a chance (since it can't be definitive one way or the other) that had it been a white kid, he might have had the same reaction, though depending on profiling. What was he wearing... etc but the reaction would have taken place a different way. Though, yeah it's possible that he would have just over looked something "normal" or not out of place. I would really have to know what the "normal" was in that area. What's the racial divide there? Was it mixed? All white? All Hispanic?

Also.. and I say this from experience.. I've found that depending on where you are and who you are vs who 'they' are, your interaction might be a confrontation or an inquiry or just curiosity by onlookers. I've known white guys get beat up just for being in a black neighborhood. The same is true for Hispanic neighborhoods. I've never seen a black guy get beat up in white neighborhoods but I know for a fact it happens, just from my experience, not very often.

I will even go as far as to say that white people are very uneasy around unknown black people when they're not in their own element. I will even say that white people fear black people yet those same white people will go out of their way to be nice to them and get an ugly uncaring response. I see it a LOT. But is it fear on a white persons part? I believe so. I believe it's fear based most of the time. But that's just based on my state and hometown. In a city I see similar but maybe there is some semblance of actual politeness. I know that when I am polite so anyone or any color, the response is simply a reflection of how they were raised and also their surroundings.

In all, I wouldn't know what was in Z's head at the time. For me, nothing before the fight really matters. I mean, it does for another aspect of what's really going on in the world but for the actual shooting, it's not important. My focus is the life or death threat. Should he have been chasing the guy? Well... I kind of give my view in the beginning based on what I've known in my life. Racism sucks. But it sucks on both sides. It's not a white thing. It's not a black thing. It's a human thing. No one can tell me that it exists only on one side. I've seen it everywhere and in every color.

I've run out of room
But you might get where I stand in my own mind about all of this.



posted on Aug, 9 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

ok so now on to the racial part of Z.

As per my original response in this chain... It could go both ways. The derogatory terms are used by black, white, anyone. White people get called names while crimes are committed against them by other races but that's ok... I don't think using a word makes you racist. It might show anger toward a person or even a race of people but it doesn't mean you're racist. Prejudice? We all are, every single human. Racist? Well, that's something that only the individual can admit to you for you to know for sure. They're not one and the same. Does he hate every black person on the planet or just thug life? Because he used a term, it doesn't mean he wanted to kill that person on purpose. That's a faulty way of looking at it because it makes you assume what his intentions are based on a word he used.

Ever say something in anger (or out of anger) that you didn't mean or regret saying? That's kind of what it boils down to. I know someone who claims to be racist but couldn't kill anyone. He's a big softy who despises any kind of hurt for anyone. Broken hearts get to him from anyone. Yet, he'll claim to despise all races of people. (yet he married a Mexican gal... go figure) People are just weird.

Personally, I don't believe this was a racial biased killing. I think if a white kid jumped him and did the same to him as this guy did, he would have still pulled the trigger and it wouldn't even have made CNN. I know for a fact, all those self centered Aholes, J Jackson, Obummer, Farakahn (sp?) nor the pointy haired guy wouldn't have given two $#tz about it.




edit on 9-8-2016 by StallionDuck because: (no reason given)







 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join