A couple of days ago my friend posted some more Zimmerman stories on his facebook and I simply responded "guilty of what exactly"? He said nothing, I
said nothing further. A day later he posted another article and I made another comment. The argument posted below was the first time he and I ever
exchanged words. We met in a night club eight years prior and were really good friends. All of this has changed.
So why am I bothering to post this you may ask? Because. This whole Zimmerman fiasco is tearing us apart. It's created a storm of animosity and
driving a wedge between friends and family all because of the media stirring the melting pot of trust. I will say for the record I don't believe this
was a racially motivated event (which you will notice in the argument). I never intended on it becoming so heated and I always thought my friend was
cool enough not to make it anything more than it was. Boy was I wrong. I will also admit I lost my cool as well and I am not completely not at fault
either. But it just escalated and escalated over two days. So here you go, this is what the Trayvon Martin case has done to our society.
Me: This was not a racially motivated incident. The media wants you to believe this. The Obama administration wants you to believe this. While most
things in life are black & white, this is not. While stating the obvious is typically unnecessary, the obvious must be stated. Zimmerman is not white.
Why do I feel at times I am the only person walking the earth without the veil of convoluted obfuscation draped over my eyes. This incident was merely
a case of bad choices. Both parties are equally guilty of bad choices. There are two other guilty parties. The black community and uncle tom. For
listening and buying into the media's rhetoric and feeding into a non-existent phantom race war.
Him: _____, you can believe want you too believe. But guaranteed if the roles were reversed, or if some cute 17 year old white girl got gunned down
by a gang banger that person would be in an electric. These facts are backed up by statistics. The kid armed with en skittles and ice tea was at fault
because the guy armed with a glock who was told by 911 not to follow was in danger. Give me a [snipped].break and pull your head out your arse.
Me: No need to be rude _____. You're looking at it completely from the side the media wants you to. There isn't one shred of evidence that this was
racially motivated. None. Instead of subjectively forming opinion's out of emotional responses you could objectively try to ask if you're even being
logical. "Armed with skittles" sounds just like the regurgitated media rhetoric. What does skittles even have to do with this other than to somehow
plant the seed in the minds of zombies that Trayvon was nothing more than a cute innocent kid.
Far from the truth. The argument if roles were reversed, a different outcome would have ensued is a fallacy. You don't know if it would or wouldn't
and to say you do would be illogical. As for who's at fault, they both are. Don't put words in my mouth please. If Trayvon carried on home and had not
come back to punch Zimmerman in the nose, then this wouldn't have played out the way it did. I sure hope I don't have to explain the meaning of "keep
your hands clean". Another point I want to touch on, 911 told him not to follow and he didn't. Trayvon came back to the car. Get your facts straight,
then you can distort them as you please. Instead, all I am seeing is hate charging more hate. The actual facts in this case have nothing to do with
"if the roles were reversed" yadayada. The facts show two people making bad choices. Bottom line. It's the Martin advocates who want this to be
racially charged. Lets blame the white man for the mistake of an Hispanic that had nothing to do with racism. Just stop.
Him: First of all, don't tell me to not be rude. You come on here trolling and talking about your version of the truth which to me I find absolutely
revolting. Don't expect me to speak nice about this topic to anyone Bottom line, kid with skittles and ice tea was shot by the man armed with a
Me: Trolling? Really dude? It's only trolling since my view doesn't fit your paradigm I see. I'm opening discussion on something YOU posted on a
PUBLIC FORUM. I'm expected to sit back and keep my mouth shut or else I'll be deemed a troll? So you hand out troll cards as much as you use the race
card it seems instead of actually having an intellectual discussion with the exchange of ideas. You can be passionate as much as you like on the
topic, but if that means you have to be rude to those who disagree, then your the one with their head up their ass. Can't separate emotions from facts
then turn on those who can. Whatever.
Him: Yes. Trolling. This is the second time you have tried to debate me about this topic. First time I ignored you because yes, I feel passionate
about this. And I guess you didn't get the god damn hint in the first place. So you want to defend that guy, be prepared take some venom and heat
along with it. Don't like it, Don't f'n talk to me about the topic. It's pretty cut and dry when it comes to this.
Me: _____, it's called debating. Don't want to debate? Fine. I hold no animosity. But if I see controversial topics flash by and I have an opinion,
its my right to say it. Regardless of how condescending you want to be about it. No need to get pissy about it. Hate begets hate and your falling for
Him: You want to debate fine. It's infuriates me too no end that the man with the gun is considered by some as the victim. And the victim who was
unarmed is called the instigator of this event. The man that was told by the 9-11 operator to "not follow" this kid. And then was heard saying "they
always get away". This guy had mind made up this kid did something. Fine. So he had his suspicions. He's part of the neighbourhood watch program. What
part of "watch" did he not understand??? Apprehend, confront, accost, fight and shoot is not part of the mandate. Maybe if he didn't want his ass
whooped he should have listened to the 911 operator. No he wanted to be a vigilante. And as for the news none of this would have come to light until
the media asked questions. He wasn't even charged. Now you want to talk about the law, lets talk about Florida and the south. Florida. The same place
where Kacey Anthony got away with murdering her child. The same place where a black women was sentenced for 20 years who shot a man who was assaulting
her and afforded the same stand your ground law as Zimmerman. You can argue with me till your blue in the face but as far as I'm concerned Zimmerman
got away with at least manslaughter. He didn't have a badge. He was not a cop. He went looking for trouble and shot this kid.
Me: First, that story about the woman who got 20 years is another social media white wash. It has no comparison to this one. The woman already had
prior assaults charges and the moment she ran out to get her gun and return, was the moment she forfeited her chance at the stand your ground clause.
Her goose was cooked. It's not even the same thing. Second, I still fail to see where this was racially motivated. Yes Zimmerman was overzealous. I'm
not disputing that. I can also agree with involuntary manslaughter, but the jury was forced to go all in or nothing. The prosecution's error. Third,
who exactly are you mad at? Zimmerman? The system? The Jury? (continued....)
edit on Wed Jul 17 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason