Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by g8orbill, Jul 15, 2013.
Nope. Wrong again.
JUROR: I don't think it's really racial. I think it's just everyday life, the type of life that they live, and how they're living, in the environment that they're living in.
Who is THEY?
TM and Rachel. Who else would it be?
And what type of life is it?
New school. Didn't you listen to her interview?
Wow, you have an answer for everything. Amazing. It is nice to know that everything was 100% right, huh? That no one got anything wrong at all.
What kind of answers are you looking for? Are you just race-baiting here? Kinda seems like it.
If this woman was looking to acquire fortune or fame by serving on the jury, she really goofed by voting to acquit.
Hardly. I never saw this case about race. I am now finding both sides had horrible agendas. I will reiterate for you. I'm in the middle. I have explained why ad nauseum. I always saw it as a GROWN MAN, an adult with a firearm acting reckless without proper training to handle this situation. And, in the end, shooting a teenager carrying tea and skittles. Zimmerman's mindset was "he wasn't going to let those f-ing punks get away"...after uttering those words I have a difficult time believing he was suddenly calm, cool and collected. Do you think his mind set at that time was in the proper place to handle the situation(being armed and following a suspected criminal)?
Do we really know how prepared or trained he was. And if he was, does that guarantee that the results would be different? On tv the good guys make it look easy. In real life even the professionals can be taken down.
My next question is...do you think he would have still followed a suspected criminal in the dark if he wasn't carrying a firearm? That answer should tell you all you need to know.
You mean while on the phone with a 991 operator knowing the police would be there in a matter of minutes? Yes.
Now you answer this: Did Martin try to get home and did Zimmerman "catch up" to Martin to initiate a confrontation while Martin was trying to get home?
I think he's a race traitor. You agree?
What if he had a taser? Or mace? Bet he would. What if he accidentally used that taser on a kid that had heart problems? Would we be crying for taser bans?
Fixed it for you.
AC: "When she (Rachel) used the phrase 'Creepy ass cracker'...what did you think of that?"
Juror B37: "I thought it was probably the truth. I think Trayvon probably said that."
AC: "And did you see that as a negative statement or a racial statement as the defense suggested?"
Juror B37: "I don't think it's really racial. I think it's just everyday life. The type of life that they live and how they're living in the environment that they're living in."
When you take Juror B37's comments out of context, you can affix a racial tone to them, but within the context of her conversation with AC, you'd be stretching to make her sound racist.
She actually replied that she DIDN'T think it was racial. If she was as racist as you suggest, wouldn't she point to that comment and say the opposite?
I went through a predominantly black school system (about 90/10), and I'm the better for it as it gave me a unique perspective being in the minority all through school. I've been called "cracker" both negatively and positively. I don't think it's a big deal either. It was just "everyday life" for my classmates and the "environment" they were living in.
I think the racial cries about GZ in this case are unfounded (based on the evidence), and ignoring TM's use of "cracker" is dishonest in any discussion of race in this case.
Do you think his mind set at that time was in the proper place to handle the situation(being armed and following a suspected criminal)?
Where did I say to ban anything? I am saying that someone carrying a firearm has a higher duty than trayvon does to act responsibly. Do you disagree?
You're taking the comments way out of context. I hope this wasn't intentional, if so that's pretty disingenuous.
I said this before but if you've responded to it already I didn't catch it.
I get the impression that in your point of view, GZ was a "creepy ass cracker" who shouldn't have followed TM, shouldn't have overstepped the HOA Neighborhood Watch Guidelines and shouldn't have been carrying a gun. Therefore TM was justified in circling back around to confront GZ, since GZ was in the wrong.
In fact even if it's true that TM did punch GZ in the face, break his nose, take him down and start wailing on him MMA-style, as far as you're concerned GZ had it coming. GZ should've just taken the beating he deserved, instead of reaching for his gun. GZ crossed one line when he didn't stay in his car like the 911 operator said, and he crossed another line when he pulled his gun. But the way you see it, TM did not cross any lines.
Do I have that about right? If not then tell me where I'm wrong.