That report. if it is factual, simply bears out my account of what happened in Brixton all those years ago. Virtually the same era...and yet thousands of miles apart.Immigrants were shipped into South and West London, many to work on the Underground, and others to work for Firestone Tyres in Southall. Paid minimal wages, housed in far-below quality accomodation Excused by ' Hey, what they have HERE is better than they had back home'..):...and just expected to ignore all the nice things everybody else was getting...placed in a time capsule, where wage increases were absent, and usually denied. And those places and jobs which were 'so much better than they had at home' remained as they were...and within a few years, they were left behind. And their areas became ghettos. Many of those old West Indians remained my friends, although there are few left now.They were the most polite, and friendly people you could wish for. They bore their personal crosses of being below consideration for a decent living wage with fortitude...trapped by ever-increasing rents, and static wages. Struggling to bring up their children in happiness. And all the while, the 'British ' segment of the equivalent population were getting rewards for their work which was hardly ever extended to them. And their children witnessed this. And they began to resent it. And those ghettos became 'no-go' areas for either public or Police. Crime flourished, and with no Police being called upon to control these young people... those young people lost respect for their parents for not FIGHTING for THEIR equality..just a simple equality to be treated as everybody else, and the resentment grew and grew. And that resentment outgrew the reciprocal resentment of the indigenous population...and caused THAT resentmentt to flourish and grow AGAINST them even more. And so the circle went around and around. Yes, you can see the results now, in London. Hackney, where 90% of children inmany Schools are Black or Asian...and the prey for those who would stir up trouble...supply drugs...form Gangs....and then the murders between blacks and blacks, and Asians upon Asians, and inter-racial hatred blossomed... This isn't a 'Media' report. This is a factual narrative of what happened. I saw it. I experienced it. And I know many others who did, and continue to, to this day. Yes, many were 'educationally' ignorant: many could hardly read or write. But they were civil, polite and tried to be friendly. It was rarely reciprocated, and those that DID extend a hand of friendship; a gesture of goodwill, were regarded as 'collaborators' trying to help these people advance and better themselves....and deprive the locals of opportunities for their own families.
[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 04-08-2012).]
Pushing or reporting facts? Please show the inaccuracies in the article.
I thought it was a pretty good summary of Sanford's history and may help to better explain what's currently happening there. On a side note, it seems to be a pretty well segregated community according to the percentages (not that it means there's social harmony).
Pushing or reporting facts? Please show the inaccuracies in the article.
Regardless of whether the information is factually accurate or not - it has no bearing on the Zimmerman case. All it does it color people's opinions to make them assume Zimmerman was a racist and racially profiled Martin. It brings nothing useful to the table and is irrelevant rhetoric at best, and that's if it's all factual.
"You can die when someone's pounding your head into the ground."
I wonder how the protesters would feel if someone held up a "Justice for Zimmerman" sign? If "justice" is done, wouldn't it be justice for both of them?
Regardless of whether the information is factually accurate or not - it has no bearing on the Zimmerman case. All it does it color people's opinions to make them assume Zimmerman was a racist and racially profiled Martin. It brings nothing useful to the table and is irrelevant rhetoric at best, and that's if it's all factual.
I agree the facts of the past racial history may have no bearing on the Zimmerman incident (as far as I can tell there is no "case" yet). However saying "All it does is color peoples opinion to make them assume Zimmerman was a racist and radically profiled Martin" is quite a stretch IMO. Can you dispute the facts? Is it wrong to print an article such as this one about a location that has been in the news almost daily recently? I found it an interesting read though it doesn't color any opinion I may have about what went on the night that Treyvon Martin was shot dead.
I agree the facts of the past racial history may have no bearing on the Zimmerman incident (as far as I can tell there is no "case" yet). However saying "All it does is color peoples opinion to make them assume Zimmerman was a racist and radically profiled Martin" is quite a stretch IMO. Can you dispute the facts? Is it wrong to print an article such as this one about a location that has been in the news almost daily recently? I found it an interesting read though it doesn't color any opinion I may have about what went on the night that Treyvon Martin was shot dead.
I don't need to dispute the report because it's veracity is irrelevant. As any trail judge will tell you, "evidence" such as that has no bearing on the case at hand and can unduly prejudice a jury - that's why it's not admissible in court. Things like Martin's previous school suspensions, one of which was for theft, may be disallowed because it may make you come to the conclusion that since he was a thief in the past, he must have been up to no good this time. But that's not what it's about - it's about the evidence of what happened the night Zimmerman shot Martin and the events leading up to that.
Everything else is irrelevant and only serves to prejudice people. If you say it doesn't change your opinion, you're lying to yourself. If a different article had come out about how everyone in Sanford has fought for Civil Rights and had a history of supporting racial equality, that would also prejudice your opinion.
A lot of what the media has reported has been morally wrong, IMO because they're doing so to paint the picture they want you to see - not just reporting the fact. You know, things like NBC editing the 911 tape to make Zimmerman sound like a racist rather than revealing the fact that he was just answering a direct question from the dispatcher. They've gone beyond morally wrong and crossed legal boundries by falsifying evidence that could be deemed defamatory, although that would have to be decided in court. Just like Zimmerman's case should be decided in court, if there is enough evidence to bring charges.
That's the key. According to the law, a person is innocent until proven guilty. Also, a person is allowed to defend themselves with lethal force if they believe their life is in danger (the exception being if they instigated the altercation). That said, since there is a presumption of innocence, in the absence of enough evidence to provide probable cause that Zimmerman did not act in self defense or in fact started the altercation, then there's no cause to arrest him and bring charges and all this media circus is just angry people seeking vengeance.
FYI, you need to understand the difference between "altercation" and "interaction." If Zimmerman verbally challenged Martin, he broke no law. Only if Zimmerman began hostile action first would he forfeit his right to self defense under the law.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 04-08-2012).]
I don't need to dispute the report because it's veracity is irrelevant. As any trail judge will tell you, "evidence" such as that has no bearing on the case at hand and can unduly prejudice a jury - that's why it's not admissible in court. Things like Martin's previous school suspensions, one of which was for theft, may be disallowed because it may make you come to the conclusion that since he was a thief in the past, he must have been up to no good this time. But that's not what it's about - it's about the evidence of what happened the night Zimmerman shot Martin and the events leading up to that.
Everything else is irrelevant and only serves to prejudice people. If you say it doesn't change your opinion, you're lying to yourself. If a different article had come out about how everyone in Sanford has fought for Civil Rights and had a history of supporting racial equality, that would also prejudice your opinion.
A lot of what the media has reported has been morally wrong, IMO because they're doing so to paint the picture they want you to see - not just reporting the fact. You know, things like NBC editing the 911 tape to make Zimmerman sound like a racist rather than revealing the fact that he was just answering a direct question from the dispatcher. They've gone beyond morally wrong and crossed legal boundries by falsifying evidence that could be deemed defamatory, although that would have to be decided in court. Just like Zimmerman's case should be decided in court, if there is enough evidence to bring charges.
That's the key. According to the law, a person is innocent until proven guilty. Also, a person is allowed to defend themselves with lethal force if they believe their life is in danger (the exception being if they instigated the altercation). That said, since there is a presumption of innocence, in the absence of enough evidence to provide probable cause that Zimmerman did not act in self defense or in fact started the altercation, then there's no cause to arrest him and bring charges and all this media circus is just angry people seeking vengeance.
FYI, you need to understand the difference between "altercation" and "interaction." If Zimmerman verbally challenged Martin, he broke no law. Only if Zimmerman began hostile action first would he forfeit his right to self defense under the law.
Purely your opinion when it comes to me lying to myself and what I need to understand. As for the innocent until proven guilty and the particular laws in Florida regarding this incident, I`m in basic agreement.
Oh I also noticed that you said Martin was a thief, do you have proof of this? If we are discussing the two parties backgrounds now, who has arrests in their past?
Do you think either have any bearing as to the events of that night Martin was shot dead?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 04-08-2012).]
Boy aren't you just panting, mouth dripping with drool, nostrils flared, eyes crazed, and ready to attack over the slightest development to make sure its against GZ eh?
Originally posted by Formula88: Excuse for what? Is it surprising that someone suffers from PTSD after killing another human being, regardless of whether it was justified or not?
^This^ When you kill someone in close quarters like that there are some serious psychological effects. I suggest you pick up On Killing by David Grossman and get some insight.
I am willing to bet that Ol' Retard wish he would have listened to the operator and just met the Po-Po by the mail boxes. I am thinking that playing super hero is not working out to well for him right now....
Originally posted by newf: Oh I also noticed that you said Martin was a thief, do you have proof of this? If we are discussing the two parties backgrounds now, who has arrests in their past?
Do you think either have any bearing as to the events of that night Martin was shot dead?
You picked up on that. Good. As I said immediately after posting that, it has no bearing on the case, so whether there's proof or not is irrelevant. Just as all the other crap being talked about Zimmerman or Sanford FL.
FYI, one of Martin's school suspensions was because he was caught with "burglary tools" and some woman's jewelry. I don't think there was ever any criminal trial. But mentioning it makes you think I'm trying to paint Martin as someone who was up to no good, doesn't it? The same is true for all the extraneous stuff about Zimmerman. Any alleged criminal past of Martin's is irrelevant, as is any alleged past of Zimmerman.
But the media isn't frothing at the mouth to publish anything that might make Martin look bad - only Zimmerman.
My personal belief is when all is said and done, Zimmerman will be exonerated. And when that happens, there will be riots. At the minimum, Zimmerman will have to change his name and move out of state - if he survives.
You picked up on that. Good. As I said immediately after posting that, it has no bearing on the case, so whether there's proof or not is irrelevant. Just as all the other crap being talked about Zimmerman or Sanford FL.
FYI, one of Martin's school suspensions was because he was caught with "burglary tools" and some woman's jewelry. I don't think there was ever any criminal trial. But mentioning it makes you think I'm trying to paint Martin as someone who was up to no good, doesn't it? The same is true for all the extraneous stuff about Zimmerman. Any alleged criminal past of Martin's is irrelevant, as is any alleged past of Zimmerman.
But the media isn't frothing at the mouth to publish anything that might make Martin look bad - only Zimmerman.
My personal belief is when all is said and done, Zimmerman will be exonerated. And when that happens, there will be riots. At the minimum, Zimmerman will have to change his name and move out of state - if he survives.
Actually it depends on if their respective pasts are irrelevant to this particular killing. I wouldn't say that either would be irrelevant depending on what they entail.
Also you said he was a thief I merely asked if you had some proof of an arrest or something which I'm guessing would be the only thing a court might hear if there is ever a trial.
I'm unsure what news you watch but the news I have seen has shown little to paint either in a bad light.
As for the article in question it was a report about past relations in a part of the world where there is a highly reported incident, you may see that as some kind of agenda by the media though I believe a jury (if one is ever needed) is made up of impartial citizens.
Originally posted by newf: I agree the facts of the past racial history may have no bearing on the Zimmerman incident (as far as I can tell there is no "case" yet).
Newf has his answer, but still doesn't seem to get the point.
Newf has his answer, but still doesn't seem to get the point.
Ah yes I keep forgetting the agenda that the "lefty" media has, while the "righty" media is all fair and balanced.
Sorry but I fail to see how the article you posted is slanting anything but many who see everything as a conspiracy tend to find them wherever they look.
Actually it depends on if their respective pasts are irrelevant to this particular killing. I wouldn't say that either would be irrelevant depending on what they entail.
I don't know how the legal system in Canada works, but here prior history isn't proof of future infractions. If Martin was a convicted thief, it wouldn't matter as it has no bearing on his actions that night. What matters is what he did that night and what you can prove. Likewise with Zimmerman. He could have been a member of the Klan and a convicted murderer, but that has no bearing on what he did that night. It's all about the events that transpired during Martin and Zimmerman's interaction. Other "evidence" only serves to make you assume guilt. (well, if we know Martin is a theif, he *must* have been up to no good, or if we know Martin is a racist murderer, he must have profiled and killed Martin because he's black).
That's why those types of evidence are not admissable in court. The only place you'll hear about it is from the media, which effectively poisons the jury pool making any possible trial nearly impossible to be held impartially.
I don't know how the legal system in Canada works, but here prior history isn't proof of future infractions. If Martin was a convicted thief, it wouldn't matter as it has no bearing on his actions that night. What matters is what he did that night and what you can prove.
Very true. Though I did think that depending on what the person had in their past it may or may not be used to show a pattern or so forth, I could be wrong though. haven't been watching Law and Order much lately
Prosecutor: "No grand jury for Trayvon Martin case".
Special prosecutor Angela Corey says she will not bring the Trayvon Martin shooting death before a grand jury.
State Attorney Angela Corey’s decision is not to be considered a factor in whether charges are eventually brought against George Zimmerman, Corey's office said in a statement.
The grand jury, which was previously scheduled by a previous prosecutor, was set to convene on Tuesday in Sanford, Fla.
That means the decision now rests solely with Corey.
Figure it out. The PTSD story actually came out before the shaken baby one. I guess they had to follow it with the other story, as the PTSD one wasn't gaining traction. Some of the stories are not adding up. Was Zimmerman at his car or on his way to his car when he was allegedly attacked by Martin? I've even seen another story where it is claimed he was pulled from his truck and attacked. The stories leaking out seem to be changing all the time, so that makes me doubt their validity or truthfulness. Even the witnesses seem to contradict one another in what they saw. I bet this whole story would have just been another annoying call to the police if Zimmerman didn't have a gun on him that night. He chose to have his gun with him and to use it. Now he has to live with the outcome of that choice, or is someone going to tell me that he didn't consider that someone could die if he shot them? Before one gets a gun for self defense, they need to consider what the ramifications of that choice are and decide if they can live with them. If Zimmerman is truly suffering from killing Martin, he shouln't have been carrying a gun in the first place and made a bad choice in doing so. If I were forced to kill someone in self defense, I know I could live with that decision. I wouldn't be sorry for saving my own life and may even be mad at the other person for trying to take mine. If one feels justified in their actions there should be no regret. Things just are not adding up here when it comes to Zimmerman and his self defense claim and stories.
And yet you, and others still stand by the "Zimmerman is racist/guilty/secretly Satan" theory's.
Lets use a little common sense on this one for a second. Do you really think, that if there was any doubt as to Zimmermans guilt, from the people that actually have all the evidence, any doubt at all, that it wouldn't be going to a Grand Jury? Do you think that a Prosecutor that has nothing to gain, and everything to lose by making the wrong choice here would just let Zimmerman go without 100% proof of his innocence?
Figure it out. The PTSD story actually came out before the shaken baby one. I guess they had to follow it with the other story, as the PTSD one wasn't gaining traction. Some of the stories are not adding up. Was Zimmerman at his car or on his way to his car when he was allegedly attacked by Martin? I've even seen another story where it is claimed he was pulled from his truck and attacked. The stories leaking out seem to be changing all the time, so that makes me doubt their validity or truthfulness. Even the witnesses seem to contradict one another in what they saw. I bet this whole story would have just been another annoying call to the police if Zimmerman didn't have a gun on him that night. He chose to have his gun with him and to use it. Now he has to live with the outcome of that choice, or is someone going to tell me that he didn't consider that someone could die if he shot them? Before one gets a gun for self defense, they need to consider what the ramifications of that choice are and decide if they can live with them. If Zimmerman is truly suffering from killing Martin, he shouln't have been carrying a gun in the first place and made a bad choice in doing so. If I were forced to kill someone in self defense, I know I could live with that decision. I wouldn't be sorry for saving my own life and may even be mad at the other person for trying to take mine. If one feels justified in their actions there should be no regret. Things just are not adding up here when it comes to Zimmerman and his self defense claim and stories.
Dude, This crap is making me lose respect for you.
My Father-In-Law suffers from PTSD from friggin Vietnam.
Police officers across the country suffer from PTSD.
People that didn't even have a weapon, but happened to be around a gunfight can get PTSD.
There are people in Joplin that suffer from PTSD from the tornado.
To say things like you did above is really shitty man. NOBODY knows, EVEN YOU, what their response to killing someone will be, until it happens. There are soldiers that have killed 20 people, but that 21st is the one that triggers PTSD, read the book silentassassin posted above man, and for ***** sake get off your high horse.
Funny how things look different from the other side of the fence. Anything that makes Zimmerman look bad is fine, but dont ever say anything bad about Martin. I call for equal time.
I know someone in Chicago that is being treated for PTSD after getting caught in the middle of a drive-by shooting he had absolutely nothing to do with.
And yet you, and others still stand by the "Zimmerman is racist/guilty/secretly Satan" theory's.
Please don't try to put words in my mouth. Your statement above could not be any further from the truth. Zimmerman is guilty of causing the death of Martin by shooting him, not the other way around.
quote
Dude, This crap is making me lose respect for you.
My Father-In-Law suffers from PTSD from friggin Vietnam.
Police officers across the country suffer from PTSD.
People that didn't even have a weapon, but happened to be around a gunfight can get PTSD.
There are people in Joplin that suffer from PTSD from the tornado.
To say things like you did above is really shitty man. NOBODY knows, EVEN YOU, what their response to killing someone will be, until it happens. There are soldiers that have killed 20 people, but that 21st is the one that triggers PTSD, read the book silentassassin posted above man, and for ***** sake get off your high horse.
Brad
Sorry to hear about your father-in-law. I'm sure his condition has been well diagnosed and I hope he is receiving the correct treatment and doesn't suffer because of it. As far as anyone knows, this is not the case for Zimmerman. There has been no proof released to the public that shows that he allegedly suffers from this condition. The same goes for the shaken baby syndrome. I can guarantee you that if I am placed in such a position to fear that I might lose my life, and that I have to kill another person to save my life, I will sleep soundly that night. Why wouldn't I after having eliminated the source of that fear? You don't know what situations I have encountered in my life, nor should you presume to know how I will or have reacted to them. I'll just let you know that I respond with equal force when threatened. The one that needs to get off a high horse is you. I am entitled to my opinion about this case and I say that there are some things about it that stink or should at the very least raise some red flags. I will also say that I do feel sorry for Zimmerman, but very little. He made his bed, now he has to sleep in it. The bottom line is one shouldn't carry a gun if they aren't willing to live with the consecuenses of using it. That is one of the very first points that is or should be made before they let anyone buy a gun.
quote
I know someone in Chicago that is being treated for PTSD after getting caught in the middle of a drive-by shooting he had absolutely nothing to do with.
This isn't the same. The person you know wasn't the shooter I bet, he is a victim. Zimmerman is the survivor, not the victim here.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 04-09-2012).]
^^^Fanning the flames of hate^^^ so typical of the old and the new black panthers. Why do I feel like I living back in the 60s again? this crap didn't work back then and it won't now. The Zimmerman link works for me it was shown on Headline News HLN.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 04-09-2012).]
PTSD is diagnosed by the report of the subject. Since it is an anxiety disorder, and all of use have different temperments, we will respond different to the same situation. So, a car accident can give one person PTSD and another be not bothered.
Being in Zimmerman's shoes, it is absolutely reasonable to think he has PTSD. Also, considering the threats on his life even more so.
I can guarantee you that if I am placed in such a position to fear that I might lose my life, and that I have to kill another person to save my life, I will sleep soundly that night. Why wouldn't I after having eliminated the source of that fear? You don't know what situations I have encountered in my life, nor should you presume to know how I will or have reacted to them. I'll just let you know that I respond with equal force when threatened. The one that needs to get off a high horse is you. I am entitled to my opinion about this case and I say that there are some things about it that stink or should at the very least raise some red flags. I will also say that I do feel sorry for Zimmerman, but very little. He made his bed, now he has to sleep in it. The bottom line is one shouldn't carry a gun if they aren't willing to live with the consecuenses of using it. That is one of the very first points that is or should be made before they let anyone buy a gun.
Yea, you and thousands of soldiers could "guarantee" they would have no problems.
I'm glad you have unlocked God mode on life and all, but for the "average person" (those below you apparently) PTSD is a very real occurrence that cannot be predicted by the old "It won't happen to me" statement. As I alluded to earlier in my story, a person could shoot 20 people, and "sleep soundly", but that 21st (or whatever the magic number is for that person) could be the one that causes PTSD, alternatively someone who is trained, went through "hell" growing up could also suddenly have PTSD. It can be caused by any traumatic situation in a persons life.
As for your theory that he's making it up....I guess that's for the courts to decide isn't it.
Originally posted by avengador1: Please don't try to put words in my mouth. Your statement above could not be any further from the truth. Zimmerman is guilty of causing the death of Martin by shooting him, not the other way around.
What is your "official" statement on that then?
So far you have called Zimmerman a racist, a murderer, a stalker, a liar, and likely many other things I have missed.
As I see it right now according to the real evidence that has been put forward (not speculation and theory), Zimmerman is a victim of violence, he defended himself using the force he deemed necessary, and now he is the victim of people like you that have judged him wrongly and will not change their view on Zimmerman regardless of what is said or done. He now gets to live with the consequences of defending himself, which in this case will likely include death by a mob of people...Which is a group of people on the same side as you, saying a lot of the same things you do coincidentally.
):...and just expected to ignore all the nice things everybody else was getting...placed in a time capsule, where wage increases were absent, and usually denied. And those places and jobs which were 'so much better than they had at home' remained as they were...and within a few years, they were left behind. And their areas became ghettos.
