What's new

Black Kid Shot in Gated Neighboorhood

https://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-wa...nhanced-video-shows-injury-to-zimmermans-head

So the video evidence now shows there is an injury to the back of his head. What say you now?
Video evidence absolutely does not show an injury. You can "enhance" the video to show what may appear to be an injury on one frame, sure. But "enhancing" the video by definition is not showing the true recording. Once that video is altered, it's no longer "proof" of anything.

And I am not even sure their "enhanced" shot shows an actual bandage and injury. I am quite sure it's not the same thing that was in Scat's "enhanced" video though.

I bet both sides can "enhance" the video to make it show or not show whatever they want.
 
I say there is more to this story than we know. I am not willing to condenm Zimmerman as a murderer, yet. He was clearly an idiot. Just there is more to the story. I personally think he will end up facing manslaughter charges.

Thank you, that is exactly my stance on this. The hate crime part is what I find so preposterous, murder, manslaughter, whatever. But a hate crime? I just don't think so.
 
Thank you, that is exactly my stance on this. The hate crime part is what I find so preposterous, murder, manslaughter, whatever. But a hate crime? I just don't think so.
I think the only reason they are/were looking at a hate crime is because the local authorities let him go scott free. The hate crime stuff was just to get the feds involved.

Having said that... If he was only harassing this kid because he was black, and his harassing him lead to him shooting and killing him, then I don't think a hate crime is out of the question.
 
I think the only reason they are/were looking at a hate crime is because the local authorities let him go scott free. The hate crime stuff was just to get the feds involved.

Having said that... If he was only harassing this kid because he was black, and his harassing him lead to him shooting and killing him, then I don't think a hate crime is out of the question.

But he wasn't out there because he hated black people, he was out there because he had an irrational hatred for crime. He was seeing a thief in every shadow. He thought he finally got one.

Hate crimes are a sad joke anyway.
 
But he wasn't out there because he hated black people, he was out there because he had an irrational hatred for crime. He was seeing a thief in every shadow. He thought he finally got one.

Hate crimes are a sad joke anyway.
Possibly. I guess it depends on how the rest of his 911 calls turned out. If he called 911 46 times or whatever since January, it should be pretty easy to prove one way or the other.

But right now, I know he was harassing a black kid based solely on the way he looked, he appeared to call him an effing coon in a recording, and he ended up killing him. In order for this not to be a hate crime, he better hope some of those 911 calls were about white people and he ended up confronting them too.
 
Still not illegal to be suspicious of black people. Doesn't prove its a hate crime. Not even close.

Maybe not. But if that suspicion, which was based on race, leads to you killing an unarmed kid, then yes, that can be considered a hate crime.

You can't really say, "I didn't kill him because he was black. I only harassed him because he was black. Then I killed him because I thought he would kill me for harassing him."
 
As long as they cant tell if he said coon on the audio recording there is not a chance it goes to a hate crime. There are to many factors that they can argue as I referred to in my previous post many pages ago.
 
As long as they cant tell if he said coon on the audio recording there is not a chance it goes to a hate crime. There are to many factors that they can argue as I referred to in my previous post many pages ago.

If only there were a way to know for sure by "enhancing" the audio... oh wait, that would be tampering.
 
As long as they cant tell if he said coon on the audio recording there is not a chance it goes to a hate crime. There are to many factors that they can argue as I referred to in my previous post many pages ago.

This is simply not true.

I'm not saying he absolutely will be charged with a hate crime. But you seem to be of the opinion that the only hate crime on the books is killing someone because of their race.

Harassing the guy because he was black could be considered a hate crime. And when that harassment leads to killing him, that can be considered part of the same hate crime.
 
If only there were a way to know for sure by "enhancing" the audio... oh wait, that would be tampering.

That would absolutely be tampering with it. "Enhancing" it can make it sound however you want.

Fortunately, you don't have to "enhance" it to prove what he said. You simply have to record him saying "coon" and "goon" (or whatever he claims to have said) and compare it to the phone recording. You can look at the actual waves of each and clearly see which is correct without "enhancing" or altering anything.
 
Clearly we would be having a totally different conversation here if Trayvon had been weaponized.

Tuvok.jpg
 
Yeah if the kid would have had a gun this wouldn't have been a story at all.

haha, so you say. If the kid had a gun it would have been illegal because you must be 21 to own a handgun.

The irony would be that if Tryvon had killed Zimmerman because Zimmerman was attacking him Tryvon likely would have been arrested and charged with murder.
 
haha, so you say. If the kid had a gun it would have been illegal because you must be 21 to own a handgun.

The irony would be that if Tryvon had killed Zimmerman because Zimmerman was attacking him Tryvon likely would have been arrested and charged with murder.

Well I don't disagree with either of your points, but I don't think it would have made the news in Utah if the kid would have had a gun (regardless of who was killed).

If the kid had a gun, confronted and chased Zimmerman, and shot and killed him, and Zimmerman was unarmed, the kid would have been arrested. But if for some reason he wasn't arrested, then it would have made the news.
 
Holy fig'n cow, this thread has caused the bigots to crawl out of the woodwork. Carolina Jazz is nothing compared to the bigoted bile being spouted here.

I am very hard pressed to understand anything that would have justified the use of deadly force in this case. Whether Zimmerman is a racist or bigot, I don't know. I conclude, however, that he was an overzealous would be crime fighter who grossly overreacted to a non-threat and that the whole sorry affair was totally avoidable and totally the fault of Zimmerman who provoked a completely unnecessary fight that led to Martin's shooting and death.

I hope they arrest and prosecute him, and I hope they repeal the stupid Stand Your Ground law--a prime example of a solution to a non-existent problem driven by ideological irrational nonsense.

I fully support people's rights to defend themselves against aggression, even with deadly force if necessary. But after assessing the evidence, I conclude that this is NOT what happened in this case. It's a tragedy all around, but one that is the direct results of a series of very bad decisions made by Zimmerman for I'm not sure what reason. He is responsible and thus should be held responsible in a court of law. (I'm not saying he should necessarily be convicted but at the very least put on trial.) By the way, just to forestall the inevitable flaming by the resident bigots on this board, certain sponsors of the Stand Your Ground law also think that Zimmerman should be held accountable and that his actions were outside the specific intent of the law (as bad as the law is to begin with.)
 
Holy fig'n cow, this thread has caused the bigots to crawl out of the woodwork. Carolina Jazz is nothing compared to the bigoted bile being spouted here.

I am very hard pressed to understand anything that would have justified the use of deadly force in this case. Whether Zimmerman is a racist or bigot, I don't know. I conclude, however, that he was an overzealous would be crime fighter who grossly overreacted to a non-threat and that the whole sorry affair was totally avoidable and totally the fault of Zimmerman who provoked a completely unnecessary fight that led to Martin's shooting and death.

I hope they arrest and prosecute him, and I hope they repeal the stupid Stand Your Ground law--a prime example of a solution to a non-existent problem driven by ideological irrational nonsense.

I fully support people's rights to defend themselves against aggression, even with deadly force if necessary. But after assessing the evidence, I conclude that this is NOT what happened in this case. It's a tragedy all around, but one that is the direct results of a series of very bad decisions made by Zimmerman for I'm not sure what reason. He is responsible and thus should be held responsible in a court of law. (I'm not saying he should necessarily be convicted but at the very least put on trial.) By the way, just to forestall the inevitable flaming by the resident bigots on this board, certain sponsors of the Stand Your Ground law also think that Zimmerman should be held accountable and that his actions were outside the specific intent of the law (as bad as the law is to begin with.)

big·ot   [big-uht]
noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Physician heal thyself.
 
WTF????

And just precisely how am I a bigot? I'm really, really curious.

By the way, there's nothing at all bigoted about opposing opinions, particularly if those opinons are ignorant, empirically unfounded, wrong, or themselves bigoted.

For example, it is bigotry to claim that, say, blacks who wear hoodies are thugs.

It is not bigotry to say that is a stupid and ignorant claim.

Get it?
 
Back
Top