Irony: Trayvon Martin
-
Dismissed — 9 years ago(October 07, 2016 06:09 PM)
One news outlet played an edited version of the non-emergency call with the dispatcher's questions removed, giving the impression that Zimmerman called because "he looks black." This happened. Is it not improper to edit audio in this manner?
Other news outlets amplified a portion of audio and told viewers that Zimmerman had use a racial epithet. Is this not deceit? Why imply an epithet?
Who spread the image that Zimmerman pursued Martin and shot him in cold blood? Is it not improper to tell an unproven narrative?
My intent was simply to point out the irony. This show was one of the people in the crowd scene being fed a less-than-honest narrative by the media and black leaders.
Stand up. Hook up. Shuffle to the door. -
houstonbhorsemen — 9 years ago(October 28, 2016 01:10 PM)
If you want to bring that up, then lets do so.
Trayvon Martin had permission by a home owner, to be in the neighborhood, and had every right, and permission, to be walking in the neighborhood that night. There was no probable cause for Zimmerman to even approach him.(and Zimmerman had no right, or responsibility to do so.)
Anything past that is irrelevant, unless you want to ignore homeowner rights, and the rights of a American citizen. -
Dismissed — 9 years ago(October 29, 2016 02:08 PM)
An individual also has a right to report an unknown person behaving suspiciously to the authorities.
One also has the right to walk to one's vehicle without being viciously assaulted.
Additionally, when being viciously assaulted, one has the right to use such force as is necessary to defend one's self.
Stand up. Hook up. Shuffle to the door. -
keekosdoctor — 9 years ago(October 07, 2016 04:53 PM)
The irony is lost because you've yet to point out where the manipulation of the Martin case occurred.
You can't state that the narrative of Martin as the good guy is false AND simultaneously avoid an argument without your point being moot.
Captain America Civil War: Tragedian Structure -
Dismissed — 9 years ago(October 07, 2016 05:40 PM)
The manipulation exists in incidents even beyond the Martin case. But to address your interest: what, would you say, is the goal of only showing audiences photographs of the deceased as a small child in a sports uniform? Is this not to guide the emotion of the audience? If so, is this not suspect?
Stand up. Hook up. Shuffle to the door. -
The_Mob_Has_Spoken — 9 years ago(October 08, 2016 12:33 AM)
The irony is lost because you've yet to point out where the manipulation of the Martin case occurred.
Grow up. OP gave several examples of media manipulation in l'Affaire Trayvon. I'll give another one: the media only showing pictures of a smiling seven year old Trayvon and not the grimacing tattooed street thug who liked to pose with guns that he actually was.
"I like simple pleasures like butter in my ass and lollipops in my mouth." - Floyd Gondolli -
activista — 9 years ago(October 08, 2016 10:07 AM)
@The Mob Has Spoken
Honestly, you and the OP are both full of s***. You sound like both of you just bought into Zimmerman BS's story, instead of what really happened, and that you didn't bother to research anything about the actual case. First of all, Martin was never a "thug" simply because he wore a hoodie. I'm black, and I used to own a hoodie mainly because it was warm and comfortable during summer and winter. It dosen't automatically make anyone a "thug" for wearing one. For one thing, Martin didn't have a single criminal record, so he was never a "thug", you racist idiots. George Zimmerman has a long history going back a decade of being arrested for domestic assault; assaulted at least two police officers; being so drunk he picked up a woman and slammed her so hard on the ground that he broke her ankle at a private party he worked as a guard at;harassing one of his co-workers, who was Arab-American, to the point where the co-worker had to file a grievence against him. And since he got acquitted, he's been caught up or started at least several instances where he threatened his ex-wife and now-ex-father-in-law with a gun, whipping out a rifle on one ex-girlfriend when they got into an argument (she called the cops and had him arrested.) You can look up that infoit's all over the web. So who's the real thug? Pretty obvious, isn't it?
And the media didn't show just his childhood picture, they also showed his last picture. Bottom line, Zimmerman is a entitled, overgrown racist spoiled brat who's gotten bailed out so many times by his dad ( a former magistrate in the Florida courts which was the only reason never did any jail time for hitting those cops.) He's shown that he's got serious mental problemsafter threatening a man last year and claiming that he was going to shoot him, the man was convinced that Zimmerman was stalking him, and wound up shooting at him claiming he had to protect himself. Just recently as last month, Zimmerman was stupid enough to pick a fight with some white supremacist punk about his tattoo, and he got his dumb a** stomped the hell on by that dude. Look it up. I find it ridiculosu and just plain lazy that three years after the case, with all the available info out there, you couldn't see past that racist bull**** narrative some conservative sites created for Zimmerman. Do some real research and stop repeating all that tired,untrue bull**** about the case.
Also, Zimmerman admitted to following and getting into a fight with Martin, so yeah, he started that whole thing. His subsequent behavior has shown that more than likely he picked a fight with Martin. Keep in mind, Martin didn't know who this strange guy following down the street was. His friend Rachel Jeantel (the last person to talk to him) said that he told her this "creepy-a** cracker" was following him, then he yelled, "Get off me!" and his phone went dead. (Watch the actual trial on youtubeit's all there, not this bull**** the other poster keeps making up.) Also, keep in mind, GZ didn't ID himself as a neighborhood watch volunteer (who are not supposed to be armed,because they're not actual cops.) Unfortunately, GZ thought having a gun gave him the right to act like a cop and try to apprehend Martin, who was walking back to his father's girlfriend's place. So he wasn't just there "walking around looking into windows) like Zimmerman claimed. Martin didn't know who the hell GZ was, and probably thought he was going to get robbed, like any other normal person who sees a stranger coming after them at night would.
There's also an interview with the star of LUKE CAGE about how he didn't wear hoodies for years, because he didn't want to be a perceived as a dangerous black man simply because he was wearing gone. He said he got tired of having to worry about how he might be perceived as a criminal simply for being a black man hearing a hoodie, so he wears one in the show. And just so you know, he policeman who originally talked to Zimmerman didn't believe his story and recommended hat he be arrested for murder. I also never understood why he never testified at his own trial. An innocent person would have wanted to clear himself, but the fact that he didn't speaks volumes. I think he's a mean,selfish bastard who'd lie his way out of anything (which he already proved that he is) and constantly blames everyone else for his actions. Look that up,too. -
The_Mob_Has_Spoken — 9 years ago(October 08, 2016 10:22 AM)
Neither I nor the OP mentioned a hoody. Nice try. You Trayvonistas are still playing fast and loose with the truth and engaging in primary school-level rhetorical legerdemain that nobody with an IQ above room temperature is going to fall for. I said Trayvon is a thug because of his extensive criminal background, because he was a tattooed 17-year-old, because his mom sent him to Sanford because she knew he was a little gangsta, and because I saw his gangstalicious Facebook and Twitter accounts that his parents deleted as soon as they found out he was dead.
"I like simple pleasures like butter in my ass and lollipops in my mouth." - Floyd Gondolli -
Dismissed — 9 years ago(October 08, 2016 11:26 AM)
Nice rant. Your words are illustrative of someone guided by emotion, not evidence and rationality.
- Most of the information you presented has no bearing on the Zimmerman-Martin case.
- All of the information informing my position was presented
at trial
, not taken from "conservative" news sites. - That was NOT Jeantel's testimony! You are either lying or are grossly misinformed. Below is a segment of
Jeantel's testimony.
For your own clarity, watch the first 15 minutes.
Rachel "Dee Dee" Jeantel (W8) Testimony Pt. 5/6 - 6/27/2013 - Trayvon Martin George Zimmerman Trial
First of all, Martin was never a "thug" simply because he wore a hoodie
When did anyone assert this notion? Do you know who made an issue out of the hooded sweatshirt? It was THE MEDIA! Zimmerman NEVER mentioned the sweatshirt as an issue. People like to have symbols to rally behind, and the MEDIA used the "hoodie" as the symbol! It was so effective that, to this day, "hoodies" are STILL associated with Martin. You could not even address my point about manipulative practices without bringing up the chief symbol of that incident's manipulation.
Stand up. Hook up. Shuffle to the door.
-
The_Mob_Has_Spoken — 9 years ago(October 08, 2016 07:51 PM)
I told the truth and they couldn't handle it. I said their silly perpetual black victimhood narrative is nonsense and that they are fooling nobody.
"I like simple pleasures like butter in my ass and lollipops in my mouth." - Floyd Gondolli -
Kyumonryu — 9 years ago(October 12, 2016 02:47 AM)
I'll give another one
no, but you gave the one he already did. Good job. You now may feel proud of yourself
Trayvon and not the grimacing tattooed street thug who liked to pose with guns
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/12/06/05/2F19F6C200000578-0-image-a-42_1449381351132.jpg
https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/full/s3/media/2015/12/photographer_portraits_of_americans_with_guns.jpg
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160812101315-kim-rhode-march-8-2016-exlarge-169.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/02/03/article-2272675-174FC174000005DC-277_634x410.jpg
http://www.motherjones.com/files/gunmakers_beretta_social2000x1124_0.jpg
http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/2016/02/25/0225gopguns01.jpg
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160309175355-senator-ted-cruz-holds-gun-at-crossroads-shooting-sports-large-169.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/26/article-2253337-16A7B7CC000005DC-118_634x602.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/26/article-2253337-16A7B7C3000005DC-213_634x601.jpg
and last but not least, even with a book promoting racism, child rape, murder and hate crimes
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1862260.1405021156!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/fisher11n-1-web.jpg
Most people call these gun nuts above Patriots or real americans, but wow, wait a minute if the person is black, he is suddenly labeled thug.
Great points you delivered
but they hung him anyway.
Hanged, Ami. Your father was not a tapestry. -
EmperorOfLatveria — 9 years ago(October 12, 2016 07:53 AM)
I mean wow. You must have flunked out on your reading comprehension or something.
Let me quote word for word what he said:
"grimacing tattooed street thug who liked to pose with guns that he actually was."
Notice, he was already labeled a grimacing tatooed street thug in this. That is who the subject is, with the supporting adjectives to focus on the noun (thug).
What is the action? Who like to pose with guns, etc. Not a because statement. Just describing his activities, specifically with the verb of like.
You are reading it incorrectly, or adding your words in it. You are reading it as if it said "grimacing tatooed street thug BECAUSE he liked to pose with guns that he actually was". But there is NO BECAUSE. You are not understanding the basic context of what he is saying.
No. Just no. He was a thug, for different reasons, already settled on. And while I think it is a stupid thing to bring up posing with guns, he wasn't as stupid to call him a thug BECAUSE he posed with guns as you want to accuse him of being.
That makes you look rather silly doesn't it?
__
http://adayinourshoes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/trolls.gif -
Kyumonryu — 9 years ago(October 13, 2016 12:08 AM)
That makes you look rather silly doesn't it?
Not really, but if you say so, it must be true.
So ok, he mentioned "like to pose with guns" because of what? Ah yes, because he wanted to put emphasis on how dangerous this supposed "grimacing street thug" was.
So what made him a street thug? And what picture are we talking about?
but they hung him anyway.
Hanged, Ami. Your father was not a tapestry. -
EmperorOfLatveria — 9 years ago(October 13, 2016 12:13 AM)
No. You don't get it.
He mentioned he was a street thug that liked to pose with guns.
THAT IS WHAT HE SAID. You are adding the 'because'.
Let me point out to you why you adding in that word, by yourself, outside of what the other person said could be considered wrong.
Would you rather have a street thug that didn't like guns, or would you rather have a street thug that liked to pose with guns?
beep hell, neither one of these two options is excluding the other. Nor is the fact that posing with guns (since he didn't make it the qualifier of the actual argument) the reason why he was a street thug.
In fact, he didn't mention why he said he was a street thug at all. But you seem to want to prove that he wasn't, and you grabbed something that was neither intended nor implied to make a straw man to attack him with.
Under contexts like the one listed above, and many others you can think of if you tried, you can make sense of why someone might have mentioned that, without a qualifier.
If he meant it was because he posed for guns, he would have said 'he was a street thug BECAUSE he posed for guns'. But he didn't. He wasn't even close to that. Learn, reading, comprehension. It will help you.
__
http://adayinourshoes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/trolls.gif -
Kyumonryu — 9 years ago(October 13, 2016 01:22 AM)
Nope, I asked why he had to mention that he liked to pose with guns. As if this means anything.
So why is he considered a street thug?
Learn, reading, comprehension. It will help you.
Just wow, a tad full of yourself, are you? Granted that Im not a native speaker Im bound to make mistakes. But instead of just pointing this out, you rode into this thread on your high horse and stating that I must feel silly because I probably misunderstood something I read in my third/fourth language.
While I learn to read properly, you might want to check how to answer to people.
By the way, the "posing street thug" phot I found was this
http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/christandpopculture/files/2012/03/T-m-3.jpg
And this is hardly anything that could be considered intimidating. Its a teenage boy lipping the bird and showing his barely muscular chest. No tattoos, no grimacing, no guns. Another one of him is a collage with a hemp leaf, him blowing smoke and a gun. Again, not really street thug level.
but they hung him anyway.
Hanged, Ami. Your father was not a tapestry.
