Any thoughts on Zimmerman's aquittal ?

I know you are trying to get me to say that TM attacked a police officer. Or he thought it was one. Well look back on history and currently law enforcement does not have a good relationship with minorities anyway. Do we need to sit down and look at all the statistics of the prison system and SENTENCING DISPARITIES?

Classic Ikory...

You are backed into a corner, your opinion has been shown to not be logical, so hey lets just switch courses and change the argument to something else.

How about you just admit that you are not thinking logically here. You are saying whatever you can to support what you want to believe even if it makes no sense.

When I have time a little later I am going to have a nice little write up about people like you and how YOU are actually the problem here.

She did not explain cracka to the jury. Watch CNN and you will know who Piers Morgan is. Rachel said she warned TM that it might be a rapist. So I was paraphrasing her.

Lets stay on topic as I am not using a witness to make my point. I am trying to get everyone to see racial profiling young black men walking on the street is WRONG.

Did TM have the right to defend himself from someone who was stalking?

If GZ had backed TM into a corner and TM was in fear for his life then yes he would have the right to defend himself I don't think anyone would argue that.

But that is simply not what happened here. TM had plenty of options that night. The option he chose was to attack GZ.

lol I am in open ground no corner even close to me. I am trying to use facts and statistics on profiling. I think you are trying to use your own assumptions.

You attacked me as if I made up the meaning of cracka to benefit me. I gave you proof from the witness directly on the meaning. You think this makes you above me some how? As if you can find the little things find a flaw in? All my post are trying to stay consistent about racial profiling and prejudice is what is wrong with this system.

Ok one question Ikory.

In your opinion, when TM called GZ a "cracka", did he mean a police officer/security type, or did he mean it as a derogatory name for a white person?

Did TM have the right to defend himself from someone who was stalking?

If GZ had backed TM into a corner and TM was in fear for his life then yes he would have the right to defend himself I don't think anyone would argue that.

But that is simply not what happened here. TM had plenty of options that night. The option he chose was to attack GZ.

Lets make the assumptions of the logic of the 17 year old.

I get it. You believe it is okay to target minorities walking on the street because they do most the crimes. Walking while black should be a crime and we should call the police. Gotcha

Why do I have to explain Cracka again? Go back and read how the witness described the meaning of Cracka. I cannot change her definition. If you need help with urban slang let me know.

Why do I have to explain Cracka again? Go back and read how the witness described the meaning of Cracka. I cannot change her definition. If you need help with urban slang let me know.

I am not asking you to explain the definition of cracka again.

I am trying to figure out how your mind works....it just seems like you are very illogical.

My question to you is do you believe TM was referring to GZ as a police type, or do you think he was using a derogatory word to describe him.

Its a simple question really...I will wait for your answer

I cannot speculate what he was thinking. I can only go what the witness said. I mentioned this before but that paragraph was only pointing out prejudice of the juror. I am staying on topic with profiling and being prejudice. By asking me the "cracka" question several times are you going to try to point out how the Juror was not being prejudice? I am not sure how racial profiling is illogical? Perhaps it is because my mind has been warped with education? Psychology Research Statistics 1 and 2. Social Psychology, Sociology, Race and Ethnics Sociology. All I see when I am writing is empirical studies on these topics. Not sure how to fix my illogical thinking? Hammer to the head?

Perhaps I should write my professors at SIUE and let them know what they have done to my mind? 😮

So you cannot speculate on what TM was thinking but you have no problem speculating that GZ racially profiled TM?

In any case I am not asking you to speculate on what he was thinking. I am asking you what your opinion is of what he meant by cracker.

Let me break it down for you logically since you seem to be having a hard time with it...I will explain it to you like I would to a child so you can understand.

Here is my opinion. TM called GZ a cracker or cracka. So I want to figure out which one he meant. Because he is dead, we will never know for sure, so I am going to try and logically figure out what is the most likely scenario.

1st scenario....TM called GZ a cracka. If TM believed GZ was a police or security, its reasonable to think that TM thought he was armed. We know that TM attacked GZ. Why would a teenager minding his own business doing nothing wrong attack an armed police officer? That really makes no sense to me.

2nd scenario.....TM called GZ a cracker....a derogatory he name for a white person. We know that TM knew he was being followed because he told his girl friend. Its reasonable to believe he was not happy that he was being followed. We know that TM was agitated with GZ, because he approached him and asked him why he was following him. We know that TM attacked GZ. So to believe this scenario was likely what happened we would have to believe that TM was not happy about being followed, he called the guy following a derogatory name, and then proceeded to attack the person.

So in my opinion, the 2nd scenario makes more sense because logically it works out pretty well.

So yes Ikory, I am asking you for your opinion on which word he said. Think about both scenarios, and let me know what your logical conclusion is and why.

It has nothing to do with a juror. I am trying to figure out how the minds of you and so many others reconcile your opinions on what happened that night, because clearly you have one.

I cannot speculate what he was thinking. I can only go what the witness said. I mentioned this before but that paragraph was only pointing out prejudice of the juror. I am staying on topic with profiling and being prejudice. By asking me the "cracka" question several times are you going to try to point out how the Juror was not being prejudice? I am not sure how racial profiling is illogical? Perhaps it is because my mind has been warped with education? Psychology Research Statistics 1 and 2. Social Psychology, Sociology, Race and Ethnics Sociology. All I see when I am writing is empirical studies on these topics. Not sure how to fix my illogical thinking? Hammer to the head?

Perhaps I should write my professors at SIUE and let them know what they have done to my mind? 😮

Zimmerman got law enforcement involved for a black person walking on the street. Zimmerman was racial profiling and calling the police to get them involved in his own biased behavior.

I don't understand this description of the events. Zimmerman got the police involved because he was a neighborhood watch member who saw someone who he did not recognize inside his locked-gate community. This community had been burglarized many times recently. He did not describe Martin as black. He described him as suspicious and he looked like he was on drugs. The race only came up when the dispatcher asked for the race of the suspect. Blood tests showed that Martin was using drugs. One of the side effects of Marijuana is paranoia.

The FBI has looked for any sign of racism on Zimmerman's part both before and during this event. They found none. Jeantal told us that Martin referred to Zimmerman as a "crazy assed cracka". This is racist. Look at the urban dictionary definition.

Both men used poor judgement. That is what the juror said. Zimmerman should have stayed in the car, but it was not illegal for him to get out. Martin should have gone home or turned and confronted Zimmerman verbally, not physically. The physical confrontation triggered the self-defense verdict. Nothing that Zimmerman did was illegal. That is why the jury returned a not quilty verdict.

"The levels of THC detected don’t reflect Martin’s character or even his state of mind the night he was shot. For one, they are so low as to almost certainly not be connected to recent intoxication: 1.5 nanograms of THC were found as well as 7.3 nanograms of THC-COOH, a metabolite of THC that can stay in the system for weeks after cannabis has been smoked. Immediately after inhaling, THC levels typically rise to 100 to 200 nanograms per milliter of blood, although there can be a great deal of variation.

“THC in blood or urine tells us nothing about the level of intoxication,” says Carl Hart, associate professor of psychology at Columbia University and author of the leading college textbook on drug use and behavior. “That would be like someone going to have a beer some evening, and when he goes to work the next day, you can find alcohol metabolites in his bodily fluids. That says nothing about his functioning.” (Full disclosure: Hart and I are working on a book project together).

Moreover, even if Martin had been stoned out of his mind, it wouldn’t predispose him to violence. “I have given hundreds of doses of marijuana to people in the lab, and no one has gotten violent ever and everyone has been able to respond to the situation in an appropriate manner, when given low or large doses and single or repeated doses,” Hart says."

Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2012/05/18/traces-of-marijuana-found-in-trayvon-martins-body-does-it-matter-2/#ixzz2ZRnKRG78

Cracker and Cracka have the same definition in the urban dictionary. To invent a new meaning for cracka is like me calling someone a nigga and changing what we all know that it means. Where is there a definition for cracka that says that it means policeman?

The urban dictionary says that cracka and nigga are equally offensive.

I am illogical and you have to explain it to me as I am a child. Walks away. You win I am a child.

I guess when I said that ONE paragraph was only to show the Juror was being prejudice calling Rachel not very intelligent. We twisted this into something else and ignored everything else I said. I am sure Rachel could use a good dictionary Rotor because we need to use slang properly. I use lots of words that have different meanings but you have to be part of my family to know them. I guess I need one of those dictionaries too.

. The facts are simple. Zimmerman had a loaded gun. Zimmerman started the fight. Zimmerman admitted to killing a boy. The jury must be brain dead to not convict him of something....

Let me break it down for you logically since you seem to be having a hard time with it...I will explain it to you like I would to a child so you can understand.

these jurors could not relate at all to Trayvon Martin. They could not put themselves in his shoes but they could relate to George Zimmerman. Juror B37 said in another article on CNN that she felt like Rachel Jeantel was "not a credible witness" and that she "felt sorry for her." The juror also said that she could not understand what Rachel Jeantel was saying (also mentioned in this article). Rachel Jeantel used the word "cracka" not "cracker." Cracka is slang for policeman while the other one is a derogatory term for white person. The juror also said that the reason she felt sorry for Jeantel was because she assumed Jeantel felt like she was uneducated and unintelligent. What gives juror B37 the right to make these assumptions? White privilege. I absolutely do not care for English language elitism. In the south the whites use to treat blacks as children, because of this elitism.

Master after you get done explaining things to me is it okay if I have a glass of water?

Now I officially walk away.

Ikory the truth is you cant answer that question. You cant because if you answer it you will have to admit to yourself that your version of what happened that night is not logical. You have to pick and choose which facts and which logic supports what you want to believe. And just like other people who think like you, when you are backed into a corner and faced with the truth, you attack the person who is right. You will do anything you can to avoid facing your worst fear....the truth. You insinuate that I am a racist because I look at things logically and try and make you do the same. You don't want the truth, you want to believe your theory is correct, even if it makes no sense. But as we can see, you are not alone in this thinking.

This brings me to my next point. I saw today that TMs parents spoke about the verdict. They made it clear that they believe the jury got it wrong. They believe that GZ murdered their son in cold blood.

And then I thought, why cant they just let this go? The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that GZs account of what happened that night is accurate. The prosecution did not put on a weak case, they put on a case for a charge that the evidence did not support. They didn't have bad witnesses, they had witnesses that went up and told the truth. The truth just did not support their case. They put on the best case they could, but in the end they put on a case that proved GZ acted in self defense. What good does this witch hunt of GZ do? Their son is dead and its a terrible tragedy. He is dead not because GZ was checking him out, but because he viscously attacked GZ. The FBI, the prosecutors, the police, and the jurors all agreed that this killing was not about race. But the media and a very large part of the population have made this about race. But the truth is it is not. Why do people have to believe so badly that this was all GZ's fault?

There are race issues that still exist in this country, but this case is not about them. It does no good to the cause of racism to distort the truth and ignore the facts to make this case something its not just to support a movement. As a matter of fact, in my opinion it hurts the legitimate race discussions that we could be having. You cant sit down to the table to discuss an issue that isn't factual.

The fact that Sharpton, TMs parents, NAACP, and other people are rallying the masses in this case is terrible. They are feeding the masses a false story, which is clearly inciting and empowering the idea that black people never get justice, the system is against them, the white man is keeping us down.....all those feelings. And the people WANT IT. They are eating it up. Why is that? If these groups want a legitimate case to support their cause, why cant they find one? Why do people like Yearasta and Ikory need so badly to believe that GZ murdered TM in cold blood because he was black? They believe this is the truth, in spite of all the evidence that proves its not true.

I guess it just bothers me because I see so many people charged up about this and they don't know the facts and don't think about things logically. All they know are the lies spewed by the media and the minority groups. It seems they are looking for a reason to be mad, but what are they really mad about?

I just think its time to accept this case for what it was. What the evidence and the facts prove. To do otherwise is irresponsible.

At any rate Zimmerman will have to look over his shoulder for the rest of his life.

. The facts are simple. Zimmerman had a loaded gun. Zimmerman started the fight. Zimmerman admitted to killing a boy. The jury must be brain dead to not convict him of something....

Zimmerman had a license for his loaded gun. Zimmerman did not start the fight, Martin did. That's what the jury decided and they were the ones who listened to all of the evidence. Zimmerman admitted to killing a boy in self-defence and the jury agreed. The jury did exactly what the law required.

People have a right to defend themselves when they feel their life is threatened. Watching someone or even following someone does not justify the attack by Martin. The violent part of this exchange was started by Martin. That is what the jury determined based on the evidence.

first and most important fact..

none of this would have happened if Zimmerman would have not targeted and followed then confronted that child

I have to say.. if some creepy guy was following me in a car and then on foot while I was minding my own business I sure as hell would be ready to take him out first before he did me in

Zimmerman is guilty !!

he brought this on himself by targeting a young black male that in HIS mind was up to no good..

karma will come around for Zimmerman just like it did for o j

hopefully sooner than later

LISTEN: Ted Nugent Says Trayvon Martin ‘Emboldened’ By Obama; Knows How To Fix ‘The Black Problem’

Of course, Zimmerman was able to figure out that Martin was a “17-year-old dope smoking, racist gangsta wannabe” by the way he walked home, Skittles and iced tea in hand, wearing a hood… in the rain.

The presumption that Martin was a wannabe criminal is a pretty blatant example of what The Atlantic‘s Ta-Neshi Coates recently described as “the banality” of racist profiling.

first and most important fact..

none of this would have happened if Zimmerman would have not targeted and followed then confronted that child

I have to say.. if some creepy guy was following me in a car and then on foot while I was minding my own business I sure as hell would be ready to take him out first before he did me in

Zimmerman is guilty !!

he brought this on himself by targeting a young black male that in HIS mind was up to no good..

karma will come around for Zimmerman just like it did for o j

hopefully sooner than later

Identifying and following suspicious people is what a neighborhood watch does. This is not a violent act and is not illegal. Confronting someone by verbally asking them what they are doing in a certain place is not violent or illegal. If someone doesn't like being confronted with questions then they can walk away or explain themselves.

The person who resorts to physical violence is acting illegally. Who started the physical violence? Who landed the first blow. That is the person responsible for turning this into a deadly situation.

Vigilante justice is not what we need. No one attacked OJ because he was acquitted. If you don't like Zimmerman then sue him. That's what happened with OJ. Violence is not the solution, if Martin had talked to Zimmerman instead of attacking him we wouldn't be having this discussion.

LISTEN: Ted Nugent Says Trayvon Martin ‘Emboldened’ By Obama; Knows How To Fix ‘The Black Problem’

Of course, Zimmerman was able to figure out that Martin was a “17-year-old dope smoking, racist gangsta wannabe” by the way he walked home, Skittles and iced tea in hand, wearing a hood… in the rain.

Nugent is an obvious master of racial sensitivity, something he demonstrates by describing the first black president as a “Black Panther” running a “gangster” government.

......

Nugent also said that Martin was “emboldened by a Black Panther president” to attack George Zimmerman, accepting the same premise the Zimmerman jury did: that Martin attacked Zimmerman, who had been following the teen with a gun though a 911 operator had told him, “We don’t need you to do that.”

The presumption that Martin was a wannabe criminal is a pretty blatant example of what The Atlantic‘s Ta-Neshi Coates recently described as “the banality” of racist profiling.

There are idiots on both sides of this discussion. We can't let them set the direction of the discussion. I see nothing in the 911 transcripts or Zimmerman's history which indicated that his interest in Martin had anything to do with race.

his only interest in t m was that he was an unknown person who was in a neighborhood that had a few previous break ins. that is more than enough reason if you are on the neighborhood watch, to want to find out more about this person.
the end result is tragic, but could have been avoided if t m did not come back to start the fight.

This is exactly what I am talking about. By not accepting truth and perpetuating lies, the TM side is breeding hate. Its disgusting, irresponsible, and they should all be ashamed.

The evidence, even the prosecutions own witness, proved that TM confronted GZ. But people like stx2020 just don't care. They refuse to believe the truth. They feel GZ is guilty. Guilty of what? Its not that there was not enough evidence to prove him guilty of something, there was plenty of evidence. Its just that the evidence proved that GZ did nothing wrong. Why is that so difficult to accept? Again, why do people need so badly to believe that this was all GZs fault?

The end result of this hate is summed up at the end of what stx2020 says below. stx2020 is now anticipating that something bad will happen to GZ, and he/she is hoping that it happens soon. Cant you see what is happening here? As a direct result of the TM camp not accepting the truth and feeding the fire, they are spreading hate.

It is time for them to the responsible thing and put this to rest. Its time to stop breeding hate.

first and most important fact..

none of this would have happened if Zimmerman would have not targeted and followed then confronted that child

I have to say.. if some creepy guy was following me in a car and then on foot while I was minding my own business I sure as hell would be ready to take him out first before he did me in

Zimmerman is guilty !!

he brought this on himself by targeting a young black male that in HIS mind was up to no good..

karma will come around for Zimmerman just like it did for o j

hopefully sooner than later