Jump to content



Photo

Are hoodies racial?


  • Please log in to reply
274 replies to this topic

#251 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 6,978 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 02:12 PM

If Zimmerman did what he was trained and told, none of this would have happened.

#252 BHB

BHB
  • VibeTribe
  • 3,897 posts
  • LocationLong Beach, NY

Posted 04 December 2012 - 02:12 PM

are we sure that is not the blood of the befallen?


oh like maybe he went all bath salt zombie on Trayvon after he shot him?

would be interesting if Zimmerman could go back and do it over again... would he just take the risk that Trayvon wouldn't have killed him... and just catch the beating and go on about his normal life?

#253 unbroken_chain

unbroken_chain
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,701 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 02:19 PM

oh like maybe he went all bath salt zombie on Trayvon after he shot him?


no like when he shot the kid maybe blood shot out of the wound where the bullet went in cuz fists are mean and make ouchies, and hit him in his dumb face. lol dumb face. I bet he misses his widdle kitty kat

#254 unbroken_chain

unbroken_chain
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,701 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 02:20 PM

by the by, I cannot even type the words "Widdle Kitty Kat" without bursting out laughing. It's embarrassing.

#255 BHB

BHB
  • VibeTribe
  • 3,897 posts
  • LocationLong Beach, NY

Posted 04 December 2012 - 02:27 PM

:lol:


it's a weird looking break... maybe the bone / bridge is busted in? the cartilage is swollen but not bent... maybe they had set it already.

#256 unbroken_chain

unbroken_chain
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,701 posts

Posted 04 December 2012 - 02:38 PM

My moneys on him gettin his face pounded in before this incident. prolly a few times.

#257 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,281 posts

Posted 15 July 2013 - 04:15 PM

So despite the fact Zimmerman has been found innocent there's still talk of going after him for civil rights violations.

 

I guess they're determined to find that hoodies ARE racial.

 

http://www.foxnews.c...intcmp=trending

 

 



#258 unbroken_chain

unbroken_chain
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,701 posts

Posted 15 July 2013 - 05:21 PM

perpaps if they referred to them as "Hooded Sweatshirts" 



#259 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,388 posts

Posted 15 July 2013 - 07:37 PM

All Id like to say here is, if I were walking down the street at night to get snacks from a convenience store, wearing a hoodie, and a black guy was following me and made me feel threatened, I WOULD NOT confront the following person, and start a fight with the person.

 

Jury got it right, and lots of people are unreasonably butthurt over it.

 

 

You cant just go around attacking people violently that you feel may be following you.  There is no law preventing people from following you. I can follow anyone around that I choose, If I want to.



#260 unbroken_chain

unbroken_chain
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,701 posts

Posted 15 July 2013 - 07:57 PM

:dunno:    what???



#261 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 15 July 2013 - 08:07 PM

All Id like to say here is, if I were walking down the street at night to get snacks from a convenience store, wearing a hoodie, and a black guy was following me and made me feel threatened, I WOULD NOT confront the following person, and start a fight with the person.

 

Jury got it right, and lots of people are unreasonably butthurt over it.

 

 

You cant just go around attacking people violently that you feel may be following you.  There is no law preventing people from following you. I can follow anyone around that I choose, If I want to.

 

Well, not all of that is true. Stalking is a crime, but it requires porrf. And if you attack your presumed stalker, the case takes a wide angle turn away from the legality of stalking.

 

For Hoag -  According to a 2002 report by the National Center for Victims of Crime, "Virtually any unwanted contact between two people [that intends] to directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can be considered stalking".

 

United States[edit]

The first state to criminalize stalking in the United States was California in 1990[50] as a result of numerous high-profile stalking cases in California, including the 1982 attempted murder of actress Theresa Saldana,[51] the 1988 massacre by Richard Farley,[52] the 1989 murder of actress Rebecca Schaeffer,[53] and five Orange County stalking murders, also in 1989.[52][54] The first anti-stalking law in the United States, California Penal Code Section 646.9, was developed and proposed by Municipal Court Judge John Watson of Orange County. Watson with U.S. Congressman Ed Royce introduced the law in 1990.[54][55] Also in 1990, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) began the United States' first Threat Management Unit, founded by LAPD Captain Robert Martin.

Within three years[54] thereafter, every state in the United States followed suit to create the crime of stalking, under different names such as criminal harassment or criminal menace. The Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) was enacted in 1994 in response to numerous cases of a driver's information being abused for criminal activity, with prominent examples including the Saldana and Schaeffer stalking cases.[56][57] The DPPA prohibits states from disclosing a driver's personal information without permission by State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). As of 2011, stalking is an offense under section 120a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).[58] The law took effect on 1 October 2007.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking



#262 Terrapin Station

Terrapin Station
  • VibeTribe
  • 6,380 posts
  • LocationDirectly south of Seaside Park..across the sound

Posted 15 July 2013 - 08:29 PM

Seems like you got the two stories, defendant and victim twisted up brah.

 

 

All Id like to say here is, if I were walking down the street at night to get snacks from a convenience store, wearing a hoodie, and a black guy was following me and made me feel threatened, I WOULD NOT confront the following person, and start a fight with the person.

 

Jury got it right, and lots of people are unreasonably butthurt over it.

 

 

You cant just go around attacking people violently that you feel may be following you.  There is no law preventing people from following you. I can follow anyone around that I choose, If I want to.



#263 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,388 posts

Posted 15 July 2013 - 08:33 PM

You cant just confront and attack your stalker.

 

I mean, you can, but then you're committing assault.



#264 unbroken_chain

unbroken_chain
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,701 posts

Posted 15 July 2013 - 08:45 PM

Well, I *think* regardless of the outcome of this case....  Zimmerman may not be behind bars but will serve a life sentence of fear, guilt and general sucklifery.



#265 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,281 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 12:41 PM

Well, not all of that is true. Stalking is a crime, but it requires porrf. And if you attack your presumed stalker, the case takes a wide angle turn away from the legality of stalking.

 

FTR under Florida law Zimmerman following Trayvon was not a case of stalking.

 

http://www.leg.state...s/0784.048.html

 

 

 

 

Well, I *think* regardless of the outcome of this case....  Zimmerman may not be behind bars but will serve a life sentence of fear, guilt and general sucklifery.

 

I'll give you the fear and the sucklifery, he will undoubtedly feel bad about taking Trayvon's life but I don't see a reason for him to feel guilt for defending his own life.



#266 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 01:23 PM

FTR under Florida law Zimmerman following Trayvon was not a case of stalking.

 

http://www.leg.state...s/0784.048.html

 

 

 

 

 

I'll give you the fear and the sucklifery, he will undoubtedly feel bad about taking Trayvon's life but I don't see a reason for him to feel guilt for defending his own life.

 

I know that. And in the end, I believe due process of the law served justice. He was found not guilty. Was he innocent? Probably not, no. But the law was followed here (despite the race baiters, and those who injected themselves into the case where they should have simply left it to the judicial system) and the outcome was delivered based on the evidence. The justice dept., from what I heard, is now looking to apply federal jurisdiction against zimmerman. :rolleyes:



#267 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,253 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 01:48 PM

I'll give you the fear and the sucklifery, he will undoubtedly feel bad about taking Trayvon's life but I don't see a reason for him to feel guilt for defending his own life.

 

 

He picked a fight when he could have just walked away (and was told by police to do just that) and ended up killing a kid.

Seems to me like there's plenty to feel guilty for.



#268 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,281 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 02:17 PM

He picked a fight when he could have just walked away (and was told by police to do just that) and ended up killing a kid.

Seems to me like there's plenty to feel guilty for.

What evidence was presented, and not believed by the jury, that showed he was the one who picked a fight? Also he was never told to just walk away by any police officer. He was told that they did not need him to follow by a dispatcher who wasn't a police officer which is much different than what you're claiming.



#269 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,253 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 02:39 PM

Nitpicking the term "police".   :lol:

Police - as in the police dept he called.

It makes no matter that the person who told him not to follow was a dispatcher that works for the police dept and not "any police officer".

 

Nobody will ever know what really happened between the time he followed the kid and the kid ended up dead, except for the two of them.

Fact is he could have just walked away, he didn't and now the kid is dead.

That's plenty enough to feel guilty about right there.

You feel differently.  OK.

 

And now I'm done.

See you at Vibes!!!   :bouncey:



#270 tyedyedee

tyedyedee

    uniquely dee

  • VibeTribe
  • 8,468 posts
  • Locationboston-ish

Posted 16 July 2013 - 02:47 PM

i feel much the same as jen

 

i am sure neither was 100% without any guilt at perpetuating the confrontation, but it easily could have been avoided if zimmerman had followed the advice given by the person he reached out to...the person who was employed and trained by the PD, be they a dispatcher or a cop covering the phones :wink:

 

i dont think it was 2nd degree murder-worthy but the case could have been made for manslaughter - or at least i thought so :dunno:

 

i am empathetic to what zimmerman was attempting to do (keep his neighborhood safe), i just think he got a little overzealous

and then so scared, after a confrontation that needn't have happened, that a kid ended up dead

it was sad on all parts :sad:



#271 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 9,587 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 02:51 PM

So Pussy Riot is in Prison and Zimmerman is free?  

 

:rolleyes:

 

----

 

 

I know the evidence wasn't there, but the Police seem to be right (with hind sight) from the begining saying there was not enough evidence for the charges.  The Police chief resigned because of this pressure.



#272 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,274 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 03:00 PM

The lead investigator was right that there wasn't the evidence to present for an arrest and subsequent trial against zimmerman. All this was, was one giant publicity stunt by race baiters and a  waste of taxpayer money. A resignation due to public pressure has no bearing on whether or not zimmerman is criminally liable, and as the jury decided, he was not.

 

Innocent? Probably not. However, he's not guilty, as the investigator pointed out from the day of the incident, to the end of the trial, and even through the fbi who conducted an investigation as to whether or not zimmerman had a history of racism.

 

Al Sharpdumb is still out there inciting hatred over his agenda though.



#273 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,281 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 03:02 PM

It's a fact that the dispatcher had no authority to tell him what he could or could not do AND that the dispatcher never told him not to follow. If I'm nitpicking anything it's your stating things that simply aren't true in order to make your case.

 

 

We don't know for sure what happened and in America we're innocent until proven guilty. Many people seem to feel that, despite all the evidence supporting him and despite the fact that the jury found him not guilty, they know what happened.



#274 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 9,587 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 03:03 PM

It's a fact that the dispatcher had no authority to tell him what he could or could not do AND that the dispatcher never told him not to follow. If I'm nitpicking anything it's your stating things that simply aren't true in order to make your case.

 

 

We don't know for sure what happened and in America we're innocent until proven guilty. Many people seem to feel that, despite all the evidence supporting him and despite the fact that the jury found him not guilty, they know what happened.

 

OJ'd.



#275 u.s.blues

u.s.blues
  • VibeTribe
  • 3,180 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 03:25 PM

the needless loss of life is a terrible sad situation regardless of how it comes to pass.  i really don't know enough about the case to have much of an opinion, and honestly unless i were there, or in the courtroom hearing all of the testimony, how could i?  while not the intention, the nature of the judicial system is that occasionally innocent people get convicted, and guilty people get let go.  it's sad to think that this possibility exists but it is not shocking.    the only issue which feels fair to have is with the media coverage of things like this.  seems unlikely to get a fair trial with such profound national media attention.