Jefferson #racist

Jefferson #racist unz.com

The irony that the left wing media has an extreme hatred of the Triracial George Zimmerman, when their goal is for one day the vast majority of Americans be Triracial just like George Zimmerman.

George Zimmerman is the product of racial miscegenation, so the left wing elites in the media should be celebrating him not condemning him. They should be happy that the German American father chose a Vibrantly Diverse Peruvian woman for marriage and not a Stale Pale Female.

29 comments

old comment by Passerby

All a left wing "elite" like me cares about is that somewhere in Florida a man took the law into his hands and a life from someone else. I don't care that Trayvon Martin was black. I care that the case was mishandled, that he never saw justice, and that people cared far more about him being black than him being run down by a wannabe vigilante, cornered, and ultimately killed with zero legally defendable reason.

I care that the right to self defense did not apply to Trayvon Martin, while George Zimmerman took several actions that would strip him of the right to claim self-defense. I care that the six factors that determine if a self-defense claim is valid were waived for Zimmerman. I care that the judge ordered the jury directly to acquit Zimmerman, unless they could conclusively prove that he was *not* afraid for his life. (Which I can, because the reflexive instict to shield the face and eyes from percieved harm is essentially impossible to suppress without conscious effort, particularly when startled or panicked and Zimmerman had no defensive wounds on his arms.)

I care that the court system was so absurdly stacked to acquit Zimmerman that even a guilty verdict would not have seen him behind bars for long. Per the 5th amendment anyone charged with a capital offense i.e. murder must be tried by a grand jury. Zimmerman faced a petit jury and had he been convicted it would have been trivial to declare a mistrial and without new evidence (the gratuitious amounts of evidence thrown out would not be re-examined) he would not have been tried again.

I care that in a case under scrutiny by an entire country and a good number of foreign onlookers none of the above is being called out.

I don't care that Trayvon Martin was black. I care that somehow his being black was more than enough reason to drastically change how the case was handled in the media and in the court.

old comment by Warren McIntosh

I dont hate any particular race, age, class, religion, or sex, and neither do i hate people because of their ideology, look, political views, size, sexual preference or appearence.

What I do hate is arseholes, and you and Georgie boy appear to meet that qualification handsomly.

(Just to be clear though, the witness evidence and George's injuries are consistent with Trayvon being on top of him beating the shit out of him, and even if he was provoked and George is an arsehole (which he was and George is) ther's more then enough evidence to show that George MAY HAVE geuinley feared for his life. On the basis of the criminal test of reasonable doubt, it seems obvious that he was rightly aquitted. Sorry if that offends, but you don't get to have different criminal law and standards for people you don't like - ever.)

old comment by Vox

@Warren - There were multiple witnesses and some saw GZ on top at various times. Likely GZ and TM were rolling around on the ground and TM was probably trying to prevent GZ from standing up to shoot him (judging from John Good's testimony where TM kept flailing down at GZ while standing over him, not kneeling on him, but no hard hits seen or heard connecting). One witness, Rachel Jeantel, claimed to hear GZ shove TM. If this is true technically TM was defending himself against GZ. Your argument would be that GZ is defending himself against TM's self-defense. You can't really do that if you're the aggressor unless you've made an effort to withdraw from the situation, and your victim knows it, but tries to continue and attack you anyway. That's why people thought the outcome was BS. It basically made it so that TM defending himself is considered "assault".

That and GZ wasn't beat up very bad at all. The doctor called his injuries "minor and insignificant".

old comment by

Jeffy you might actually want to read the comments before making accusations like that. If this case were actually handled normally - and a few direct examples were given in the ways it was not - and that wannabe vigilante got off due to insufficient evidence or legal technicalities instead of blatant perversion of procedure few of us would be making a peep.

For example having a man charged with a capital crime face a petit jury instead of the constitutionally required grand jury. Or extremely selective application of the right to self-defense throwing out mention of the law itself when it became clear George Zimmerman could not fit into the legal definition of an act of self-defense. I guess there are some advantages to your dad being a judge and the media throwing up race relations and gun rights as a sensational smokescreen to cover up irregularities.

But I doubt that matters to you, seeing as you'll disagree with anything that isn't a predetermined narrative where we defend Trayvon Martin on the basis of him being black and us hating white people instead of, you know, evidence of gross misconduct within the court.

old comment by Jeff

See, this is exactly the point.
Not a single thing you said was true. Nobody has produced any evidence of a miscarriage of justice and presented it to the justice system in favour of a retrial.
What they have done (and in this thread too) is proposed an absurd conspiracy that requires not only virtually the entire justice system to be racist (an incredibly small likelyhood in this day and age) but also requires that all those people be extremists in that view as well.
It takes a racist to discriminate against others due to their race, sure. It takes an entirely different breed of racist to willing cover for a murderer just because you dislike the race that the victim belonged to!
With the absurdity of that alleged country-wide extremism covered, we must now turn to the self-contradictory nature of the claim. Namely that Zimmerman is hispanic, and as hispanics are supposedly oppressed by the evil white devils along with black people, it seems unlikely that this racist monolith of justice would mobilize itself to defend a man who it would supposedly oppress on any other day.
If you are seriously claiming that Zimmerman was acquitted because of racism then you are a fucking moron. There's no excusing you for it like there was in the early days after the case, enough time has passed for you to admit that you backed the wrong horse and made a fool of yourself.

When compelling evidence can be presented to a court that Zimmerman did anything other than act in self-defense, he will be convicted.
Until such a time comes, you should all really quit your whining, as it simply reveals you to be the kind of pathetic, self-flaggelating (it's a certainty that you're white, after all) nonentity that the rest of us are laughing at.

old comment by Passerby

@ Jeff

This is the Fifth Amendment to the US constitution. As stated very clearly before George Zimmerman went before a petit jury instead of a grand jury. Before this trial even began there was something screwy. A mistrial could have been declared at any time and he'd have just walked. Under double jeopardy (also described in the same article) he cannot be tried again.

This statute of Florida's law was invoked by the prosecution when it was undeniable that Zimmerman left his car to run down and physically restrain Martin. He even admitted his intention. He not only provoked a physical confrontation but was committing a felony: Unlawful Restraint. Under this statute he is automatically disqualified from any attempt to claim self defense. Judge Nelson specifically instructed the jury to disregard the initial aggressor clause and paid no mind to the fact Zimmerman demonstrably broke the law.

These are the legal requirements for a self-defense plea to be admissible in court. George Zimmerman was never required to meet any of these conditions.

This is the legal definition of excusable homicide George Zimmerman brought a gun to a fistfight, a dangerous weapon and undue advantage rendering himself ineligable to use this as a defense. He was still allowed to use this as a defense.

Those aren't conjecture, they're established laws. They apparantly had no place in that courtroom. While George Zimmerman did not come within miles of qualifying for a self-defense plea under these laws Trayvon Martin did... but the judge disallowed all consideration of this. Trayvon Martin was never given a defense. Not from his physical attacker, not from character assassination, and not from a legal standpoint. See, despite Zimmerman's defense - which the law had to be gagged for him to make - hinging entirely on the establishment of an assault being made on his person after Martin already ran away as legal fact no ruling was ever made regarding Trayvon Martin's actions.

People like you cry reverse-double-self-racism or whatever absurd mental contortion act is required to ignore the cold hard facts I base my judgement on when I say the trial was a farce but I wonder how you justify to yourself taking as fact Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman when the court never ruled on it and the only evidence anyone ever comes up with was "well somebody punched him" and pure hearsay cobbled together from school suspensions being intentionally misrepresented as a criminal record.

I've yet to see you offer any different, indeed all you've said thus far is that we're racists and for some idiot reason instead of focusing on tangible facts we should be focused on Zimmerman's race as much as you pretend we focus on Martin's because in your mind it doesn't make sense for a dirty judge motivated by "racism" (and not perhaps the fact she's trying a relative of another judge or that there was talk of completely overhaulling self-defense laws in a trigger happy country or even that there was a slobbering media frenzy and interest groups looking to turn the trial into the beginning of a race riot actively contaminating the views of the general populace) to be a hypocrite and not hate everyone equally. Because nobody has ever heard of a hypocritical racist. Forgive me if I don't hold out hope for a more convincing rebuttal.

old comment by Jeff

@Passerby.
Well I'm sure you'll be falling over yourself to present this to the State, as surely such blistering testimony from an infallible legal expert as yourself would be more than enough to persuade them to appeal against the verdict.
No? Oh. Well that is strange, as you so passionately support the "evil white (not hispanic, shhhh) devil murder the poor angelic black child who was the next Einstein and Mother Teresa combined".
It couldn't be that you are well aware that your assertion rests entirely on an unfounded conspiracy theory, and have no intention of humiliating yourself by presenting this theory to an authority figure.
I'll be watching the coverage of the appeal with interest then, I'm sure you'll prove once and for all that the white (not hispanic, shhhh) devil conjured up the spirit of Hitler himself and they donned KKK paraphenalia while Hitler used his spirit powers and occult Nazi technology to make the crime scene look exactly like Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense.
I can't wait, this is going to be the trial of the millenium, I can't wait for the bit where Yoda fabricates Zimmerman's injuries with the Force.
All of the kek.

old comment by Passerby

Considering that in the very first paragraph I explained that George Zimmerman is now protected against retrial under double jeopardy I am forced to conclude that you never actually read anything.

Even if he weren't I am not an aggrieved party nor am I an employee of the US government. You're under the impression that I fancy myself a legal expert for the simple fact that I am able to cite the laws that were invoked in Zimmerman's defense and have a very basic idea how court system actually works. I find it fairly disturbing that you'd consider this in any way special for it implies actually knowing what is and is not legal including your own constitutional rights is not the norm for you.

I'm interested to know what 'unfounded conspiracy' you're referring to when I gave my evidence of judicial misconduct? Do you deny that the 5th amendment demands trial by a grand jury or are you saying that there were 12 hidden jurors kept a secret during the trial? Are you denying that a law Zimmerman invoked in his own defense has any relevence to that defense or that Judge Nelson instructed the jury on was permitted to deliberate? Are you saying that Martin was not actually shot to death or that he had some manner of weapon that disappeared and was never recovered from the scene? Considering your whimsical rambling about ghosts and sorcery perhaps I should not ask these things in such a sarcastic tone.

As I predicted, you simply played the race card again while trumpeting the presence of physical injury as the only proof you need that one side of the story is correct. Perhaps I should sue Charlie Sheen for punching me in the face the next time I fall down the stairs. According to you I'll never actually have to establish the time and place of my injuries and as long as nobody can conclusively prove Sheen didn't leap out bushes that may or may not have existed I have the case in the bag.

old comment by Jeff

I played the race card?
At which point, was it the point where I illustrated that your assertion would require a gigantic racist conspiracy that encompassed most of the justice system?
Am I "playing the race card" when I point out that race had nothing to do with any of the events that transpired?
Once again, I find it troubling that after admitting no legal expertise, you still feel that you have the authority to lecture the justice system collectively, a system comprised of legal experts, no less.
This is what happens when people think that feels>reals, they make themselves look stupid.
I am declaring that I trust the verdict of the judicial system in this case, and that in the absence of any compelling evidence to suggest a miscarriage of justice (which would provide grounds for a retrial) this must be default position.
Regardless of the race of the people involved.

That doesn't fit the narrative though, does it? Doesn't provide grounds for that lovely, lovely self-flaggelation, and doesn't give you any opportunities to circle-jerk with your friends about how enlightened and "not like the other white people" you are.
The funny thing is, nobody appreciates you for it. Most people will despise you for your weakness and non-whites will view you as a racist because you aren't willing to treat them equally.

old comment by Passerby

Okay I'll level with you: you're just not a good troll. You haven't gotten anyone shocked or mad, you don't string along enough pseudo-answers or disingenuous questions to even fake like you're invested in the discussion, you don't even try to twist words... really all you've done is the bog-standard "u mad bro?" without even drawing it out like some of the meatier trolls I prefer to gnaw on for my morning meal. You're barely the equivilant of chewing gum compared to career douchebags like Brewer or Siklic.

I play along with amateurs like you to keep myself sharp for when I'm getting into full-on wars with people who have real opinions they try to support or are at least fake it well enough to make me think they do. You're not even good enough for warm up purposes. Get better at this before trying me again.

And god help you if any of this is actually the way you converse and not bored provacation, because your grasp of how to even argue a point is weaker than Jason Lisle.

old comment by Kuno

@Jeff:

Am I "playing the race card" when I point out that race had nothing to do with any of the events that transpired?

Nope, you are playing the race card when you insist that people only have problems with how the process went because the victim was black and the man who killed him was an “evil white (not hispanic, shhhh) devil”. And you are playing the race card with sarcastic remarks like “the poor angelic black child who was the next Einstein and Mother Teresa combined” when people say that having smoked weed and having trouble at school doesn’t mean that someone deserves death. And you are playing the race card with sentences like “I'm sure you'll prove once and for all that the white (not hispanic, shhhh) devil conjured up the spirit of Hitler himself and they donned KKK paraphenalia while Hitler used his spirit powers and occult Nazi technology to make the crime scene look exactly like Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense.”

In short you are insisting that people only disagree with the verdict because Zimmermann is white and Trayvon was black. You are playing the race card.

I am declaring that I trust the verdict of the judicial system in this case, and that in the absence of any compelling evidence to suggest a miscarriage of justice (which would provide grounds for a retrial) this must be default position.

Passerby told you in his post #1742344 what in his opinion is such evidence. You didn’t think it was necessary to answer his points, instead tried to deflect with the above Hitler/KKK nonsense. Are you sure it isn’t you who “think ~~that feels>reals”?~~

~~And the repeated ad hominems do you no favour, either.~~

~~@Passerby:~~

~~I didn’t think I would ever say that, but considering our most recent trolls, I am somehow missing Phillip-George~~

old comment by Jeff

@Kuno
I can see why you thought that Passerby might need some help here, but sadly this is a risible attempt at assistance and has only succeeded in putting you in the same predicament as he.

The "evidence" that Passerby has presented has had no effect whatsoever on the legal system, so we can safely conclude that the aforementioned experts do not think it compelling.
Lacking legal expertise, Passerby is in no position to contradict them, meaning that I personally have no need and no burden to refute his "points", the legal experts have done so already, must I personally refute creationism everytime it is mentioned? Do you?
It is very simple to understand, a court of law found Zimmerman to be Not Guilty.

You almost had a point (so close, must be frustrating) with the race card thing, had it not been for the fact that the entirety of the coverage around the shooting was focused on the races of the participants (see the whitewashing of Zimmerman).
You'd have been right if media outlets had not misrepresented the story in order to fit a narrative of"innocent black child killed by racist white person".
You'd even have been right if the attachment to the narrative had not prevented people like yourself from reevaluating the case once the facts came out in Zimmerman's favour, and realising that this was a more complex issue than the SJW-wet-dream story that had been presented in the first instance.
Feels>reals, it's the SJW creed.

It's a shame that this section is such an echo-chamber that any disagreement is seen as "trolling", because even pushing aside the fact that it's the new Godwin, it seems that labelling dissenters as trolls is very authoritarian and illiberal.
More than anything else, it shows how extremist you are when you're labelling somebody who came here in the first place to poke fun at the racist conspiracy garbage that was the OP, and discovered a different racist conspiracy theory going on in the comments.

old comment by Kuno

I don’t think Passerby needs any help, he seems to make his points very clearly. I just don’t wanted you to think that he is the only one who doesn’t like your behaviour and reasoning. To make my position clear: I have no opinion about whether the verdict was justified or not. I am not an American and I know about the case only what little news swept over the Big Pond.* So I am only commenting on the debate here in this comments thread.

You said you believe the verdict of the court is just and every objection is invalid and can be dismissed without further reasoning. Because it would go against the verdict of the court. This sounds like pretty circular reasoning to me.

Passerby said he thinks the verdict was unjust and showed his reasons for this. I don’t know enough about the US system to judge if he is right or not, but he presented his case a hell of a lot more convincing than you.

But this was not about the coverage in the media back then, this was about this comments thread. And here the only one harping about the race of the two people involved is you.

You'd even have been right if the attachment to the narrative had not prevented people like yourself from reevaluating the case once the facts came out in Zimmerman's favour, and realising that this was a more complex issue than the SJW-wet-dream story that had been presented in the first instance.

What the hell are you even talking about? I guess in the debate back then there was a lot of black-and-white thinking, but from both sides. Or do you say there weren’t people who tried to paint Martin as drug-dealing gangsta thug? And again, we were talking about this thread. Care to show who called Zimmermann a Nazi or Martin an angel (other than you)?

Arguing without addressing the other posters points, name-calling and trying to stir up angry reactions. I would call this trolling.

*I personally think the basic reason of this tragedy (and too much more like it) is the gun (and general violence) problem in the USA. But that is another can of worms, and again as a foreigner I reserve the right to withhold judgment.

old comment by Jeff

@Kuno
If you missed the original coverage of the issue and do not understand the facts of the case, then you really shouldn't be commenting on it.

I'm not sure that you understand what circular reasoning is, it certainly does not apply to the verdict reached by a court of law, because a strict standard of evidence must be presented and a pre-defined level of proof must be attained before a verdict of guilty can be rendered. This means that referring back to the verdict of a court case cannot in any sane world be considered "circular".

I'm disappointed to see that you automatically define disagreement as "trolling", but I am not surprised in the least as this kind of echo-chamber does lead to radicalisation quite quickly. The constant need to out-do other chamber inmates pushes the dialogue swiftly towards the extreme, where you eventually become a mirror image of those you rail against.

I remember when RSTDT used to be good.

old comment by Kuno

Maybe you should read my posts again. I was not commenting on the case, I was commenting on this discussion, here, between you and Passerby. See: ” So I am only commenting on the debate here in this comments thread. “

Re: Circular reasoning

Jeff: I am declaring that I trust the verdict of the judicial system in this case, and that in the absence of any compelling evidence to suggest a miscarriage of justice (which would provide grounds for a retrial) this must be default position.

*Passerby shows why he thinks there is compelling evidence* of a miscarriage of justice*

Jeff: The "evidence" that Passerby has presented has had no effect whatsoever on the legal system, so we can safely conclude that the aforementioned experts do not think it compelling.
Lacking legal expertise, Passerby is in no position to contradict them, meaning that I personally have no need and no burden to refute his "points", the legal experts have done so already, must I personally refute creationism everytime it is mentioned? Do you?
It is very simple to understand, a court of law found Zimmerman to be Not Guilty.

You say you need “compelling” evidence to dismiss the experts’ opinions, when presented with evidence, you say you don’t need to check if it is compelling, because if it was the experts would have said so. *shrug* Sounds still pretty circular to me.

And yes, if I’d debate a creationist I would have to actually address the points they bring up. Otherwise, what would be the point of a debate?

*Please note that I did not comment on how compelling that evidence really is.

I'm disappointed to see that you automatically define disagreement as "trolling"

No, I actually defined trolling as “Arguing without addressing the other posters points, name-calling and trying to stir up angry reactions.” You can easily read it up, it’s only in the comment above yours. But at least you dropped the insults.

I remember when RSTDT used to be good.

“What happened to you, man. You used to be cool!”

Jefferson #racist unz.com

29 comments

Confused?