George Zimmerman's Brother Makes an @ss Outta Himself on Piers Morgan...

[Metta World Movement]

Question: Is it appropriate to shoot someone when you are losing a fight?

Yes, if...

1. they started the fight

2. they actually doin' serious damage to you (especially if it's because you're unable to/can't fight back effectively)

3. they haven't stopped by the time you decided to pull out the heat

If someone starts fighting me, is doing a good job of it, they're not stopping and I know I'm losing the fight, then my mind's going to what they might do to me while I'm on the ground after losing. Are they gonna stomp my head in? Are they gonna get a weapon and use it to make sure I never get up again? This ain't MMA; no refs are around to stop the other dude from going too far. This ain't the movies either; I ain't guaranteed to survive the fight so later on, the audience can laugh at me for saying "my grandmama gave me that chain". fukk that shyt....he gotta be stopped before I get stopped

There have been fights where persons died as a result of injuries from a fight, even if the other person didn't mean to actually kill them. That's the fukked-up part about it, and that's also one of the reasons why i NEVER start shyt with anyone unnecessarily.....I only go if they start shyt first

nikkas on here will uppercut a dude then stand over him and go "YOU GOT KNOCKED THE FUGGOUT!!", then run off laughin' because they think they simply won a fight......not realizing shyt could easily end up like this depending on how fragile the other nikka is

Nathan Engle Randomly "Sucker Punched," Killed In Fort Collins

That's why I said earlier that Zimmerman's injuries are gonna be a factor. Who the jury believes actually started the fight will also be a factor. Yeah, Zimmerman clearly approached him when he didn't need to, but who started the actual FIGHT?

 

[WaveCapsByOscorp™]

I dont even know what a lot of this means, and it seems you're making arguments that RZ didnt even make. At any rate, the media has a responsibility to the facts at hand --- they dont have a responsibility to act as GZ's defense team, simply because we havent gone to trial yet. We have a freedom of press. The fact remains that the evidence that has surfaced leads people to naturally conclude that GZ was the aggressor, and Trayvon was the victim. This is a free country, and thats the overall consensus. I can understand RZ's defense of his brother, at a base level, but he is swimming upstream with respect to the facts at hand, because this case doesnt reflect well on his brother or his brother's actions. Thats why he is pulling out dirty plays and appeals like this --- hes trying to muddy the waters, because the facts, and GZ's own wildly inconsistent testimony and representation of events dont work.

what it means is what i said the first time; robert's point about the media misrepresenting people and casting a bad light on people not proven guilty has occurred and continues to occur and he's correct about how the media will fukk shyt up. but i feel like robert's point was him grasping for straws because, at least based on his tweet, he didn't highlight that. why he made that tweet remains to be seen. i feel like piers wants to paint robert as a racist. whether he is or isn't, for me, remains to be seen although the style and the content of the tweet doesn't make him look good, regardless of where the tweet came from (racist ideas or just quick temper, whatever). even george's defense team knows that because they basically let him fry up there with that letter they sent to piers.

all the talk about acting as defense team, freedom of speech, etc, i'm not talking about that. what i'm talking about is the media's biased approach because that's the only leg robert had to stand on in his argument (liberal or conservative, they both have agendas).

honestly, i think we both agree, we're just bringing out two different points. i just want to talk about how the media can be biased and how robert is correct in that, not how piers morgan makes robert look like an ass. the purpose of discussions as candid and open as piers show is suppose to be is to evaluate each argument, not to declare winners and losers...

 

[Koapa]

but my point is, both of the accused haven't been to trial and haven't been convicted yet the media will and has in the past vilified them both. people will vilify them because they have their own beliefs about the case, their own prejudices, etc. you can't say that hasn't happened because you know it has. piers didn't want to admit that because he wanted to push the issue of robert coming off as racist (that's what i believe his agenda was when he invited him to the show). i feel like robert might have racist tendencies but it's hard to tell given the situation and what has occurred in his life. situations like these can also bring out the worse in people. imagine if someone in your family was accused of racism and killing someone and that made national news. even if you weren't racist, you'd probably end up harboring some sort of anger...

i just thought that point should be highlighted. i didn't read everyone's posts so i don't know if someone mentioned it but i felt i should because it's easier to spot the person who's on the defense (robert) and to write him off completely even if he has some valid argument within his defense. never the less, don't think of my ability to see and agree with his subpoint as a vote of confidence in robert. i still think his tweet was inspired by racism. which goes to my other point; regardless of that, i doubt very highly robert's tweet came from thinking about all that (media portrayal). the way it was worded and the fact his tweet didn't mention anything about the portrayal of his brother and the accused infant killer means, to me, he was trying to connect race in the tweet.

and your second point about not demonizing the victim, the zimmerman case is trying to establish who was at fault, no "victims" (in terms of the case) have been established yet. trayvon is considered the victim because he's dead but not because he has been proven to be not responsible for the incident's escalation. the media doesn't draw a line or a distinction between that. they see that someone died and consider them to be the victim. they show videos and get interviews of people that are angry over the kid being killed which only boosts support towards trayvon being the victim. mind you, i'm not claiming sides or say trayvon isn't innocent or that george is. i'm just outlining...

i mean, you could talk about zimmerman's psychological issues all day but you'd just be hypothesizing...

Your post is deeper than mines. What I've been saying is, I can see how Zimmerman could be acquitted but held civilly liable for the death of Martin. It's been also two years since that incident happen and Zimmerman still hasn't been convicted. The feds won't even touch this case, and that's with Obama hawking over the case at one time.

 

[Koapa]

I dont even know what a lot of this means, and it seems you're making arguments that RZ didnt even make. At any rate, the media has a responsibility to the facts at hand --- they dont have a responsibility to act as GZ's defense team, simply because we havent gone to trial yet. We have a freedom of press. The fact remains that the evidence that has surfaced leads people to naturally conclude that GZ was the aggressor, and Trayvon was the victim. This is a free country, and thats the overall consensus. I can understand RZ's defense of his brother, at a base level, but he is swimming upstream with respect to the facts at hand, because this case doesnt reflect well on his brother or his brother's actions. Thats why he is pulling out dirty plays and appeals like this --- hes trying to muddy the waters, because the facts, and GZ's own wildly inconsistent testimony and representation of events dont work.

Have you be paying attention to the media and what they do. They play sides of debate for viewership. Zimmerman sued NBC for editing the 911 call to paint him as kkk racist guy. Journalism is dead, and media outlets are trying to be first to break news with miss information.

 

[No_bammer_weed]

Have you be paying attention to the media and what they do. They play sides of debate for viewership. Zimmerman sued NBC for editing the 911 call to paint him as kkk racist guy. Journalism is dead, and media outlets are trying to be first to break news with miss information.

Journalism isnt dead, trayvon is dead....and that NBC story was retracted immediately, so good luck with trying to sue for damages, because there arent any.

 

[TurboNégro]

Yes, if...

1. they started the fight

2. they actually doin' serious damage to you (especially if it's because you're unable to/can't fight back effectively)

3. they haven't stopped by the time you decided to pull out the heat

If someone starts fighting me, is doing a good job of it, they're not stopping and I know I'm losing the fight, then my mind's going to what they might do to me while I'm on the ground after losing. Are they gonna stomp my head in? Are they gonna get a weapon and use it to make sure I never get up again? This ain't MMA; no refs are around to stop the other dude from going too far. This ain't the movies either; I ain't guaranteed to survive the fight so later on, the audience can laugh at me for saying "my grandmama gave me that chain". fukk that shyt....he gotta be stopped before I get stopped

There have been fights where persons died as a result of injuries from a fight, even if the other person didn't mean to actually kill them. That's the fukked-up part about it, and that's also one of the reasons why i NEVER start shyt with anyone unnecessarily.....I only go if they start shyt first

nikkas on here will uppercut a dude then stand over him and go "YOU GOT KNOCKED THE FUGGOUT!!", then run off laughin' because they think they simply won a fight......not realizing shyt could easily end up like this depending on how fragile the other nikka is

Nathan Engle Randomly "Sucker Punched," Killed In Fort Collins

That's why I said earlier that Zimmerman's injuries are gonna be a factor. Who the jury believes actually started the fight will also be a factor. Yeah, Zimmerman clearly approached him when he didn't need to, but who started the actual FIGHT?

So as long as you are losing a fight you can shoot the other person and have a reasonable expectation to go free? Good to know, so if Zimmerman goes free, according to your logic we have alot of gang members who need to be set free also for shooting their enemies in the midst of a gang fight then, correct?

And your argument fails at the first point because George Zimmerman was the aggressor. You want to take into account the fears of Geroge Zimmerman and ignore those of Trayvon Martin. What should Trayvon think and what should his response be in this scenario? He is walking home to his fathers house after getting candy for his little brother, fact. He is being followed by a slow moving vehicle, fact. The individual inside the vehicle has thumbed his nose at professional advise and has chosen to follow him against their wishes, fact. He evades and loses the vehicle, fact. The occupant of the vehicle exits the vehicle and locates him, fact. At this point it is a fight or flight situation and he chooses fight. The end result is him being shot and killed by George Zimmerman, giving the ultimate credibility to his fear of this unknown individual, fact.

 

[1980sCokeFlow]

I see some catz are black militants on a meassageboard and wouldnt do shyt if somebody actually confronts them. Everybody say what they would do in fight or flight situation. But you just don't know what u say or do if ever placed in that situation.

I will kill a cracka if I feel threatened without thinking about it. I have beat the breaks off a white for looking me in the eyes.

 

[Koapa]

Journalism isnt dead, trayvon is dead....and that NBC story was retracted immediately, so good luck with trying to sue for damages, because there arent any.

First, you can go check out articles about Zimmerman suing NBC. And I remember NBC running with edited phone call for like a week.

 

[No_bammer_weed]

First, you can go check out articles about Zimmerman suing NBC. And I remember NBC running with edited phone call for like a week.

Im aware of the story, and I just explained to that there arent any damages to be had, because the story was retracted. NBC didnt "run with the story for a week". It was one segment. You're clearly getting your info from far right wing websites. No wonder your opinions are so bizarre and irrational. You're taking your cues from racists with agendas.

 

[Metta World Movement]

So as long as you are losing a fight you can shoot the other person and have a reasonable expectation to go free? Good to know, so if Zimmerman goes free, according to your logic we have alot of gang members who need to be set free also for shooting their enemies in the midst of a gang fight then, correct?

And your argument fails at the first point because George Zimmerman was the aggressor. You want to take into account the fears of Geroge Zimmerman and ignore those of Trayvon Martin. What should Trayvon think and what should his response be in this scenario? He is walking home to his fathers house after getting candy for his little brother, fact. He is being followed by a slow moving vehicle, fact. The individual inside the vehicle has thumbed his nose at professional advise and has chosen to follow him against their wishes, fact. He evades and loses the vehicle, fact. The occupant of the vehicle exits the vehicle and locates him, fact. At this point it is a fight or flight situation and he chooses fight. The end result is him being shot and killed by George Zimmerman, giving the ultimate credibility to his fear of this unknown individual, fact.

I noticed you didn't put 'fact' after the bolded......appropriate, since it's not a fact :myspotnash:

Being approached by a fat, nosy cac who asks you what you're doing in the area, is not a fight or flight situation. None of that shyt is a good enough reason to start a fight with someone. Even if YOU don't believe that, thankfully the jury will, IF they end up believing that's what happened

Only pass I'll give Trayvon for throwing the first punch is if Zimmerman literally ran up on him, pulled out the heat first in a threatening manner, or if he threatened to do something to him physically first. As far as I know, none of that was alleged to have happened. Trayvon's girlfriend claimed she heard Trayvon over the phone asking dude why he was following him, and she heard Zimmerman simply asking him what he was doing there. Yeah.....those sound like fighting words to me

Following him in itself isn't a good enough reason. What if some white dude thought a nikka was 'following him' while walking down a street (even though they might have just been walking in the same direction), and the white dude decided to turn around and knock him out since he was in fear of that 'unknown individual'? Does that make it right? What if some white dude somehow found his way in a ghetto neighborhood, and started a fight with some nikka who saw him walking by and simply asked him what he was doing in that area? Would that be an acceptable reaction? :myspotnash:

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I honestly feel like they're delaying the case because Zimmerman is going to get off.

Ain't no way dude hasn't been to court yet.

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

I noticed you didn't put 'fact' after the bolded......appropriate, since it's not a fact :myspotnash:

Being approached by a fat, nosy cac who asks you what you're doing in the area, is not a fight or flight situation. None of that shyt is a good enough reason to start a fight with someone. Even if YOU don't believe that, thankfully the jury will, IF they end up believing that's what happened

Only pass I'll give Trayvon for throwing the first punch is if Zimmerman literally ran up on him, pulled out the heat first in a threatening manner, or if he threatened to do something to him physically first. As far as I know, none of that was alleged to have happened. Trayvon's girlfriend claimed she heard Trayvon over the phone asking dude why he was following him, and she heard Zimmerman simply asking him what he was doing there. Yeah.....those sound like fighting words to me

Following him in itself isn't a good enough reason. What if some white dude thought a nikka was 'following him' while walking down a street (even though they might have just been walking in the same direction), and the white dude decided to turn around and knock him out since he was in fear of that 'unknown individual'? Does that make it right? What if some white dude somehow found his way in a ghetto neighborhood, and started a fight with some nikka who saw him walking by and simply asked him what he was doing in that area? Would that be an acceptable reaction? :myspotnash:

This entire post reeks of being condition by society to always see that black folks' action usually are the reason for their problems, even as a victim. And the fukked up part is that it doesn't matter what race you are

TM got murked because GZ felt "threaten" for his life, even though GZ instigated the entire episode by being a non-authoritative figure, with a gun, following, approaching and questioning another non-authoritative gun less figure. Had both men been clearly carrying guns, would GZ be as willing to follow, approach and question TM?

TM feeling threaten for his life seems to not be of concern for GZ supporters

 

[TurboNégro]

I noticed you didn't put 'fact' after the bolded......appropriate, since it's not a fact :myspotnash:

Thankyou for ignoring the first part of my reply and also for stating the obvious. Trayvon already tried flight which is why Zimmerman lost sight of him and then chose to exit the vehicle to continue the stalking.

Being approached by a fat, nosy cac who asks you what you're doing in the area, is not a fight or flight situation. None of that shyt is a good enough reason to start a fight with someone. Even if YOU don't believe that, thankfully the jury will, IF they end up believing that's what happened

Correction: being followed by a fat, nosy, cac stranger at night whose intentions you do not know kidnapping? assault? murder?, who is stalking you by vehicle in the dead of night and who then proceeds to continue stalking you on foot when you get away from this creep who tries to question YOU like you are out of line is is definitely a fight or flight situation and that qualifies as HIM starting a fight with YOU and not the other way around. Thankfully? really? George has done the world a favor and his example shoud be followed. You know what you go out at night and start following people in your car, then call 911 and report it, then ignore dispatch and continue pursuit on foot and then confront these people. After this come back to the coli and report the results of your excursions, let us know how many people were "happy" to cooperate with your stalking and questioning.

Only pass I'll give Trayvon for throwing the first punch is if Zimmerman literally ran up on him, pulled out the heat first in a threatening manner, or if he threatened to do something to him physically first. As far as I know, none of that was alleged to have happened. Trayvon's girlfriend claimed she heard Trayvon over the phone asking dude why he was following him, and she heard Zimmerman simply asking him what he was doing there. Yeah.....those sound like fighting words to me


Yes more of your stellar logic, none of Zimmermans actions were threatening? Trayvon is the one who acted recklessly and foolishly and ignored the dispatcher? Was there a siren on his vehicle? Did he have a badge? Was he wearing a uniform? Did he exit his secure vehicle? All these missteps and examples of bad judgement and Trayvon is the one who needs the pass?
Riiiight, so Trayvon questions him first and instead of anserwing the "lowly negro" who you have stalked and intimidated, to allevieate his fears, he ignores him and asks his own question and deserves an answer quick fast and in a hurry but Trayvon doesn't? Trayvon is a fool for not answering George, but George is brilliant and a hero for not answering Trayvon?

Following him in itself isn't a good enough reason. What if some white dude thought a nikka was 'following him' while walking down a street (even though they might have just been walking in the same direction), and the white dude decided to turn around and knock him out since he was in fear of that 'unknown individual'? Does that make it right? What if some white dude somehow found his way in a ghetto neighborhood, and started a fight with some nikka who saw him walking by and simply asked him what he was doing in that area? Would that be an acceptable reaction? :myspotnash:

Don't downplay the situation by cooking up half baked scenarios. If some white dude in his neighborhood at night knows he is being followed and stalked by a black dude in a creeping vehicle and then he gets away from him (flight), only to then be again followed on foot by this stranger and then questioned by this "unknown idividual" hell yeah it is right for him to knock him out(fight). This is the specific scenario is what we are talking about, stay on topic.

 

[Isaiah Bradley]

what it means is what i said the first time; robert's point about the media misrepresenting people and casting a bad light on people not proven guilty has occurred and continues to occur and he's correct about how the media will fukk shyt up. but i feel like robert's point was him grasping for straws because, at least based on his tweet, he didn't highlight that. why he made that tweet remains to be seen. i feel like piers wants to paint robert as a racist. whether he is or isn't, for me, remains to be seen although the style and the content of the tweet doesn't make him look good, regardless of where the tweet came from (racist ideas or just quick temper, whatever). even george's defense team knows that because they basically let him fry up there with that letter they sent to piers.

all the talk about acting as defense team, freedom of speech, etc, i'm not talking about that. what i'm talking about is the media's biased approach because that's the only leg robert had to stand on in his argument (liberal or conservative, they both have agendas).

honestly, i think we both agree, we're just bringing out two different points. i just want to talk about how the media can be biased and how robert is correct in that, not how piers morgan makes robert look like an ass. the purpose of discussions as candid and open as piers show is suppose to be is to evaluate each argument, not to declare winners and losers...

But RZ is using the lib media argument while ignoring the existent lib media biase against black folks too. Lib media follows the same rules when it comes to casting movies, funding "black" projects, and having a diverse portrayal of black folks. RZ is playing on those of us who are lazy in our rational and the conditioned mind of folks to always view things in categories and thus be able to apply generic and overly simplified summaries of those categories.
-So lib media, caters to black folks even when they are wrong
-Conservative media caters to white folks even when they are wrong

So in RZ world, lib media failed to portray TM accordingly to his facebook pictures because if he looks like a thug, then he must be one. But yet the lib and non-lib media have "jokingly" referenced the president as a thug, despite his lack of thug facebook pictures. So it's obvious that there are implcit connections and justifications being made about what is typical black behavior that are beyond what the individuals' action are

 

[Bondye Vodou]

So as long as you are losing a fight you can shoot the other person and have a reasonable expectation to go free? Good to know, so if Zimmerman goes free, according to your logic we have alot of gang members who need to be set free also for shooting their enemies in the midst of a gang fight then, correct?

And your argument fails at the first point because George Zimmerman was the aggressor. You want to take into account the fears of Geroge Zimmerman and ignore those of Trayvon Martin. What should Trayvon think and what should his response be in this scenario? He is walking home to his fathers house after getting candy for his little brother, fact. He is being followed by a slow moving vehicle, fact. The individual inside the vehicle has thumbed his nose at professional advise and has chosen to follow him against their wishes, fact. He evades and loses the vehicle, fact. The occupant of the vehicle exits the vehicle and locates him, fact. At this point it is a fight or flight situation and he chooses fight. The end result is him being shot and killed by George Zimmerman, giving the ultimate credibility to his fear of this unknown individual, fact.