patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,195,110 comments by 13,983 users - GringoSASS6739, stfu online now
More proof of liberal bias in the media
invite response
2013 Apr 3, 3:05am 22,042 views 123 comments
« First « Previous Comments 84 - 123 of 123 Search these comments
Seriously, foxmannumber1, you need to listen to Martin's horrific screams for help as he was attacked by Zimmerman. This is an actual audio recording of events as heard by the 911 system.
TM had no reason to scream for help as he was the one giving the beating, not taking one. Even the most diehard black apologists, liberals and race deniers will admit that TM injured GZ with his fists and TM's only injury were bruised/bloody knuckles and a gunshot wound.
TM was not being physically injured in any way until he was shot to death. GZ, however, had plenty to scream over. GZ had a broken nose and constant pounding on the concrete which is easily proven. GZ did not fight back in the 2 minutes of this call. GZ only took TM's life after TM said "You're going to die tonight motherfucker" and TM attempted to take the gun from GZ, which was still on his side.
In order to believe that GZ wanted to kill TM, you have to believe that GZ is very lucky and had a very intricate plan. GZ called the police and wanted them out there before he even knew who the loiter was. GZ then takes a beating and ends up shooting his assailant right before the cops show up. GZ is either a mastermind criminal and everything went his sadistic way just like it would in a Hollywood movie, or TM really did try to kill GZ with his own weapon.
I don't follow how you jump from one guy following another in a public place to Z somehow forfeiting his self-defense rights.
Because by following him, he was not acting in "self-defense!" A very specific set of circumstances, beyond your control, must be met in order for you to have self-defense rights. You cannot go charging into a fight unprovoked and claim self defense.
One has the right to property as well - but property is not simply granted without meeting a set of circumstances first. One of many ways you can exercise your right to property is to purchase the property.
Without meeting any of the sets of circumstances to property, you cannot exercise that right.
Similarly, Zimmerman did not meet the set of circumstances to exercising his right of self-defense. Most specifically, he got out of his car and pursued Martin. He had the right to do so, but not without leaving his right of self-defense in the car.
Why not? Cops do that all the time.
True, but they also remember to sprinkle crack on the victim before the investigation starts.
Because by following him, he was not acting in "self-defense!" A very specific set of circumstances, beyond your control, must be met in order for you to have self-defense rights. You cannot go charging into a fight unprovoked and claim self defense.
GZ had no idea a fight was going to occur by simply attempting to see where someone went and possibly speak to them. This situation most likely happens tens of thousands of times per day in the USA and very few end in assaults and attempted murder. TM made sure there were very few words spoken.
It is unreasonable to approach anyone and punch them in the face, even if you believe you're being followed. There was no immediate threat of violence by simply "being followed".
It is attempted murder to say "You're going to die motherfucker" and attempt to steal a persons gun and shoot them with it.
GZ had no idea a fight was going to occur by simply attempting to see where someone went and possibly speak to them.
Why did he bring his gun then?
Dan8267
2013 Apr 15, 11:27am
This entire thread makes me wonder whether or not it's even possible to find an impartial jury for this trial. Perhaps America should adopt the British law forbidding news companies from publishing anything on a trial that has not completed. It does prejudice the public.
Why did he bring his gun then?
It's his legal right.
If he did not wear his gun on a regular basis I'm sure the prosecutor will present this evidence at trial.
If he did wear his gun on a regular basis then the defense will present this evidence at trial.
This entire thread makes me wonder whether or not it's even possible to find an impartial jury for this trial.
Impartiality implies intelligence. Given that 50% of the population has an IQ below 100 (and votes Republican! jk) I am not hopeful.
A retired judge in my family has always said - If you did it, go with the jury trial. If you didn't, go without.
Shows his opinion of the chances of a jury getting the outcome correct...
Speaking of IQ, it is a fact that the average black American has an IQ of 85 and the average white American has an IQ of 100.
Speaking of politics, it is another fact that blacks vote for other blacks unconditionally and for democrats when no black is available. This would imply systemic racism by blacks for always voting black.
Dan8267
2013 Apr 15, 11:39am
Given that 50% of the population has an IQ below 100
50% of the population has an IQ below 100 by definition, and as such, that says nothing about what the intelligence baseline is. However, I would agree that Americans as a whole are dumb and uneducated. I think that has more to do with our economic and social systems rewarding stupidity and greed rather than intelligence rather than some fundamental biological reason. The brain is like a muscle; the more you use it, the stronger it becomes.
50% of the population has an IQ below 100 by definition
Hence the word "given."
However, I would agree that Americans as a whole are dumb and uneducated.
And here is the baseline I was alluding to characterized in plain english.
Dan8267
2013 Apr 15, 11:52am
Speaking of politics, it is another fact that blacks vote for other blacks unconditionally and for democrats when no black is available. This would imply systemic racism by blacks for always voting black.
You do realize that African Americas used to vote Republican all the time, before the 1960s when all the Dixicrat racists left the Democratic Party and went into the Republican Party, right?
Please read up: Blacks and the Democratic Party
Basically, African Americans vote for the party less likely to oppress and harm them. This hardly makes them racist.
The Republican Party has no one but itself to blame for losing the black vote. They lost it when they decided that the evangelical racist vote was more important back in the 1960s. Hell, even the icon of Conservatism, Barry Goldwater, warned against this very thing.
You remember Goldwater. He's the guy you said
Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.
and
The income tax created more criminals than any other single act of government.
He's the guy that Republicans have wet dreams about. Well, he also said,
I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process.
The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others.
I don't have any respect for the Religious Right.
Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass.
Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.
Fuck, he sounds like a liberal.
It's his legal right.
If he did not wear his gun on a regular basis I'm sure the prosecutor will present this evidence at trial.
If he did wear his gun on a regular basis then the defense will present this evidence at trial.
Its not a belt for christ's sake. Are you honestly arguing that Zimmerman could have casually wore his gun as part of everyday life, similarly to jewelry or a baseball hat? Therefore he did not bring his gun because he needed it - ie thought his safety might be in jeopardy based upon the action he was about to take - but because he wore it everywhere?
If that is true, it is not an excuse. It only shows how irresponsible he was. You are telling me if he happened upon a little girl who was injured after wrecking her bicycle on the sidewalk - he would have gotten out of his truck to assist her while wearing a loaded handgun?
And that wouldn't be irresponsible?
This is where you guys are getting confused - you assume that some other crime must have been committed by Zimmerman in order for him to have committed murder. The crime - what he did wrong - was shooting Trayvon.
You are right - it is not illegal for Zimmerman to follow Trayvon. It is not illegal for him to carry a gun, given a concealed/carry permit. However, it is illegal for him to shoot Trayvon and kill him UNLESS the shooting was justified. There are very specific circumstances that must be met in order for the shooting to be justified. None of those circumstances were met.
Both Trayvon and Zimmerman could not be acting in self-defense. In a conflict, there is an aggressor and a defender. Martin was not pursuing Zimmerman - Zimmerman was chasing Martin. This is where the confrontation starts.
It is impossible to start a confrontation then claim self defense.
you assume that some other crime must have been committed by Zimmerman in order
for him to have committed murder. The crime - what he did wrong - was shooting
Trayvon.
This is just going in circles.
You can either believe GZ's story that TM said "You're going to die tonight motherfucker" and TM attempted to steal GZ's firearm and shoot GZ with it.
or
You can choose not to believe GZ's story and TM did not threaten to shoot GZ with his own gun and attempt to steal the gun. Instead, TM was shot in either premeditated murder or for a petty reason like GZ losing a fist fight.
I choose to believe GZ did not shoot TM for any reason other than to save his own life.
This is just going in circles.
It seems like it is going in circles to you because you continue to attempt to build strawmen to argue against. That is, you want to talk about what happened after Zimmerman confronted Martin. I am saying that does not matter.
It is legal to drink beer.
It is legal to drive a car.
It is legal to shoot a gun.
It is not legal to drink a case of beer, get in your car, and shoot your gun out of the window while driving around town.
Causality is important. Trayvon showed through his actions that he did not wish to start the fight - he retreated behind the houses away from his pursuer. The fight started when Zimmerman got out of his car and chased Martin.
Everything that happened after that is inconsequential.
I choose to believe GZ did not shoot TM for any reason other than to save his
own life.
It is fine to believe that. However, based upon the circumstances, doing so was still murder.
Causality is important. Trayvon showed through his actions that he did not
wish to start the fight - he retreated behind the houses away from his pursuer.
The fight started when Zimmerman got out of his car and chased Martin.
100% false. He approached GZ and punched him in the face. That was the start of a 1 sided beating. It is wrong to call it a fight.
There was no verbal, non verbal or physical contact before TM said "You got a fucking problem homie?" and almost immediately punched GZ in the face, knocking GZ down and getting on top of GZ. This was no retreat. It was simple assault.
All this talk of stalking, stand your ground and self defense is rhetoric designed to take attention away from the fact that TM said "You're going to die tonight motherfucker" and attempted to steal GZ's gun.
100% false. He approached GZ and punched him in the face. That was the start
of a 1 sided beating. It is wrong to call it a fight.
This could be true if it happened anywhere near Zimmerman's car.
The fact that it happened more than 200 feet from Zimmerman's car in the backyard of two houses makes it untrue. Chasing someone into the backyard is an act of aggression. It was within Martin's right, provided he feared malice, to defend himself and meet that aggression with some of his own. And it is reasonable to assume that someone chasing you, in the dark, behind a house for 200+ feet intended malice.
There was no chase. They both lost sight of each other.
Following someone is not an act of aggression. It is an act of survelliance and GZ tried to give the whereabouts of the suspicious person who was loitering to the non emergency police dispatcher.
Saying "You got a fucking problem homie?" as a greeting is an act of aggression.
Punching someone in the face is an act of aggression.
Following someone is not an act of aggression. It is an act of survelliance
and GZ tried to give the whereabouts of the suspicious person who was loitering
to the non emergency police dispatcher.
Allow me to admit that this is not correct. GZ states that TM approached GZ's car and circled it while GZ was on the phone with the non emergency police dispatcher.
The wikipedia page on TM's death is very detailed. I suggest we all read it. I liked the part about GZ passing the voice stress tested when asked ""Were you in fear for your life, when you shot the guy?", to which Zimmerman answered, "Yes."
Zimmerman's testimony on the events is garbage.
His conversation, on a recorded line with the non emergency police dispatcher is not:
(Zimmerman breathing heavy, sounds like he is running)
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Now Zimmerman claims that Martin circled his car while he was on the phone with the dispatcher. He doesn't mention it at the time, though. This claim only arises after he has time to talk to his attorney and begin to build his affirmative defense- of self-defense.
So the non-biased recording indicates that Zimmerman was chasing Martin.
Now Zimmerman claims that Martin circled his car while he was on the phone with
the dispatcher. He doesn't mention it at the time, though.
Yes he did. Transcript of the non emergency police dispatcher call.
Zimmerman: Yeah, now he's coming towards me.
Zimmerman: Something's wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out. He's got something in his hands. I don't know what his deal is.
During the call, Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin was "coming to check me out." A source to the Orlando Sentinel said in May that Zimmerman told investigators that at one point Martin circled his vehicle, and he rolled up his window to avoid a confrontation
Zimmerman told investigators that at one point Martin circled his vehicle, and
he rolled up his window to avoid a confrontation
Would be able to hear that on the audio recording if true. You can hear the door ringer when he gets out of the car...
No mention on that transcript of "circling his car." Coming towards me is not equal to circling my car.
He rolled the window up, and claims was fearful of a confrontation, then immediately (within 1 minute) after gets out of his car and is running after Martin, as verfied by the audio recording?
Yeah, that is the rational thing to do - chase after the guy you are fearful of.
"He is currently circling my vehicle."
"I am rolling up my window to avoid a confrontation."
Very few people would talk like this to a non emergency police dispatcher over the phone. He simply said "he's coming to check me out" using plain common language.
GZ made no claim of fear when in his car.
GZ made no claim of fear when briefly talking to TM.
GZ only made a claim of fear for his life when TM was on top of GZ, assaulting him and said "You're going to die tonight motherfucker" then TM attempted to steal his firearm.
in above posts, he states how "black young man are violent" and "blacks have
lower IQ's"... etc.
Both of those statements are factually true.
The average black is less intelligent than the average White. This is not racist, nor is it implying blacks are "stupid".
Black males account for a disproportionate amount of violence when compared to their population numbers in the USA. It is simply smart to avoid black males if you wish to avoid violence.
You are unable to provide a culturally biased IQ test question that is present on a modern IQ test. This is simply an old lie used for decades. Even adjusting for economic factors the results are consistently lower for blacks. You are also not able to provide IQ test results that show the same scores across all races.
People are different. The difference comes from genetics.
Very few studies are done with race based intelligence. If the scientist performing the research does not come to the right liberal conclusion, their funding will be pulled and their career is over.
The achievement gap between blacks and whites has not moved in the past 50 years of "civil rights" and public racial desegregation. Blacks still fail to meet a previously white standard after trillions of dollars being spent on them.
The bell curve nailed it.
With the rampant cheating scandals in schools, which always involve a super majority of black students and administrators, I would say that any "gains" by blacks are suspect.
The 2 major arguments for fault boil down to:
1. White people are at fault for black failure.
2. Black people are at fault for black failure.
With all the liberal hand holding and give away towards blacks over the past 50 years, it's hard to say #1 is true.
The achievement gap between blacks and whites has not moved in the past 50
years of "civil rights" and public racial desegregation. Blacks still fail to
meet a previously white standard after trillions of dollars being spent on
them.
Apparently they have progressed due to equal access, other wise you wouldn't be trying to minimize them so much. When blacks were held back due to not having access among other things or in conjunction with racism, prejudices, etc., you didn't care because that insured that somebody or some group was always below you. Now that's not the case, and is the reason why your ranting so much about it.
Shit rolls down hill, and you might as well get used to your position down there. Only you can change that also.
I'm not minimizing anything. I feel the threat of black violence is far too great and more people should know about the black crime rate and take precautions because of it is so high.
Blacks achievement is still minimal, even with government sanctioned racial policies that give blacks preferential treatment based on race and not merit, like AA/EO.
Even when offical quotas are not established, it is well known that blacks must make up a certain % of a workforce or else people in charge will be sued into oblivion and the white people who chose to hire whites based on individual merit will lose their jobs.
Blacks are over represented in professional sports and music, but people seem to care about merit in entertainment moreso than in jobs that have a positive effect on society.
Blacks achievement is still minimal, even with government sanctioned racial
policies that give blacks preferential treatment based on race and not merit,
like AA/EO.
Ahhh, ya didn't get that asst mgr job at Dennys, huh? And you want to blame it on AA/EO policies, but yet you claim that blacks are far inferior to (you)whites, and that you have been somehow not hired because of those policies or other BS right wing mythical and anecdotal "experiences".
So which is it, if blacks are so inferior and yet you both apply for the same jobs, and of course the reason you weren't hired was because of AA/EO policies, and yet blacks have suffered since the bubble burst with very high rates of unemployment, and blacks comprise only 13% of the population.
How's that go, if everybody else is an asshole, it's not them, it's you who is. Blaming somebody else for your inadequacies is par for the course with you losers.
Blacks have suffered higher unemployment than any other racial group during lean years because they are the "fat" that can be trimmed with no loss to company productivity.
Many whites know that working directly with "diversity" coworkers results in the white person having to work harder to take up the slack created by the nonwhite and to fix the mistakes that the nonwhite creates.
CL
2013 Apr 18, 3:25am
I don't think the right is targeting them as criminals.
I had a good Isreali friend who over stayed and was eventually deported.
I also knew a lady, who had a British boy friend he was deported.
And unlike Hispanics, who only come up for deportation, when they are snagged in some other police action, traffic citation ect... In both of these cases, the INS showed up at their house and whisked them away.
It happens every day, there's just no body speaking about the "injustice", because there was no bloody injustice. They were "Illegal Aliens" at that point.
There do you feel better now?
I said the right isn't targeting them as criminals. Same reason they aren't building the "dang fence" along our Canadian border, or arresting people in Minnesota who "look Canadian" like the Arizona ass-clowns do.
It's all about the ethnicity of the undocumented worker. Anecdotes aside, I've seen statistics estimating 1/4 of all undocumented workers are non-Hispanic. Even Hispanics arrive by plane, so what is to be done about them?
Tenpoundbass
2013 Apr 18, 4:33am
I said the right isn't targeting them as criminals. Same reason they aren't building the "dang fence" along our Canadian border, or arresting people in Minnesota who "look Canadian" like the Arizona ass-clowns do.
When was the last time Canadians took jobs that Liberals claimed nobody wanted?
Tenpoundbass
2013 Apr 18, 4:35am
Blacks have suffered higher unemployment than any other racial group
It's hard to get people in the employment lines, when you have a Government telling you, that you are incapable of succeeding on your own, and the check is in the mail. The black people that do get ahead, don't buy into the White Liberal bullshit. Well they would, but they get to wear the laurels in their hair, and you dig the damn ditch, and collect welfare.
I said the right isn't targeting them as criminals. Same reason they aren't building the "dang fence" along our Canadian border, or arresting people in Minnesota who "look Canadian" like the Arizona ass-clowns do.
Human smuggling and trafficking big business in Canada
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/03/28/f-human-smuggling-overview.html
Although it's not yet clear whether the March 27 fatal capsizing of a yacht off the coast of Nova Scotia was a failed attempt to smuggle illegal immigrants into Canada, there is no doubt that human smuggling is a booming business and Canada a favoured destination for migrants and refugees of all kinds.
While most arrive in Canada legally, there are others who try to take shortcuts around the country's immigration system using human smugglers.
The United Nations estimates that human smuggling is currently one of the most profitable criminal activities worldwide.
Who's being smuggled
Some of the people affected by Canada's legislative changes are refugee claimants who, out of fear of persecution or desperation for a better life, pay smugglers to get them to Canada's shores. Others are people who may not be able to get passage to Canada legally and instead decide to take their chances with smugglers.
Mexican drug gangs compete for bounty from human trafficking
The immigration issue in Mexico has come to a boil as drug gangs prey on migrants.
On a southern highway, Mexican police busted a record 513 foreign migrants crammed into two tractor trailers.
Across the country, Mexican soldiers rescued 180 migrants who were held for ransom. In a detention center, arrested migrants broke into a riot over poor conditions.
Mexico has long been a trampoline for migrants from around the world trying to bounce over the Rio Grande into the United States. Now Mexico's drug gangs have become increasingly involved in the human trafficking business while the nation's prisons and police are under increased pressure from the crime wave. Amid these conditions, the migrant issue has come to a boil in Mexico.
“Everyone round the world knows that Mexico is the back door into the United States. That causes a lot of problems here and now we are seeing those problems come to a head,†said a high-ranking official at Mexico’s National Immigration Institute, who asked his name not be used in case of repercussions from superiors.
Immigration officials estimate that more than 300,000 undocumented foreigners pour through Mexico each year to try to sneak over the southern U.S. border.
Most are from the Central American nations of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, but there are migrants from all corners of the globe, including China, Iraq, Nigeria, Cuba and India.
The majority of travelers pay human smugglers to guide them through Mexico and into the United States, where many have family members and jobs waiting.
Those arrested in the two tractor trailers, which were busted in Chiapas state on May 17, said they each paid $7,000 for the ride in life-threatening conditions.
This generates an enormous human trafficking business, estimated to be worth more than $2 billion each year to Mexican gangs.
Two officers in the southern state of Chiapas are accused of pimping Central American migrants out as prostitutes. Another six officers in the state of Tamaulipas, which borders Texas, are accused of selling migrants to drug cartels for $430 a victim.
“The immigration institute is so corrupt it is like a rotting corpse,†said migrant activist and Roman Catholic priest Alejandro Solalinde.
Drug cartels then hold migrants they can capture as hostages in safe houses until they extort $1,000 to $5,000 from their family members in the United States or back in their homelands.
Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission says last year there were a stunning 20,000 such kidnappings.
Same reason they aren't building the "dang fence" along our Canadian border, or arresting people in Minnesota who "look Canadian" like the Arizona ass-clowns do.
the "ass clowns" in Arizona are rightly so to stop the human smuggling that is enriching the dangerous criminal gangs in Mexico. to go against building the fence is being part of such criminal activity if not encouraging it.
show me a 50 foot fence, I'll show you a 51 foot ladder.
over half the illegal mexicans fly in and overstay their visa.
and not one word about the human trafficking... i am disappointed in you !
such hero and voice of the common man, turns his head and ignores
modern day slavery. I just doesnt exist.
yeah, cause pointing out the futility of a fence definitely means I'm in favor of human trafficking. good logic!
there is no futility in knowing a wall exist and its unclimbable .. seeing on TV or a picture a wall to those who want to cross. it would be a big deterrent to many.
Of course I'm in favor of a comprehensive immigration reform, and policies that end illegal trafficking.
there is no problem with our immigration policies and process. it is sound and it works.
what are you going to tell the many who are standing in line.. Your going to have to wait ... we have some people who get preferential treatment who never applied, received approval or paid their fees. Your wait is extended another year or two.
trafficking.. you couldnt care less!
Also, I'm in favor of legalizing all drugs, to end their illegal trade and profit for criminals.
I am not favor of legalizing as are many others ... im sure we still have some drones we can fly over with some napalm bombs which can cure our problem.
« First « Previous Comments 84 - 123 of 123 Search these comments
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/press-drops-illegal-immigrant-standards-book/story?id=18862824
The Associated Press, the largest news-gathering outlet in the world, will no longer use the term "illegal immigrant."
The news came in the form of a blog entry authored by Senior Vice President and Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll on Tuesday afternoon, explaining that the decision is part of the company's on-going attempt to rid their Stylebook of labels.
"The Stylebook no longer sanctions the term 'illegal immigrant' or the use of 'illegal' to describe a person. Instead, it tells users that 'illegal' should describe only an action, such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally," Carroll wrote.