Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[TheL8Elvis]

Go back and read through the last page or so of the thread.

It was asserted that Martin was a thug.

Yes.

meh, semantic "gotchas"

thug
THəɡ/
noun
1.a violent person, especially a criminal. synonyms: ruffian, hooligan, vandal, hoodlum, gangster, villain, criminal;

TM was a thug.

When asked for evidence of this, that fact that he was suspended from school (for cutting classes) was offered as a piece of evidence.

Yes, texts an pictures.

TM proved he was a thug himself. Did you see the pics and texts on his phone ? That's why he was kicked out of his mothers house, and suspended from school. Because he was a thug.

Which is besides the point of what could be proven about GZ actions.

And that's how we got to this point.

So maybe you could assist in connecting the dots between cutting classes and being a thug, because the person who made the original assertion seems unwilling or unable.

Yes, unwilling to continue repeating ground that already has been covered at this point.

Any number of things we already discussed in this thread that you are well aware of. Also those things I mentioned just a few posts up and you quoted - so I assumed you read it...

If you disagree that TM was a thug, great. We can disagree.

 

[johnny karate]

No I didn't. That paragraph was the part in the New York Times that mentioned he was trying to get the gun the quadraginta lamented him not having.

No, this is you bringing it up in the context of calling Martin a thug:

TM proved he was a thug himself. Did you see the pics and texts on his phone ? That's why he was kicked out of his mothers house, and suspended from school. Because he was a thug.

 

[johnny karate]

Yes, texts an pictures.

You still haven't explained how texts and picture make someone a thug.

Yes, unwilling to continue repeating ground that already has been covered at this point.

We haven't covered any ground. You've just merely copped out.

How do any of the things you referenced make Martin a thug?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

How does Martin not being a perfect angel and having his mother not want him in the house make him a thug?



Yes, context is important. Let's take a look at some, shall we?

Here's you, in that same thread, arguing that same position again:


And again:


And again:


Those are the entire posts quoted in full with nary a smilie to be found.

Is this the part that you tell you didn't really mean those arguments either?



Well, the context here is a combination of a seemingly breath-taking naiveté regarding the capacity for teenage boys to exaggerate and outright fabricate their exploits to their peers, coupled with a profound misunderstanding for modern slang.

I mean, did you really think Martin referred to himself as a "gangsta" in any kind of literal sense? If he had called himself a "pimp" would you assume he was trafficking in prostitutes?

Furthermore, there is the glaring discrepancy in arguing that a woman who admits she committed perjury about an actual recorded case of perjury might not be telling the truth about having committed perjury, and taking everything a teenage boy texts to his friends as the literal truth absent any other corroborating evidence.

So I ask you again, if we must allow that Shellie Zimmerman wasn't being truthful when she admitted to committing perjury, why must we then accept everything Martin texted to his friends as gospel truth?

You don't have to take it as the gospel truth. You can believe he wasn't actually trying to by a gun, really didn't mean his opponent didn't bleed enough, etc.

 

[Mumbles]

You don't have to take it as the gospel truth. You can believe he wasn't actually trying to by a gun, really didn't mean his opponent didn't bleed enough, etc.

Your claim is that Martin was a thug because he tried to get a gun.

Zimmerman had a gun, and he used it to shoot a guy who he saw walking down the street.

You are claiming that the black guy who tried to get a gun is a "thug", but the white guy who had a gun and shot and killed someone was not a "thug".

Explain this disparity.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Your claim is that Martin was a thug because he tried to get a gun.

Illegally buy a gun, among other things.

Zimmerman had a gun, and he used it to shoot a guy who he saw walking down the street.

Legally owned and legally shot.

You are claiming that the black guy who tried to get a gun is a "thug", but the white guy who had a gun and shot and killed someone was not a "thug".

Explain this disparity.

Where did I claim GZ was not thug ?

But it doesn't matter what I say. Your answer, as evidenced from this and other threads, is going to be racism.

 

[johnny karate]

You don't have to take it as the gospel truth. You can believe he wasn't actually trying to by a gun...

It's not a matter of what I believe, but what you believe and why you believe it.

This is a skeptic's forum where people are expected to argue honestly and support their arguments with evidence.

You have established standards of evidence for what you are willing to believe about Zimmerman and his wife, and you give them every benefit of the doubt.

Why do these same standards not apply to Martin? And why do you not give him the same benefit of the doubt?

 

[johnny karate]

Illegally buy a gun, among other things.

Even if we allow that Martin was being truthful in his claim to buy a gun, how do you know he was going to so illegally?

Did he specifically say "I am going to buy a gun through illegal means?"

Why do you keep making these leaps in order to believe the worst about Martin, but bend over backwards to find any justification to defend Zimmerman?

 

[SleepingWeasle]

Go back and read through the last page or so of the thread.

It was asserted that Martin was a thug.

When asked for evidence of this, that fact that he was suspended from school (for cutting classes) was offered as a piece of evidence.

And that's how we got to this point.

So maybe you could assist in connecting the dots between cutting classes and being a thug, because the person who made the original assertion seems unwilling or unable.

I don't need to re-read the last page, since that obviously isn't what I was responding to. It was claimed that the real question was:

Now, here's the real question. Why does cutting classes get you suspended? We know that suspending a student makes them less likely to get good grades, to graduate, to succeed. Why was Martin suspended for this?

When asked how this related to Zimmerman and Martin, you tried to change the question. So maybe you could assist in connecting the dots.

 

[johnny karate]

When asked how this related to Zimmerman and Martin, you tried to change the question. So maybe you could assist in connecting the dots.

You inquired as to the relevance of Martin cutting class. I told you how and in what context it was brought up.

Consider the dots connected.

Meanwhile, any idea on how cutting class makes someone a thug? Because I'm getting nothing but crickets from the person who made that argument.

 

[Unabogie]

I don't need to re-read the last page, since that obviously isn't what I was responding to. It was claimed that the real question was:


When asked how this related to Zimmerman and Martin, you tried to change the question. So maybe you could assist in connecting the dots.

Well now that the context of this particular discussion has been clarified for you, what dots are in need of connection? One poster claimed Trayvon Martin was a "thug" and as proof, he included an accusation that Martin skipped classes. This seems really odd because even going by the dictionary term, cutting classes doesn't seem to apply. Then he mentioned that Trayvon expressed interest in owning a gun. This is also strange, since Zimmerman went beyond wanting to own a gun, and actually bought a gun, carried it everywhere he went, and then killed someone with it. Then that morphed into Martin wanting to purchase it illegally, which is something for which there's no evidence. Again, odd.

Hope the dots treat you well, and welcome to the forum.

 

[SleepingWeasle]

Well now that the context of this particular discussion has been clarified for you, what dots are in need of connection? One poster claimed Trayvon Martin was a "thug" and as proof, he included an accusation that Martin skipped classes. This seems really odd because even going by the dictionary term, cutting classes doesn't seem to apply. Then he mentioned that Trayvon expressed interest in owning a gun. This is also strange, since Zimmerman went beyond wanting to own a gun, and actually bought a gun, carried it everywhere he went, and then killed someone with it. Then that morphed into Martin wanting to purchase it illegally, which is something for which there's no evidence. Again, odd.

Hope the dots treat you well, and welcome to the forum.

I'm not really sure what makes you think you're capable of correcting me as to what I was responding to, especially since you're wrong and it's there for all to see.

If you have a question as to why another poster wrote something, perhaps you should ask them, and not me. I find that when I'm not sure about something, it's best to go to the source, not some random third party.

But if I had to guess, I would guess that it was included in a list of characteristics, that when combined, make someone likely to be perceived as a thug. Each characteristic does not need to be exclusive to being a thug, but when combined, they can give the appearance of thuggishness.

Also, thanks for the welcome.

ETA
I do mean the thanks for the welcome sincerely, but later realized it may not have come out that way.

 

[Unabogie]

I'm not really sure what makes you think you're capable of correcting me as to what I was responding to, especially since you're wrong and it's there for all to see.

If you have a question as to why another poster wrote something, perhaps you should ask them, and not me. I find that when I'm not sure about something, it's best to go to the source, not some random third party.

But if I had to guess, I would guess that it was included in a list of characteristics, that when combined, make someone likely to be perceived as a thug. Each characteristic does not need to be exclusive to being a thug, but when combined, they can give the appearance of thuggishness.

Also, thanks for the welcome.

ETA
I do mean the thanks for the welcome sincerely, but later realized it may not have come out that way.

You're welcome, but I don't think you've made a coherent point. Under what circumstances is skipping classes something that makes a person a "thug"? How is that even a data point? Wouldn't thuggery require either criminality or violence? For instance, assaulting someone?

 

[SleepingWeasle]

You're welcome, but I don't think you've made a coherent point. Under what circumstances is skipping classes something that makes a person a "thug"? How is that even a data point? Wouldn't thuggery require either criminality or violence? For instance, assaulting someone?

I have clearly stated that skipping classes is not solely applicable to thugs. I'm not sure how to make that any clearer. I have also stated clearly that skipping classes seems to be consistent with things a thug would do. I also clearly stated that when combined with other activities that appear to be associated with, but not necessarily exclusive to, being a thug a person can have a thug like appearance.
Now that certainly doesn't make them a thug, but it can give the appearance of them being a thug when combined with other activities. In other words, skipping classes is not by itself proof that a person is a thug, but it can add to the appearance of it.

 

[Unabogie]

I have clearly stated that skipping classes is not solely applicable to thugs. I'm not sure how to make that any clearer. I have also stated clearly that skipping classes seems to be consistent with things a thug would do. I also clearly stated that when combined with other activities that appear to be associated with, but not necessarily exclusive to, being a thug a person can have a thug like appearance.
Now that certainly doesn't make them a thug, but it can give the appearance of them being a thug when combined with other activities. In other words, skipping classes is not by itself proof that a person is a thug, but it can add to the appearance of it.

By that standard, anything can add to the "appearance" of being a thug. Bad grades? Consistent with being a thug (looking at you, GW Bush). Listens to rap? Yep. Yet neither of those things are actually correlated with committing violent crimes, something which is necessary to actually be a thug. The problem is that Trayvon Martin didn't have any actual violence in his record, unlike George Zimmerman. So instead of focusing on the person who had incident after incident of violence, including multiple episodes with guns, we have to try and create a laundry list to create the "appearance" of being a thug. Another way to describe creating an appearance of something is "illusion".

 

[SleepingWeasle]

By that standard, anything can add to the "appearance" of being a thug. Bad grades? Consistent with being a thug (looking at you, GW Bush). Listens to rap? Yep. Yet neither of those things are actually correlated with committing violent crimes, something which is necessary to actually be a thug. The problem is that Trayvon Martin didn't have any actual violence in his record, unlike George Zimmerman. So instead of focusing on the person who had incident after incident of violence, including multiple episodes with guns, we have to try and create a laundry list to create the "appearance" of being a thug. Another way to describe creating an appearance of something is "illusion".

Of course appearances are subjective, and people experience them differently. I don't think that anyone here is claiming skipping school alone is proof positive of a thug. I believe they have included it in a list, made of multiple things, that gives a person the appearance of being a thug.

I do believe some people, who are not thugs, like to have a thug appearance. If that is the image (or illusion) they desire, then they should expect to be assumed to be a thug. Appearances are important.

I don't see what Zimmerman's thug status has to do with Martin's, just as Martin's doesn't have anything to do with Zimmerman's. Each person can either be or not be a thug, independent of the other person.

 

[Mumbles]

Of course appearances are subjective, and people experience them differently. I don't think that anyone here is claiming skipping school alone is proof positive of a thug. I believe they have included it in a list, made of multiple things, that gives a person the appearance of being a thug.

I do believe some people, who are not thugs, like to have a thug appearance. If that is the image (or illusion) they desire, then they should expect to be assumed to be a thug. Appearances are important.

I don't see what Zimmerman's thug status has to do with Martin's, just as Martin's doesn't have anything to do with Zimmerman's. Each person can either be or not be a thug, independent of the other person.

You're completely missing the point.

Martin was wearing a hoodie, and tight-fitting khakis. And walking down the street, at 7pm. This is perfectly normal.

And that is when Zimmerman saw him, and profiled him. And it is also why many people decided that he was a "thug" who "deserved it".

If he were walking down the street in a three-piece suit, he'd still end up dead - and people would insist that he was attempting to look like a mob boss in order to intimidate others. Or, maybe they'd just flatly lie and claim that he was wearing baggy jeans - as we've seen his detractors do already.

What Martin was wearing, whether or not he was interested in guns...those are irrelevant. We know that Zimmerman was enraged by Martin walking past a house, we know that Zimmerman chased Martin, we know that Martin actively tried to avoid any confrontation with Zimmerman. And we know that Zimmerman killed Martin. We have evidence for all of this.

We also have a dispatch recording, from august 2011, of Zimmerman becoming angry at another black guy walking down the street. He actually has a woman tell him "don't follow him", after he states that he wishes to follow the person.

Those are facts. And somehow, people get from that Martin must have attacked Zimmerman. That's absurd. It's pretty clear that Zimmerman attacked Martin, lost the fight, and then shot Martin.

 

[SleepingWeasle]

You're completely missing the point.

Lets be honest here, I'm not missing the point, you're assigning a point to my posts that is totally unrelated to what I have actually posted here. I initially responded here:

Now, here's the real question. Why does cutting classes get you suspended? We know that suspending a student makes them less likely to get good grades, to graduate, to succeed. Why was Martin suspended for this?

How do we know that "suspending a student makes them less likely to get good grades, to graduate, to succeed"? I certainly don't know that. I'm aware that troubled students often get suspended, and that troubled students also often get poor grades, but I don't know that the act of suspending them causes this. How do you know this?

Which has still gone unanswered. Since then, I have been asked to speculate as to why other posters felt that Martin was a thug. No one to my knowledge has claimed that he was a thug because he was wearing a hoodie and tight-fitting khakis. I certainly never made that claim. But moving on from "the point":

Martin was wearing a hoodie, and tight-fitting khakis. And walking down the street, at 7pm. This is perfectly normal.

And that is when Zimmerman saw him, and profiled him. And it is also why many people decided that he was a "thug" who "deserved it".

Concerning when Zimmerman profiled him, of course he profiled him as soon as he saw him. Most people evaluate the appearance of unknown people when they see them, and there isn't anything wrong with that.

Concerning the highlight, I haven't read anyone here who claims to have done that. Can you post an example of someone here claiming that they decided he was a thug who deserved it based solely on him wearing a hoodie and tight-fitting khakis?

If he were walking down the street in a three-piece suit, he'd still end up dead - and people would insist that he was attempting to look like a mob boss in order to intimidate others. Or, maybe they'd just flatly lie and claim that he was wearing baggy jeans - as we've seen his detractors do already.

There's no way you can possibly know that people would insist that he was attempting to look like a mob boss in order to intimidate others.
Concerning the highlight, I don't remember anyone here doing this either. Can you post an example of this happening here?

What Martin was wearing, whether or not he was interested in guns...those are irrelevant. We know that Zimmerman was enraged by Martin walking past a house, we know that Zimmerman chased Martin, we know that Martin actively tried to avoid any confrontation with Zimmerman. And we know that Zimmerman killed Martin. We have evidence for all of this.

I certainly don't know that Zimmerman was enraged by Martin walking past a house. I read that he claims that Martin was acting suspiciously, and that "they" always get away, but that's is not what your claiming above. Perhaps you would be nice enough to provide a link to this?
I also don't know that Martin actively tried to avoid any confrontation with Zimmerman. While you may believe this to be true, it is only one interpretation of the events, certainly nothing anyone knows to be true.

We also have a dispatch recording, from august 2011, of Zimmerman becoming angry at another black guy walking down the street. He actually has a woman tell him "don't follow him", after he states that he wishes to follow the person.

This is certainly new to me, I haven't followed either of their histories closely. Can you provide a link to this other incident, and explain how it relates to his shooting Martin?

Those are facts. And somehow, people get from that Martin must have attacked Zimmerman. That's absurd. It's pretty clear that Zimmerman attacked Martin, lost the fight, and then shot Martin.

While there may be a fact or two in there, some of them may even be your favorite facts, but they certainly aren't all of "the facts". While you may find it absurd that people believe Martin attacked Zimmerman, many people do not. If all of your "facts" were the entirety of the facts of the case, he would have been convicted, unless the prosecuting attorney was grossly incompetent. Is there anything in their past that leads you to believe this? If not, I suggest the case may not be as cut and dry as you have laid out.

 

[johnny karate]

I believe they have included it in a list, made of multiple things, that gives a person the appearance of being a thug.

The only things that can be on a list of things that give the appearance of being a thug are things that are actually related to being a thug.

And no honest or reasonable person would ever include "cutting classes" on that list. It's ridiculous to argue otherwise.

What we have instead is a list go "bad" things; things the person who made the list does not approve of. And it was done with the erroneous assumption that if we lump enough "bad" things together, we can somehow patch together the appearance of something far worse than any one thing on the list indicates.

If someone wanted to argue Martin was a "troubled teen" or "problem child", they might have a case. But to jump to "thug" based on nonviolent, noncriminal behaviors that a lot teenagers engage in is just simply dishonest argumentation.

 

[SleepingWeasle]

The only things that can be on a list of things that give the appearance of being a thug are things that are actually related to being a thug.

And no honest or reasonable person would ever include "cutting classes" on that list. It's ridiculous to argue otherwise.

What we have instead is a list go "bad" things; things the person who made the list does not approve of. And it was done with the erroneous assumption that if we lump enough "bad" things together, we can somehow patch together the appearance of something far worse than any one thing on the list indicates.

If someone wanted to argue Martin was a "troubled teen" or "problem child", they might have a case. But to jump to "thug" based on nonviolent, noncriminal behaviors that a lot teenagers engage in is just simply dishonest argumentation.

While cutting classes is not indicative of a thug, to me, I think I understand where others are coming from. Initially it was claimed Martin was an angel, who didn't have a bad bone in his body. While I can understand his family painting that picture, it doesn't seem quite accurate. The skipping school thing does, to me at least, speak to him being a troubled teen.

The aspects of him that I view as being signs of a troubled teen, combined with what I view as his desire to be associated with a thuggish lifestyle combine to paint a different image of him. Weather that image is an accurate description of what kind of person he was at the core, I don't know.

I do believe skipping school is also, although not exclusively, associated with being a thug. Is the stereotypical thug known to have a fondness for rules and school? I don't think they are, even though these characteristics are not exclusively thug like, they do seem to be associated. To me, if you have a troubled teen, that likes to be associated with handguns, you have an image of a thug. While that person may not actually be a thug, they certainly do look like one to me. To me, that seems like the point of others bringing it up.