In July 2005, when he was 21, Zimmerman was arrested after shoving an undercover alcohol-control agent while a friend of Zimmerman's was being arrested for underage drinking. The officer alleged that Zimmerman had said, "I don't care who you are," followed by a profanity, and had refused to leave the area after the officer had shown their badge.[26] The charges were subsequently dropped when Zimmerman entered a pre-trial diversion program that included anger-management classes.[3][27]

Note how I clarified the charges were dropped.

I don't even know why we're fucking discussing this. Zimmerman was a dodgy individual. So fucking what? That does not hold up in a court of law unless they did something actually illegal, which Zimmerman didn't in this particular circumstance. Zimmerman pursued him. That's not illegal. Zimmerman ignored the operator. That's not illegal. Trayvon beating the shit out out of him is. And at the end of the day, that's what counts. If you want to address Zimmerman's history, that's for another discussion. The fact that you're bringing up Zimmerman's past to somehow discredit him as a victim given the evidence at hand is simply fallacious, and downright disgraceful.

That's exactly what confront means.

Beating the shit out of someone is confrontation?

If you have more than just suspicions and fear for your life? You absolutely do whatever is necessary to defend yourself.

I'd love for you to point out what Zimmerman did that caused Trayvon to fear for his life.

Contrary to what you believe about me, I neither followed any specific news source nor believed any of the bullshit narratives on either of them.

Well you seem pretty fucking imbued in this "TRAYVON DINDUNUFFIN" narrative when all the evidence points to the contrary.

I'm not playing the race card, he literally followed him because he was black

And I've pointed out with empirical evidence that he did not. And even if he did, it's not even relevant, given that Trayvon was the instigator.

and because young black males were burglarizing the neighborhood. It's called racial profiling, and it doesn't mean George Zimmerman is racist. I never said he was. I actually said several times this isn't so much about race but more about class and connections. I said that very clearly.

He saw a suspicious figure roaming about at night. It's only classism and racism because you want it to be to fit your argument.

I don't assume anything. Neither you nor anybody else but Zimmerman knows what really happened.

You could literally say this for any murder or crime. "WELL NUBODY NOES WAT REALLY HAPNED" Yeah no shit. Why do you think we have a judicial system?

I'm not being critical of the police, I'm explaining why they do that.

With no empirical evidence to back up your claim.

1. Yes

Then please provide the evidence to this.

2. There's absolutely no way to know that.

I've already provided evidence as to how Trayvon initiated the assault (Trayvon's knuckle contusions and Zimmerman's head injuries) if you're going to continue to deny the facts, then there's literally no hope for you.

He did instigate by following him.

Under a court of law, that does not constitute instigation. You don't get to decide what legally instigates something simply because you want it to be.

I never denied he attacked him. I said they exchanged words first.

LOL

No you didn't. You keep permeating this idea of Zimmerman being this malicious attacker, when all the evidence points to the contrary.

No. I clearly said I don't blame him for calling the cops. Do you have reading comprehension problems or are you stupid? What the fuck?

You literally just said Zimmerman called the cops because he was black. Do you have a fucking selective memory or what?

Again, not denying he attacked him. Holy shit you treat anybody who disagrees with you as some SJW retard.

>"he disagrees with my distorted narrative"
>"better call him an anti SJW"

It's getting old. Yes racism is a huge problem in the justice system. Deal with it.

So what exactly is your solution to this? Always believe the victim? Always believe the accused?

Yeah, no shit the judicial system is fucked. It is however, the best we've got to deal with alleged crimes. Unless you can suggest some magic 4th option, I suggest you shut the fuck up.

After following him.

Which is not illegal, for the billionth time.

I bet you a million bucks if it was a white guy people would've been saying "HE FEARED FOR HIS LIFE". But that's neither here nor there.

Sure, if you're reading Fox News.

No, but it should mean a few years in prison.

Well he never really done anything illegal, so it's really just your emotional knee jerk reaction coming into play here.

Actually it's extremely relevant because he wasn't doing anything illegal.

Neither was Zimmerman.

Bullshit. I'm talking about all the facts. You're the one saying what Trayvon was irrelevant as if deserved to be murdered for wearing a hoody.

LMAO

Keep twisting that narrative which keeps your argument afloat. No, Trayvon didn't deserve to die because he was black, wearing a hoodie, or because of his history. He died because he decided to attack someone, and that certain someone used self defense to save his life.

Following somebody and putting them on edge is instigating.

No it's really not. I can follow a skinhead if they seem like they're going to burn down a synagogue. Doesn't give them the right to beat the shit out of me based on suspicion.

I think it was an over reaction to assault him, but again I wasn't there and really don't know what Zimmerman said to him that might've caused him to just bomb.

As I've said countless times in this thread, attacking someone for simply following you or saying something you don't like is absolutely deplorable. What I find even more reprehensible is you trying to downplay this. It really is just the pinnacle of modern progressiveness.

Instead of taking his ass whooping like a man

I think this is literally the most retarded thing you've ever said. And that's saying a lot.

They seem to have a hard time recollecting a grown man's crimes but they're really eager to go after a teenager who got into fights and smoked weed.

Mostly because Zimmerman was favourable in the community and the majority of his alleged crimes supposedly took place within the privacy of his own home, e.g. allegations of domestic abuse, whereas Trayvon's issues are a bit more publicized and easy to prove. For the millionth time, nobody is painting any kind of incorrect narrative against Trayvon.

Not denying that, but in his mind he was protecting himself from some guy who's following him around

So that warrants him attacking someone?

If some creepy ass dude was following me around, I wouldn't attack him. Who the fuck in their right mind would attack a shady character who was following you around?

]After he followed him for no reason at all. It was racial profiling and paranoia.

Actually no, that was a narrative NBC purposefully wanted you to swallow up.

All the evidence points towards Zimmerman profiling him as a thug due to his choice of clothes, not race.

Which is my point. You don't go looking for trouble when you're carrying a gun. There's an extremely high probability of you having to use your gun when you could've avoided the whole situation. And in most courts he would've gotten into serious trouble for following someone while armed behaving like a vigilante. Neighborhood watch or not, it's the wrong move.

The Affidavit of probable cause did not support a charge of second degree murder.

In other words, the prosecution over exaggerated Zimmerman's intentions. While there's no denying that Zimmerman made some stupid decisions, the evidence attested that he never had any desire to cause trouble.

Which has been used against black people on trial in a negative manner of they don't listen to the operator. Yet people sounded like a broken record repeating this over and over about how it isn't legally binding. No, it isn't. But you know why they say this? So the police department isn't liable, and so you don't put yourself or others in harm's way and wait to let the professionals handle business.

I think it has more to do with the fact that operators are not law enforcement, but okay.

And yet he got off with no charges.

Due to lack of evidence. You don't charge someone over certain suspicions. That's not how the judicial system works.

After being followed by somebody who could've been a mugger for all he knew.

Again, attacking them is not an appropriate response. It's not something I, or any other sane person would do.

No, he died because some dude thinks he's a vigilante and racially profiles people.

Well again, he didn't racially profile him, so let's drop the MSNBC narrative.

He was part of a gang? Where's the proof for that?

He showed signs of aspiring to be part of thug culture. I was echoing your point about black males having no control over the circumstances they grew up in.

He was a troubled kid who got into fights at school and was labeled a thug. I never said he was a thug, I said even if he was one did he deserve to be gunned down in the street? No.

If you attack someone with the intent of grievous bodily harm or potential homicide then yes, you absolutely do, regardless of race. Stand Your Ground isn't exactly an obscure law.

If you want to address the issues of Stand Your Ground as a law, that's fine, but don't give me this bullshit about how you shouldn't be able to defend yourself with lethal force, because legally in Florida, you absolutely can.

You're twisting what I'm saying. He wasn't walikg around throwing up gang signs of flashing a pistol. He bought iced tea and skittles from a convenience store and was on his way back to the house he was visiting.

True, but that still doesn't really change any facts, so I'm not sure why you brought it up.

Zimmerman went after him because he was black.

No, he didn't. It helps if you actually read up on the case.

I take no issue with him calling the cops, because there were a lot of break ins and he was part of the neighborhood watch, or the captain I believe. But following him and creating a situation where using his weapon to defend himself would most likely be an inevitability? That's inexcusable and he should be sitting in prison for it.

You would be laughed out of the building if you tried to make that a criminal offense in a court of law. None of that is illegal.

A woman that fired warning shots with a gun in her home to defend against her husband was sentenced to several years in prison, and Zimmerman kills a guy after following him because he's paranoid and he walks? Come on now. It's not even about race, it's about how fucked up the justice system is and how having excellent lawyers and friends in the police department will get you out of a murder. Because that's exactly what it was.

Something I don't disagree with. However, the fact that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and he enacted in self defense is pretty much irrefutable at this point. All your doing is trying to downplay the narrative with petty appeals to emotions.

We've all seen this retarded video. It was posted on b.net when the case was still going.

Trayvon was supposedly a thug. Are thugs not people? Do they deserve to be gunned down in the street because they live a lifestyle the majority of them are forced into due to circumstances? Trayvon didn't have the right to ask a man FOLLOWING him why he was following him? But Zimmerman has the right to shoot him? Fuck off.

Quote

Apart from the 2012 Martin shooting, Zimmerman has had other encounters with the law, including two incidents in 2005, five incidents in 2013 and other incidents in following years.[25]

You guys are quick to buy into the Trayvon's character assassination but seem to have a bad memory when it comes to Zimmerman's actual run ins with the law as opposed to a kid who got into some fights in school and smoked weed.

And LOL that isn't how you make lean. You make it with codeine promethazine cough syrup and Sprite, with jolly ranchers. Not iced tea and skittles.

Nobody denies Zimmerman's criminal history, dude. The fact of the matter is all of the evidence absolutely attests to Trayvon initiating the brawl. Trayvon died in the sense that he attacked Zimmerman first, and that Zimmerman reacted to the situation as anyone else should, in self defense. Should Zimmerman have followed him? No. Should he have ignored the operator (who's advice is not legally binding I might point out) who told him not to follow Trayvon? No. Was Zimmerman an unstable character himself? Absolutely. But there's no question of a doubt that all of the empirical evidence points to Trayvon as the one who threw the first punch.

Trayvon didn't deserve to die because he was innocent wittle black child which was constantly permeated throughout the media. He died because he was, as you amiably point out, part of the gang culture that gets so many black males killed and/or incarcerated in contemporary America.

Trayvon was a hormonal thug, Zimmerman was a retard.

I really don't know what else there is to discuss.

]I wasn't specifically refering to this thread. What came to mind was the thread in Serious on an 8 year old kid being given hormone blockers. If I remember correctly, you were very eager to skew the facts to fit your argument better.

That thread?

That wasn't really an argument I was trying to make. It was a healthy dose of skepticism of how we should properly treat the transitional period of transgenderism and gender identity dysphoria. I also clarified that I was not medically astute and that if the professionals found that to be best possible alternative for the child, then they should absolutely take it.

There is a fine line between colorful language and populist appeals to emotion. And as someone who's a few months away from obtaining a Master's in law and has plead trials for larger crowds, guided and instructed by amazing orators and attorneys, I can guarantee you that the best professional debaters know where to draw it.

Something I don't disagree with.

I'm not saying I don't agree with some of the things you say, by the way. I'm just pointing out that some of your posts scream bias, propaganda and appeals to emotion, making them of the same level as your typical extreme left (or right) wing blogs / groups / tumblrs that thrive on emotion and bias to make a point. And all this does is hurt your own argument. You should not just be the bigger man in terms of facts and arguments, but also in terms of demeanor and attitude. Petty appeals to emotion, cherry picked information and biased language should be beneat you. This is all just a friendly piece of advice.

Fair enough.

I'm an alcoholic possibly mentally unstable smoker.

So there's that I guess.

I don't mind cultural appropriation, that is, if we know what kind of cultures we're dealing with.

I think we need to address the elephant in the room in here when I say not all cultures are inherently equal, nor on the same moral level as each other. Cultural appropriation can be dangerous when dealing with inferior cultures to the western world. You only need to look to Britain to confirm that.

And on the other hand, there are a lot of women on Twitter talking about how it was a wrong and cowardly decision to pull the cover.

Which I never repudiated...

IMO, both sides are wrong in their reasoning. This cover shouldn't be pulled because it is triggering or offensive, but neither should it be kept because it shows that a) comic fans, especially the women, can handle graphic material and b)Batgirl isn't weak, or what have you. It should be pulled because it's totally inconsistent with the themes of the series.

Which is an argument for another time, and something I don't denounce as a genuine criticism. That's not really the point I'm trying to make though.

That's it. You and anyone else turning this into a SJW debate are totally off-base and wrong.

I'm not. The argument was ignited by SJW, shit hit the fan, death threats were thrown around, and the cover was pulled. It helps if you read the article.

We must accept the fact that nothing in Sep7agon, can save Bnet.

Quote from: Madman Mordo on March 17, 2015, 08:10:43 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on March 17, 2015, 08:00:22 PM

Well they're trying to reach the demographic of young women, and this cover is an homage to when the Joker sexually assaulted Barbara Gordon. Not to mention that every other cover was nowhere near as dark as this. It just didn't fit, and the author requested it be pulled.

Sometimes, stuff is just in bad taste. This is one of those times.

Bad taste? What exactly is in "bad taste" about it?

Quote

this cover is an homage to when the Joker sexually assaulted Barbara Gordon

This series is marketed towards young women and has apparently been pretty light-hearted so far. It's basically for teenagers, and suddenly there's this cover.

So what you're essentially saying is female characters cannot face any kind of genuine adversary because their character biographies involved tragedy, therefore it would be in bad taste? Aren't you kind of placing female victimization on a pedestal there? I'd wager that's more sexist than depicting the actual rape if I'm being honest. The cover being disturbing is kind of subjective anyway. It's a teenage graphic novel. Not a connect the dot book.

Also the Killing Joke is over 30 years old and was marketed towards adults. Not sure your argument about teenage girls finding it in bad taste holds up tbh.

>adam sandler
>kevin james

Yeah this could Avatar tier effects and it still wouldn't sway me.

I don't get how you got Halo from that. And you only got Godzilla from that is because it has a big monster.

The suits look like an homage to Halo, especially the helmets. The technology also has that gritty UNSC/space marine/Avatar feel to it. If you're oblivious to that then I really don't know what to say.

The end scene looks particularly reminiscent of the teaser trailer to Godzilla (2014) what with the dusty cloudy/haze effect too, so no, I didn't just think "big monster = Godzilla" actually.

It's not an actual movie in the pipeline though, just to clarify.

I think Russia is more or less isolated from the rest of the western world. If you were hated by others then wouldn't you just keep reminding them that you are a power, and therefore not to be trifled with militarily? The EU also lacks an unified military power, so I really doubt anyone wants a war.

It just feels like living this century's Cold War. Or maybe it's just the beginning to an all-out nuclear war! Finally my bottle cap collection will be worth something.

I just don't get why Putin constantly feels the need to flex his military muscles all the time.

Maybe he really is autistic.

This is pretty gay.