GentleGiant's page

Whenever religious organizations are criticized, there are two defenses that keep coming up. All the time.

1) That's only a vocal (and oh so extremely tiny) minority that says.

2) There is an ongoing discussion within the church about changing this, but everyone has to accept that change takes time.

I call BS. A vocal minority of the church that claimed something the church did not like or think would be silenced and made to conform faster than you could say "holy inquisition batman". The very fact that this doesn't happen to people who claim that "God hates f#*%" and similar drek means, directly and unquestionably, that the silent churches agree with this.

As for 2 above, it's disgraceful that a church that claims to stand for love and good thinks an ongoing discussion is even a relevant argument in this issue. As a direct consequence of various church policies, children commit suicide, get thrown out and ignored by their parents, and so on. It happens all the time. And guess what? If we're discussing the roman catholic church, it's so top-down-directed that if the pope were to demand and end to the discussion, it would be done. In short: I don't think the gay teens who commit suicide care that you are discussing whether they are perversions of nature, or merely commit sins against God when they express their love for one another.

Try this discussion again, and don't do these cop-outs. And if you find it harder, well, perhaps it's time to act instead of discuss after all.

Okay, but the answer to the Church's discrimination is not to nickel and dime the meaning of sodomy until anal is a sin but oral isn't; it's to get the Church hierarchy, Pope included, to a point where they realize two willing people in bed isn't a sin, regardless of what they do there.

Frankly, in this regard, I don't really care what the Bible, or the Catechism for that matter, say. I care what people who call themselves Christians do and teach.

I like the QUILTBAGPIPE concept, but I think Freehold DM may be treading around an important topic. When sexuality-based rights and support groups gather, from my experience, they tend to include a lot of the minority or "otherly" sexualities. I understand that those people who face the most consistent adversity are those who are different. I also wonder if this "misfits club" for lack of a better word, does not end up becoming less open and inclusive than it claims to be. Again, I like the concept, but I can say from personal experience that I have gone to pride centres and related events and experienced a lot of hostility for being an "outsider". Am I the only one who has had this experience?

I've noted earlier on that as a queer/bi woman, I've felt uncomfortable amongst certain groups of homosexuals because they tended to give me the cold shoulder. I definitely got the "outsider" vibe, if not the "yeah right, like you really exist" treatment. I find this to be more often amongst urban groups, where there are enough people of a given sexuality to that many of them get together and form their own subculture.

It definitely sucks to feel left out--not to mention downright hypocritical to say "I want the right to express my sexuality without being discriminated against! But you, 'bi girl', you don't get to ask for that same right."

But at the same time, from an external point of view, I understand where this comes from. If you belong to a minority--in the broadest sense of the term--that is often unfairly stereotyped, discriminated against, and even beaten because you're different, you (by which I mean a human being) tend to seek out people like yourself. You band together and put up your "group armor" to defend yourself. At the start, this is as a protective instinct, to fend off legitimate threats of the "norm" or "other" who are actively intending to be hurtful to you. But as you also come to celebrate your differences and be proud of them--there's a weird, human tendency to start denigrating those who are different from you. You've formed your group, you've found your place you belong and where you feel like what makes you different makes you special--and thus, the outsiders can't be let in or else you lose your specialness. When you often feel powerless in the outside world, you exert the power you have within your sphere of influence to make the "others" feel like you do in their world. It's part of human nature.

Hell, as a GAMER, I understand where this comes from. While gamers don't usually face the severity of discrimination that TLGBQ folk (it's possible, but we're much less likely to be fired or killed for playing D&D). But we are weirdos, people say crazy stuff about us, we band together, and we become proud of our gamer selves. And we also become elitist. That the others, the "normals," the "non-gamers"--I have frequently seen gamers treat them as stupid, as boring, as the people who "just don't get it," as non-valid to be their friends or associates. I've done it myself, sad to say, and more often than I'd like to admit.

And I've seen any other number of subcultures and factions and various ways human being subdivide themselves do the same thing. It is not a phenomenon unique to homesexuals or anyone else in the TLGBQ (QUILTBAGPIPE?) spectrum.

And at least in the urban queer community I live closest to now, I've seen a lot more openness than I used to. I feel like I could go to Pride this year with a "I'm BI!" t-shirt or whatever and not have stuff thrown at me (I have literally feared that very thing in the past). I've seen a lot of queer groups precisely with that identifier, and seen people in that group truly be welcomed, whether queer themselves or straights allied with the organization's purpose. So I think as that community continues to gets its bearings, it will get past the exclusivist defenses so many subcultures put up--and I think a lot of folks understand they have to do that, if they truly are fighting for diversity recognition and equal rights for everyone.

This is indeed one of those subjects we have to try be careful with using the correct terminology about if we are trying to be sensitive seeing as the social stigma against mental illness is basically just as strong as it is against LGBTQ people, if a great deal quieter. It’s just something to pay closer attention to in the future if we value not making marginalized people feel even more misunderstood or made fun of then they already are. No harm intended I'm sure, just something to watch out for.

Including when someone else's sexuality is "I want to wait" - none of us has the right to change/condemn it.

That's her decision, not her sexuality. If it was her sexuality being celibate wouldn't be hard.

I've heard of parents saying things like "If you ever do X, you're not my child anymore and you'd better find another place to live". That's bad. But there are also parents who educate their children about sex, and emphasize how happy they are that THEY waited (or perhaps that they're sorry they didn't), talk about the risks (STDs, pregnancy, etc), while still making it clear that they'll always be loved and accepted no matter what. Some people in this thread can't see past their disagreement with abstinence and/or religion to see the difference between those two types of parents, or perhaps even be willign to believe the latter even exists.

There are some. There are also some who jump in assuming any criticism of anything loosely attached to religion is based on hatred of religion not of problems with that specific practice.

I said it before, so once more: Those who try to control their children's sexual development or strangle it while the children are too young to resist, suck. And not in a good way. It doesn't matter if you push your daughter to accept swearing her faith to you in a purity ball, or if you force your homosexual son to pray to stop being gay. EVERY person has the right to have a sexuality. Every person. Simple as that. Some may be in a situation where they can't act it out, but that's their cross to bear, and doesn't apply to consensual sex so don't claim gay sex is some kind of abomination in the eyes of God or whatever. It still doesn't give anyone any sort of right to change anyone else's sexuality, or stunt their sexual development.

I think an old Groo comic said it best: Too many people believe only in belief.

I watched the video on mute, and I saw no evidence of any attack.

Basically, my point is that until we start to see more stories like this, the Moral Majority will be the face of Christians to many outsiders.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Irnk, Dead-Eye's Prodigal wrote:

Actually, there is scientific evidence to indicate that about 10% of the human population or so is sexuality-wise asexual. They aren't abstaining, they just really aren't interested. The popular term among among those of that orientation is 'ace'.

She's not it. She's saying its hard and she's saving herself for marriage.

That's fair, but I still don't see why it's a bad thing.

I don't think it's a bad thing, and I don't know anybody who really would. I can see Fox News acting like this is a big deal and she is a big hero, the same way they idolize people who swear they are fighting against the wicked in a "War Against Christmas."

It's a big to-do about nothing. The same people Fox and the other rabid Right claim are ostracizing this woman for abstaining, are the very same people who don't believe any sexual activity is truly deviant: the educated, liberals, and psychologists.

Turning around after years of claiming those people are "too open minded" to try to accuse them of suddenly, conveniently not understanding this woman's sexual choices, is disingenuous at best, hypocritical in any case, and a fat lie told with a grinning, manipulative face, at worst.

And anybody who thinks they can trust Fox News to speak with authority on how the Left or any other liberal feels about this issue, and trusts them for fair information upon which to base their own opinions, is drinking black Kool-Aid laced with stupid pills.

Even in most public schools that I'm aware of, parents are able to "opt-out" of sex ed classes. I call shenanigans! Why can't my parents opt me out of long division or US History? What's that you say? It's necessary to create a well-rounded and informed citizen/voter?

Double check and mate.

It seems some posters in this thread are unaware of the fact that people exist - at both the individual level and organizational level - who encourage abstinance until marriage without being anti-contraception/education/etc.

Certainly true and I have no problem with them. It's not a bad idea, though I don't think it's a big deal.

Or at least abstinence while you're a teenager.

I do think that those who talk about Virginity and Purity tend to be on the anti-contraception/education/etc end of things.

First time I hear about these Purity Rings/Balls thing. Perhaps a bit unorthodox, but they really don't seem sick or deviant as some are making them sound. Just an ellaborate form of "I promise I won't do this" thing. Not to say I would personally do it, as I prefer the more traditional "No sex for you! At least until you are 18. After that, I'd really appreciate if you waited until marriage, but if not, at least pick them right and be careful", which was what my parents told me when I was 12 or so.

I think you guys are being too judgemental about the whole thing. It seems to me just a manner, among many, to try and tell kids that sex is, indeed, not to be taken lightly. But I don't see too many implications beyond that.

I don't have any real objections to your version, as long as you back them up by teaching the kids about birth control and STD protection and don't just assume that since you've told them and they've agreed that everything will be fine. Along with a whole lot of nonjudgmental come to me with problems or questions and we'll love you anyway attitude.

There seems to be whole subtext to the Purity movement that goes beyond that though. The emphasis on virginity. The fact that it's all about daughters with any similar movement for sons being tiny in comparison. That it's about promising fathers with no place for mothers. That it's about waiting til marriage, not until they're adult.
It all resonates with the old traditions where women and their sexuality are transferred from their father's control to their husband's.

If someone wants to decide to not have sex until marriage/death/sign of gods, its his or her or its choice, no problem, as long as it is informed and voluntary choice. However, choice cannot be really called informed and voluntary when is based on erroneous, false or incomplete information (and even more when based on malicious misinformation). Thus, sexual education should be provided to everyone. Its unfortunate that a large group of close-minded idiots is dumb enough to think that mere education about sexuality will immediately and irrevocably will turn their children into raging, shameless sluts and force them into prostitution.

Dagnabbit, someone discovered the Super Duper Top Secret Librul Plan to Bring Ruin to America, Destroy Christianity and Bring Forth the Atheist Muslim Communist Nazi Totalitarean Anarchist Nation Under the UN's Leadership (TM)! That's the fifth time this month. Who's in charge of security around here

If someone wants to decide to not have sex until marriage/death/sign of gods, its his or her or its choice, no problem, as long as it is informed and voluntary choice. However, choice cannot be really called informed and voluntary when is based on erroneous, false or incomplete information (and even more when based on malicious misinformation). Thus, sexual education should be provided to everyone. Its unfortunate that a large group of close-minded idiots is dumb enough to think that mere education about sexuality will immediately and irrevocably will turn their children into raging, shameless sluts and force them into prostitution.

Summation of thread so far:

Christians: "Not having sex is not deviant behavior."

Atheists: "Not having sex is not deviant behavior."

(Well, except maybe Mr. Shifty)

I still haven't seen a single post of people pointing and laughing AT HER (the athlete).

Everything after that is debate about sex education. Not the same thing.

I feel like I should restate: Everyone has every right to their own sexuality. Someone who doesn't want to, that is fine. But if anyone tries to deny someone else a sexuality, through sicko marriages to dad, denying them sex ed, or the tools to mitigate the risks that do exist with sex, ie preventatives, they suck.

A dad pushing her to accept one does, however - her. Her sexuality is not for him to shape, or try to strangle when she can't defend herself.

I would like to mention a few things:

1. There are tangible health benefits to having sex. As well as tangible health risks for not having sex. If you consider STDs and pregnancies "taken care of" then the bottomline is that sex-havers are healthier than sex-not-havers.

2. People can get pregnant and get STDs when successfully abstaining. This usually involves rape, and is more common than people let on.

3. There's a tangible benefit for couples that do have sex before marriage: their relationship deepens and becomes more intimate. (And should they find themselves sexually incompatible - everybody involved is glad that it got sorted out before wedlock.)

thejeff wrote:

[

That's another big difference between us.
I don't believe in letting one bad decision ruin someone's life, if it's reasonably possible to stop it.
I'd rather live in a country where we try to keep kids from having to eat out of dumpsters. I don't really care why they have to, I just think they should be helped. Maybe they were stupid and got pregnant. Maybe their parents found out they were gay and threw them out of the house. I don't care and I don't think they should have to prove themselves worthy to someone's arbitrary standard to get the help they need.
And who's to know? Maybe with a little support, that teen can get back on her feet, become successful and contribute back more than it cost to keep her off the street.

That's not to mention the baby, who's only stupid decision was to get born.

Did I mention gays? or babies? I have no problem helping the baby and I don't believe that being gay is bad. Those aren't choices. I believe people who make stupid CHOICES deserve what they get. The baby didn't make a choice and people don't choose to be gay

You mentioned a pregnant teen. I assume you're aware that shortly becomes a teen and a baby. You're willing to let the teen eat out of dumpsters. I assume in that case she's not taking particularly good care of the baby.

You didn't mention gays, I'll admit. I brought that up as another one of the most common reasons teens wind up on the streets. Since you willing to help some who are in need, I assume you'll require them all to prove that it wasn't their stupidity that got them there. By your standards. Will they need some kind of documentation? Shall they have to answer all kinds of personal, in some cases traumatic questions before they're worthy of help?

Or can we just help them because they're human beings who need it?

thejeff wrote:

Darkwing Duck wrote:

But where's the line? If your taxes increase to cover the cost of people having sex and such tax increase keeps you from doing the things -you- enjoy, is that fair?

Oh no!!! Not tax increases!

Evidence shows, for at least the third time in this thread, that attempts to keep people, particularly teens from having sex rather than warning them of the risks, encouraging them to avoid sex, but giving them the tools and knowledge to mitigate the risks, lead to worse and more expensive outcomes. States with abstinence only sex education have higher teen pregnancy rates, more STDs and no less teen sex than states with a more comprehensive approach.

The costs of people having sex, when they know what they're doing and have easy access to birth control and to barrier methods against STDs are pretty minimal.
When you attempt to restrict the behavior, the costs go up, because most of them keep having sex anyway!

And like I said earlier, I don't believe in spending money to support people who are paying for stupid choices. I have no problem with sex education but if a teen gets pregnant because they wanted a good time then I say let em burn. It ain't my right to say whether they can or can't have sex. It also isn't my problem if they end up in the street eating out of dumpsters to survive.

Your choices. Your problems.

(BTW I have no problem with tax increases either. I just think paying for other peoples stupidity in general is idiotic)

That's another big difference between us.

I don't believe in letting one bad decision ruin someone's life, if it's reasonably possible to stop it.
I'd rather live in a country where we try to keep kids from having to eat out of dumpsters. I don't really care why they have to, I just think they should be helped. Maybe they were stupid and got pregnant. Maybe their parents found out they were gay and threw them out of the house. I don't care and I don't think they should have to prove themselves worthy to someone's arbitrary standard to get the help they need.
And who's to know? Maybe with a little support, that teen can get back on her feet, become successful and contribute back more than it cost to keep her off the street.

That's not to mention the baby, who's only stupid decision was to get born.

Wow guys. All this fighting over sex. It's not even that great guys.

Methinks you might be doing it wrong.

I had sex once. No it is not that great. In fact it is downright boring.

And no offense, but if sex is boring, you're doing it wrong.

Like anything else it's a skill. It gets better with practice.

Wow guys. All this fighting over sex. It's not even that great guys.

The internet makes me facepalm sometimes.

I guess I'll toss in a few of my own points:

• You're missing out on something that feels good is not really a point
  
• It does carry very real health risks
  
• Preventative measures do not always work
  
• Health care when preventative measures fail is expensive
  
• People rushing marriage for sex is once again, a symptom of lack of self control
  

For one thing guys:
I was an atheist through all my teen years and into my early 20's. I'm 23 now and have only been religious for 10 months.

I had sex once. No it is not that great. In fact it is downright boring.

So far I have seen at least 5 pairs of friends ruin their lives with sex before marriage. And no I don't mean "they had to have an abortion." Most of them end up living in broken down houses with each other, resentful, angry, and poor. Seen so many of their marriages fail this way and they spend years miserable because of it.

I'm confused here. They ruined their lives with sex before marriage and that made their marriages fail? Why'd they get married? Pregnancy?

As for lack of self control, well yeah. That's a problem. People lack self control. You can blame them for it, say they deserve whatever happens or you can recognize that and try to lessen the damage that it does.

Again, areas in the US that emphasize abstinence-only education have higher rates of teen pregnancy, STDs, no lower rates of premarital sex, earlier ages of marriage and higher divorce rates. If you think those are problems, telling people they should be abstinent is not a solution.

No, you are missing out on something that is central to most people. The potential problems can be dealt with easily, so long as the church does not manage to get preventatives forbidden, and you act sensibly. And if you did it once and found it boring, well, it happens. It can also be something quite different. And if you saw people ruin their lives by having sex, ending up in bad houses and so on, maybe society would do well to treat people who have had sex in a more tolerant, enlightened way???

So, if someone is unmarried, how much sex can they have before they are no longer human in the eyes of the church? Does this change upwards or downwards with marriage?

Yeah, that's bad interpretations of what you said. Still... the church knows all about human sexuality. They understand people. They refer these things to dogma, ignoring for convenience the fact that the church itself is the source of most of these ideas regarding sex. And:

Regarding sexual education, there are many Church voices that think it's a blanket bad idea (in all honesty, protestants are probably worse). Bad sex ed leads to more teen sex, we know this so well, and yet the church stands by their idea.

Regarding preventatives, they work directly and indirectly against it. Thus, more sexual acts lead to pregnancies.

Regarding abortions, they abhor it, and work to make legal abortions impossible. Thus, more pregnancies lead to more children, typically shattering young people's lives by stopping educations and so on. Further, these children typically grow up in impoverished environments, it's not randomly spread WHO has a teen pregnancy.

So: As a direct consequence of the Church's policies, which it wrote itself, we see a higher STD spread, more teen pregnancies, and more poor children.

It's almost as if the Church was doing its utmost to ensure that there remains an impoverished class of people who need the Church...

Learn what you are doing and act responsibly, and there are no "innumerable dangers and complications" to not being a virgin.

And as for the crabs, that is exactly the feeling I get when I tell people I am an atheist, and happy with my choice, on the internet. Forget getting away, the religious WILL criticize you for taking a different path.

True, religion+internet can lead to a lot of haterade.

I suppose what I was digging at was what I consider an annoying combination of abstainee coming across as a bit righteous and preachy and no mention of a religious aspect, citing birth control and STD's as bing the root cause, and then when challenged out comes all the religious dogma.

I reject the pregnancy/STD argument as there are ways of dealing with those issues, education, safe sex etc. Approached with care and common sense one can certainly enjoy a healthy sex life without it leading to ruin and bad places.

On the other hand if you just woke up one day and thought 'Hey this thing for me is kind of special and I am hanging out for Mrs Right' then I'd be ok with that, as long as you aren't going to get butthurt if Mrs Right had a few previous trysts with Mr Right-Now in the past. Its when I sniff the religious programming that I get my hackles up, as that stuff tends to be laced with repressive attitudes and negative dogma.

If you are happy though, and are 100% positive this is your choice, and aren't peddling it at other people then I got no issue with that and wish you all the best... I think you are mad and are really missing out, but hey more power to you for at least having the moral fortitude to stand by a principle (even if I dont agree with that principle!).

In truth I hope you find Mrs Right. Soon. :)

Lloyd,
To quote the Spartans: "If"

Well, you could argue all those things.

You could also argue that bad sex education and bad access to preventatives and abortions are what causes those problems, and that growing into a responsible adult means relating to sex in a healthy manner, and that those beliefs and values you bring up are, as I said, inroads for indoctrination. So far, there is far more to support this, given that these factors are comparable in different countries. Simply put: You want low STD spread, few sexual crimes and few teenage pregnancies? Make sure sex education, preventatives and abortions are freely available. And what do the religious organizations do? Well, last I heard they are pretty uniform in their hatred of all three. And the places where they get their wish, abolish those things and preach abstinence, those places are where you get STDs, sex crimes and teenage pregnancies. It's almost as if they WANTED people to suffer... but where would people go to seek help if they suffered, oh where would they go?

CHOOSING not to have sex is every person's absolute right, at any time, for any reason. That is not the issue here. What is seriously wrong is having huge religious organizations telling people that having premarital sex makes them bad people. Yes, seriously wrong. Sex is something deeply personal, sharply tied to our identities, and an expression of shared joy. I see the religious angle to be more or less "If we can stunt their own personal growth while they are young and vulnerable to our repression, they'll be easier to keep in the fold later". Shame is, sadly, a very appetizing emotion to prey upon for so many people.

I think a lot of people could do to learn a lot of self-control.

Until you begin to confuse self control with extremism/fundamentalism.

Balance is healthy, extremism is not.

Sexual repression is a horrible thing, and the baggage loaded onto people to exercise 'self control' and 'abstain' is quite often usually just a reflection of the control other people have imposed over the abstainee.

So feel free to be -_- about it all you like, obviously you have different needs and beliefs.

The rest of your post is too drug addled to follow.

Nice to know that you and your hero there have similar abilities to project.

It would have taken 30 seconds if I'd known that it was on Google. It would have taken someone participating in this thread 30 seconds to link to it since they'd already found it.

If you'd asked "is it in the police report" I could have found it in 30 seconds. But since you have ridiculously high standard of evidence for things you disagree with I thought more direct evidence that they were away from the road and on the sidewalk was required.

In short "find it in the police report" is easy. "Find evidence Darkwing Duck will accept" is much harder because I have no idea what sort of evidence is acceptable to someone that doesn't think that heliocentrism is a done deal.

ciretose wrote:

None of that happens if Zimmerman stays in his car.

Trayvon Martin is not dead if Zimmerman stays in his car.

No, but if Trayvon was trying to sneak in the back of an apartment, then someone else might have ended up hurt. Zimmerman had no way of knowing. Interceding was permissible as a citizen's arrest. Watching the kid in order to scare him away was pointless if the kid didn't see him. I have no idea whether Martin and Zimmerman locked eyes at this point and neither do you.

Had no way of knowing and no reason to suspect.

You can't just make a citizen's arrest of every black kid walking through your neighborhood because they might hurt somebody.

You're making up suspicions that Zimmerman hasn't even claimed in order to justify his actions.

IF (and again its a big if due to lack of evidence) the body was where these maps on the Internet claim, then

1.) How did it get there? Martin must have run straight down the street. But, he would have been visible by Zimmerman the whole way. Zimmerman wouldn't have lost sight of him.

2.) When did he call his girlfriend? Where was he? Did he run down to the corner, then stop to call his girlfriend to tell her how scared he was when his home was just a -little- further?

3. ) How did Zimmerman's face get repeatedly smashed into the sidewalk if Martin was shot where claimed?

Fine. I really shouldn't waste my time doing legwork for you since you demand evidence even for things that are pretty much general knowledge to anyone who's been paying attention at this point, but I'm waiting for dinner to cook, so why not:

The body's location: According to the initial police report:

there was a subject laying in the grass in between the residences of 1231 Twin Trees Ln. and 2821 Retreat View Cir.

Putting those two addresses into Google maps gets you the two houses on either side of the path where BNW's map showed the body. You can do that for yourself.
Can we let this go now? Please.

1) Possibly Z. was lying about losing sight of him. Possibly he lost sight when M. turned south down the path, while Z. was still heading east from his car. Maybe M. did duck into cover while he was briefly out of sight.

2) He was on the phone with his girlfriend (on an earpiece) the whole time.

3) Z's face was not smashed into the sidewalk. The evidence indicates he was punched in the face and had scrapes on the back of his skull. There is a paved path between the rows of houses. It is possible his head was on that. It's also possible he was on the grass and the lacerations on his skull are from the first impact or from rock or something in the grass.

If you're going to claim this is an impossible location, I want to see some evidence from you, not just incredulity.

ciretose wrote:

Look at the google map, look at the video. There is no reason for Zimmerman to get out of his SUV to chase the kid.

None.

He was specifically told not to do so.

Wait, did Zimmerman get out of his car and start running before he was told not to, or after? Because you seem to be indicating that he was told first than chased, but I could have sworn someone said he was told after he started chasing.

Listen to the 911 call. Zimmerman gets out right after he says "He's running" and starts chasing him.

At this moment, he is completely in the wrong because he is now chasing a stranger who has done absolutely nothing wrong, but we'll move on from that. The 911 dispatch tells him not to chase him, and at this point if Zimmerman gets back in his car and waits for police, as he was told, Martin is alive.

Two minutes pass and the call ends. If at this point Zimmerman waits for police, Martin is alive.

Let's say he did "cut him off at the pass". At this point you are a 17 year old kid who is being followed at night by some weird creepy guy in an SUV who has been following you for at least 4 minutes or 5 minutes (the length of the 911 call) just popped out of a blind alley on you.

Right now, look at a clock for 5 minutes thinking about walking home in the dark, in the rain, with a guy in an SUV following you.

Zimmerman's phone call to 911 indicates that he lost sight of Martin. Its very easy to jump someone by jumping out of hiding.

Which you might reasonably do if some crazy guy with a gun is chasing you down a back alley.

If Zimmerman stays in his SUV, Martin is alive.

If Zimmerman stays on the street and doesn't chase him down the dark back alley the kid went down to get away from him, Martin is alive.

Look at the google map, look at the video. There is no reason for Zimmerman to get out of his SUV to chase the kid.

None.

He was specifically told not to do so.

We know Zimmerman was following the kid to the point he scared the kid enough to run away from him. Then Zimmerman jumped out of his SUV and chased the kid down an alley.

He doesn't do this, the kid is alive.

ciretose wrote:

1. How do you "Jump" someone who is chasing you down a dark alley? With a gun, I might add.

2. Zimmerman clearly followed him. There is absolutely no way Zimmerman is in that back alley unless he is following him. To say otherwise is ridiculous.

Zimmerman's phone call to 911 indicates that he lost sight of Martin. Its very easy to jump someone by jumping out of hiding.

It's even easier if the guy keeps coming down the alley looking for you.

Much harder if the guy turns around and heads back to his car when he loses sight of you.

And look where the shooting was. Down between the houses! Not back by the car. How odd.

Of course, since Zimmerman kept looking after saying he lost sight, it's quite possible he found Martin again rather than being "jumped".

I'm primarily concerned with two questions (seeing as how this case may set precedent)

1.) Should it be legal to jump someone and assault them just because you think they are following you? (not to say that that's what Martin did, but some people have argued that that's what he did)

2.) Should it be legal to follow someone you think is suspicious? (again, not to say that that's what Zimmerman did, but some people have argued that that's what he did).

1. How do you "Jump" someone who is chasing you down a dark alley? With a gun, I might add.

2. Zimmerman clearly followed him. There is absolutely no way Zimmerman is in that back alley unless he is following him. To say otherwise is ridiculous.

ciretose wrote:

He is parked in front of the cut through. You can here him open his truck door, get out and start running. He is on foot and obviously pursuing Trayvon.

I hear Zimmerman's breathing become regular again shortly after he agrees with the dispatcher not to chase after Martin.

The amount of time in which Zimmerman's breathing is irregular (ie. he's running) on the 911 tape is far too short for him to run as far as BNW's maps allege he ran.

He says "He's running" at 2:08

You can hear his car door open at 2:10 and him get out and start running after him.

The call goes on for two more minutes.

What are you talking about?

Whatever Zimmerman did, seeking justice means waiting until we have all the evidence before making a decision. Making a decision before all the evidence is available, in this case, is racist.

I think you may be unclear about what the word 'racist' means- because that isn't it.

thejeff wrote:

The whole mentality of gated communities disturbs me. It's all about retreating, keeping the other out, making everything the same.

Not at all healthy.

Even the name of the place: "Retreat at Twin Lakes".

I lived in a gated community a couple of years ago. The city had very limited parking. The gated community helped to ensure that I had a place to park.

"Keeping the other out"? If that's so bad, then go ahead and take the locks off your house doors.

That's a stupid comparison.

I live in the ghetto,i can tell a lot of people here do not, and have not. I know how these little hoods act, and have seen it first hand. Your sympathy is misguided, misplaced and rather puzzling.

I have. And any number of kids dressed and acted like "little hoods" to fit in, but weren't bad kids overall if you actually, you know, interacted with them as people.

But that's beside the point -- because a gated community is in no way a ghetto, so your assertion that it's crawling with "little hoods" who need to be gunned down before they assault or murder someone seems a bit paranoid.

meatrace wrote:

Darkwing Duck wrote:

meatrace wrote:

I have, no joke, had worse injuries from slipping on ice in my backyard

Did that ice keep beating you without you having any idea when it was going to stop?

You don't know that Trayvon DIDN'T stop before he was shot. You don't know that Trayvon started the fight. Stop acting like you do.

But yes, in effect, it did. I broke an ankle really bad, and after screaming for like 10 minutes for help tried to stand up and hobble home. I don't know if you've ever tried to hop a half a block home on slick ice, but it's HRRRD! I think I would up with a sprained wrist and a concussion, as well as severe bruising on my backside.

I know that the eye witnesses said that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman. Not that he gave Zimmerman one quick tap and then got off of him. I'm not sure how a person could end up with two black eyes, a fractured nose, a back injury, and lacerations on the back of his head from a guy who just tapped and stopped.

One serious punch to the bridge of the nose, breaking it, will blacken your eyes and could put you on the ground, cracking your head on the sidewalk. But then again, I wasn't there.

I've got NO problem with anyone who wants an investigation. Hell, I want an investigation done. My issue is with everyone who is judging him without any real evidence. I don't know if he's innocent. But I'm not going to assume he's guilty until all the evidence comes out in court.

As for shooting someone in self defense when that person is beating your head repeatedly and viciously against a sidewalk and your cries for help are going without response? Yeah, I got no problem with that either.

I respect the views of people who have embraced pacifism even when being brutally attacked. I just don't share their views.

Wow. Just wow. How do you figure he was brutally attacked? He had a couple scratches. As opposed to the other guy, who is DEAD.

I have a problem with wannabe cops who "patrol" their neighborhood packing heat, looking for a fight, seeing every shadow as a thug.

I mean as long as we're free to characterize, at least mine is based on things we actually know about Zimmerman, whereas yours is fantasy and conjecture.

You don't want Zimmerman judged without evidence...except you're doing precisely the same thing for Trayvon. And then equating the side sympathetic to the, ya know, dead teenager with white separatism...

Is it more racist than everyone in this thread who is looking to condemn Zimmerman because he's "white Hispanic" despite any real evidence against him?

Zero people here are condemning him because he's "white hispanic" they're condemning him because he shot and killed an unarmed teenager.

So, yes, holocaust denial, saying (or even suggesting) that all profiling against black people is okay because they commit most of the crimes, and saying that races should stay separate is more racist than the people here who could give two s*#%s about race.

In trying to equate my desire to see a homicide investigated with holocaust denial and white separatism, you can also go away and never come back.

I don't think following Martin could be considered "stalking". Stalking requires repeated offenses of certain behaviour patterns not present in this scenario.Honestly, ask yourself, if say the cops had teleported to the scene and Martin claimed he was being "stalked"..by who? Someone who has never seen him before and has never seen him before?

Also, 911 dispatchers are not police,and "police" never told Zimmerman anything prior to the shooting.
Everybody seems fixated that Zimmerman shot Martin...nobody here has ever had the hell beaten out of them? Beating the crap out of someone is perfectly acceptable in certain circumstances. And so is shooting a teenager in the chest.Should be interesting to see how this one plays out.
I live in the ghetto,i can tell alot of people here do not, and have not. I know how these little hoods act, and have seen it first hand. Your sympathy is misguided, misplaced and rather puzzling.
I almost hope they find Zimmerman totally guilty so i don't fall prey to reprisals, because i wouldn't be surprised if neighborhoods burn and innocent,actual white people are assualted, or as in the past murdered in REAL cold blood.Look into the crime statistics by race btw all you skeptics. It's not "profiling" it's just good police work in my book.

I didn't deny the holocaust, i did however question the actual intent/statistics claimed etc. That isn't racist. You know there is another genocide going on as we speak, only it isn't quite as obvious as the one that the Nazi's were purported to have attempted. It happens everyday and as long as it is a white nation it's happening in it is completely ignored. It's called "diversity". You would be shocked to see what happens if it is attempted in any other type of nation.

I'd say this is fairly racist.

ciretose wrote:

All of this is Zimmerman's fault. The kid isn't dead if Zimmerman does what the cops tell him to do.

I'm not sure I can comfortably say it is all zimmerman's fault. Yes, if he stays back (in the car? some have said he was already out and running when the cops told him it wasn't necessary) then Martin is still alive. But let's say Martin decides he has enough of this guy and just starts wailing on him even though the guy is not physically doing anything yet. If that is how it went down, then have to say that Martin has some blame as well.

Now if Zimmerman tried to jump him, then yeah, I will say it was all Zimmerman's fault.

But I don't feel comfortable saying that it is reasonable to start wailing on someone just because they are following you. Giving them the bird? Sure. Telling them to f-off? Go ahead. Beating the crap out of them? Nah, I don't think that is always justified.

Zimmerman was, judging by the breathing and other noises on the tape, indeed out of the car and running when the 911 operator told him it wasn't necessary. And it appears he stopped running then or shortly after, possibly only because he'd lost Martin.

It doesn't matter. He shouldn't have done it in the first place. If he was actually a trained neighborhood watch volunteer and not just a gung-ho wannabe cop he should have known that.

Maybe not all the fault. We don't know how the confrontation went down. Martin may well have overreacted. Or not. We don't know and probably never will. But if Zimmerman had stayed in his car, there never would have been a confrontation.

Bottom line, if he'd done what he was supposed to, he never would have felt threatened and Martin never would have been shot.

ciretose wrote:

You know that. I know that.

Unless you believe all good citizen should follow each other in case one of us is a kidnapper.

A guy who thinks of himself as a neighborhood guardian finding someone who doesn't belong in his gated community in his gated community acting strangely and running when a call to 911 is called?

Yes, I think Martin would have still been followed if he were white.

Except that Martin was returning to his father's girlfriend's house within that same gated community; he did belong there.