Charles Barkley Has Intelligent Things To Say

Submitted by: 5cats 4 years ago in

About the Zimmerman trial, on a CNBC show. Good for him! Story in credits link below.
There are 47 comments:
Male 96
People that annoys you...
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]Without power, your prejudice or discrimination is worthless and no one pays it any attention.[/quote]
Hey, Smegma boy, you know what would really be fun? To sucker punch you and break your nose, then jump on you, punch your face, beat your head against a concrete sidewalk, and try to suffocate you till you pay attention and admit that I have power over you.
0
Reply
Male 17,512


"Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago," Barrack Obama, Today
0
Reply
Male 3,619
@SmagBoy1, the way I see it, they BOTH contributed to the escalation of the incident. But, how much? And within what legality?

To me, Martin was the bigger culprit (turning back, and physically attacking).
To you, Zimmerman was the bigger culprit.

Within the realms of legality, though Zimmerman could`ve been a bit more discreet, he did nothing wrong and was completely within the law. (Maybe he did put a hand on Martin, in which case, would`ve been outside the realms, but there is no evidence suggesting this, and thus must be found not guilty).
However, we know that Martin physically attacked Zimmerman, and was not within the law (as again, there is no evidence to suggest that Z attacked first).
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Smag

I know what you`re saying, but what you`re saying is unreasonable. You are literally saying that, despite you being unable to state the specific reasons that Zimmerman should be punished, you want him punished anyway.

You are advocating punishing someone simply because he was part of a bad situation; that`s completely absurd.

If I saw someone in my neighborhood looking into vehicles who I`ve never seen before, at night, in the pouring rain, and concealed, I would keep an eye on them. If this hypothetical man then came after me with potentially lethal force, I would - and should - have every right to defend myself with lethal force.

By your logic, I should then be punished - not because there is a specific action I took that was "wrong" - but because I was merely involved in a bad situation.

It`s absurd. Hindsight is 20/20.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
HumanAction, I said I was done, but I want to address this. Look, I *don`t* want to prove Zimmerman guilty. Matter of fact, I`ve tried to make great pains to say that I accept the verdict. And, further, I`ve said many times on here (and am usually slammed for it) that I would rather ten guilty men go free than one innocent man go to jail.

Further still, I don`t want Zimmerman`s head on a platter. I would NEVER convict him of 2nd Degree Murder. There`s not enough evidence (and even if there was video and he grabbed Martin`s shoulder, for example, it doesn`t seem like what he did, even with that, meets the 2nd Degree standard.

But, I do think that Martin was unarmed and that Zimmerman contributed to the escalation of the situation between the two. As such, I believe he`s responsible for *something*. I don`t know what. I`m not a lawyer. But I don`t think he should get to walk free, armed again, without even a slap. But I DO accept the verdict!
0
Reply
Male 1,106
I liked Barkley before. Now I have a whole new level of respect for the man.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]someone gets themselves into a fight and finds themselves losing and shoots and kills his opponent[/quote]
There you go again! You are making an assumption that Zimmerman initiated the violence. Yet, when others here make the same assumption about Martin, you chastise them. That is hypocritical.

[quote]There are tons of variables and I just can`t see ALL of them coming down for George Zimmerman like you can[/quote]
I never said this. I merely pointed out that the logic you are using is faulty due to its bias. The difference then, is that I want someone to try and prove Zimmerman guilty, and you want Zimmerman to prove he`s innocent.

I, for one, assume everyone is innocent to begin with. Once the evidence becomes compelling that they are guilty, then I will agree that they are guilty.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Smag:

Everything Zimmerman did, up to the point where Martin jumped him, was legal and within Martin`s civil and human rights.

It was the singular point of time where Martin connected a punch with Zimmerman that the altercation began. The court saw it that way, and so did we.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Smag

[quote]How can it be personal whim when I say "the beginning of their interactions"?[/quote]
Because you are defining - arbitrarily - when their interaction began. If you listen to the dispatchers tape, you`ll find that Zimmerman was only observing Martin from his truck. Then, Martin turned back and advanced at him even taking time to stand at stare at Zimmerman, before ultimately heading down a side path.

As easily as you say that Zimmerman shouldn`t have briefly followed down that path, I can say that Martin should not have turned around beforehand. Therefore, since we cannot actually define a certain point in time where the interactions began (as least, via your requirements), the point you`ve chosen is your personal whim.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
Actually if you did some research you`d see the medical report used verfied he had a broken nose. Ever have a broken nose it`s not that minor.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Smag:

Everything Zimmerman did, up to the point where Martin jumped him, was legal and within Martin`s civil and human rights.

It was the singular point of time where Martin connected a punch with Zimmerman that the altercation began. The court saw it that way, and so did we.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
How can it be personal whim when I say "the beginning of their interactions"? Which lasted all of about four minutes? How difficult is it to define the beginning? Whatever, HumanAction. Ultimately I`m just bitching. I accept the verdict. It is what it is. And, I guess if someone gets themselves into a fight and finds themselves losing and shoots and kills his opponent, we`ll have this discussion again. For me, this just isn`t a cut and dry case. There are tons of variables and I just can`t see ALL of them coming down for George Zimmerman like you can. But, like I say, you win, Brother. The jury sides with Zimmerman, that`s the law, my bitching and whining is pointless. I`ll stop now.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Smag

Since you`re insisting:

1. arbitrary: Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Pay attention to the "personal whim" part specifically. Where you assume that Zimmerman followed Martin and that said point initiated the sequence of events leading to Martin`s death is where your "personal whim" makes the point in time arbitrary.

As for the assault, you did not explain it at all and you did not post a link to it. AvatarJohn posted it, and under no circumstances does Zimmerman`s actions meet the requirements. If you think otherwise, then you have made an assumption about Zimmerman`s intentions - something I`ve seen you repeatedly argue against when done to Martin. Don`t be a hypocrite.

Also, the first interaction was when Martin fled the scene. Thus, by your requirements, Martin initiated the sequence of events leading to his death.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
McGovern1981, no. Do your research. His "injuries" were looked at at the scene and determined to not require attention other than a baby wipe.

Human Action, you keep using the word arbitrary. You may want to look that up. I`ve already posted here about the legal definition of assault, and how Zimm could easily have met it. It`s entirely logical to judge their interactions from the moment they crossed each other`s paths. That is, after all, how we would judge Zimmerman`s actions if we were considering manslaughter. It`s the totality of the interaction, not some arbitrary moment in time like you`re trying to enforce. Your version requires pre-judgment of contested evidence and testimony. Mine does not.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]even though his injuries didn`t even require medical attention (at all) he was justified in shooting and killing Martin [/quote]

If he didn`t require medical attention why sre therer medical reports verfiying he had a broken nose, black eyes and laceration on the back of his head. Oh ya cause he went to see a doctor....
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]After all, isn`t that what all of the Zimmerman supporters want us to do?[/quote]
No - you`re simply confused. I`ll explain:

You are picking an arbitrary action along an entire sequence of events because it violates your own subjective moral code, and then suggesting that it is wholly responsible for a specific outcome.

We are saying that such hindsight is completely useless and is open to bias since it is based on a subjective moral code.

Rather, the only reasonable, unbiased way to look back and assign blame is to find the point where we ventured from a legal situation to an illegal situation. There is no subjectivity involved and thus, cannot be personally biased.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]the one who started the whole chain of events[/quote]
Brilliant. Pick a completely arbitrary point along the infinite sequence of events and assume that it is wholly responsible for a specific outcome.

Here are some other points along the line that ultimately led to Martins death:

1. If his parents never had sex, he would have never been born, and could never have been killed (Parents Fault);
2. If he had never been suspended, he would not have been there, and would not have been killed (Martin`s fault);
3. If humans never existed, he wouldn`t have been killed (God`s fault?);
4. If he hadn`t gone to the gas station, he wouldn`t have been killed (Martin`s fault);
5. If the dad`s girlfriend never dated the dad, then Martin wouldn`t be there, and wouldn`t have been killed (Girlfriends fault).

I love picking random points in time and saying, yep, this is where it all started.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
Tupinambis, I was being a bit facetious. After all, isn`t that what all of the Zimmerman supporters want us to do? Ignore all of the stuff that happened prior, and just focus on the moment in time where Martin turned on him and began beating Zimmerman, to the point that, even though his injuries didn`t even require medical attention (at all) he was justified in shooting and killing Martin (who, was, in fact, unarmed)? I mean, what`s good for the goose, right?
0
Reply
Male 89
how many tangents did I just witness?
0
Reply
Male 567
@SmagBoy1
Good thing everyone doesn`t see it as "one armed, one not. Neither breaking the law. Then, all of the sudden, the unarmed one is dead and the armed one, the one who started the whole chain of events, is alive."
0
Reply
Male 2,855
when you do racial profiling and you are right that black person is a criminal, is it racial profiling? Think about it
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"and grabbed him by the shoulder,"

D`OH!
0
Reply
Male 4,431
Gerry, I don`t subscribe to MSNBC`s views any more than I do FOXNews`.

auburnjunky, you`re right! Zimmerman did have every right to ask Martin why he was there. However, when he hopped out of his vehicle and started following him and grabbed him by the shoulder, he crossed the line. You might say that didn`t happen. Okay, well, we don`t know it didn`t happen any more or less than what Zimm says happened.

Regardless, you had two dudes out there, one armed, one not. Neither breaking the law. Then, all of the sudden, the unarmed one is dead and the armed one, the one who started the whole chain of events, is alive. I`d say he`s guilty of carlessness. I`d say, like B37, he started something that got out of control. I`d say you shouldn`t be allowed to walk free with NO punishment after starting the circumstances that end with an unarmed teen dead. But, that said, I do accept the verdict. I just don`t think it`s right.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
SmagBoy. Come on dude.

Zimmerman had every right to run up to Martin and ask him why he was there. Martin had the right to tell him to piss off, and then go home too.

The problem started when Trayvon decided on himself, to double back, and follow Zimmerman, hide in some bushes, discard the slim jim tool he was carrying, and jump Zimmerman from behind.
0
Reply
Male 39,531

[quote]"That`s typical conservative black and white thinking"[/quote]
Check your LIBERAL msnbc to find out who`s pushing those "typical conservative black and white" issues.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]That whole altercation could have been avoided had Zimmerman not tried to play hero that night.[/quote]
Hindsight is the evidence of fools. If Zimmerman hadn`t observed Martin and Martin then went on to attack, rape, or kill someone, we`d be saying "if only Zimmerman would have followed."

It is far to convenient to look back and play the "could`ve, would`ve, should`ve" game. The only intellectually honest thing we can do is look back and ask, was the action legal or illegal?
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@SmagBoy1

It in no way states a single thing about power.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]As for the rest, the GPS, and people seeing anything prior to the shot, that`s all wrong or grossly exaggerated. I`m pretty sure you know that.[/quote]

Which is why is was thrown out with the other evidence... oh ya no it wasn`t it was evidence.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
You have a reading problem. My definition matches yours exactly. If you want to practice racism, definition #2, you have to have power. Without power, your prejudice or discrimination is worthless and no one pays it any attention. It only matters when it has weight, when it can actually negatively affect. A word isn`t racist. Actions are.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
[quote]ROFL!!! I`m gonna go out on a limb and guess you`re black.[/quote]

Nope. Lily white. I just acknowledge cultural and historical reality.

As for the rest, the GPS, and people seeing anything prior to the shot, that`s all wrong or grossly exaggerated. I`m pretty sure you know that. Anyhow, like I say, I accept the verdict. I don`t like it, I think it`s wrong, but I accept it. Juries are sometimes wrong. See O.J. Simpson, for example.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
Definition of RACISM
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2: racial prejudice or discrimination

Websters

RACISM does not follow your ridiculous stipulations that`s an excuse to justify the black communities hypocrisy.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]TruTenrMan: whoever told you that is absolutely correct in countries where the racial majority holds institutional power. Racism and bias are not the same thing. Racism requires institutional power that racial minorities don`t have in this country. It`s not true, however, in countries where minorities have the institutional power (like South Africa, etc.). Racism always lies with those in power. Power is required for the inherent threat behind racism.[/quote]

ROFL!!! I`m gonna go out on a limb and guess you`re black.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
McGovern1981, I`ve never said that Zimmerman is a devil. I`m not even saying race played a significant role. Nor am I saying that Zimmerman went out with the intent to assault Martin, or that Martin was an angel. That`s typical conservative black and white thinking. I see a lot of gray. I see a lot of blame to go around. I see a lot of issues at work here. But, too, I think that if you start a situation, that if you exacerbate it, and then find yourself on the bad end of it, you *shouldn`t* have a right to end it by killing someone. As for GPS and witness who saw what happened prior to the shooting, that`s bull and you know it.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@SmagBoy1

What is known is your angel Trayvon was at his fathers house and then proceeded to go back from there to assault Zimmerman. His phone GPS tracking shows this along with eyewitnesses seeing tray on top of Zim. I`m sure the all a "white hispanic" devils conspiricy to you though...
0
Reply
Male 39,531

[quote]"a free man who can still carelessly and legally carry a gun."[/quote]
Makes you proud to be `murican!
0
Reply
Male 39,531

[quote]"Charles Barkley Has Intelligent Things To Say."[/quote]
Unlike most of us at IAB.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
It`s pretty sad when a former basletball player has more sense than the President of the US and the attorney general amongst others.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
AvatarJohn: Zimmerman was headed back to his car. That`s a known? Yeah, my ass. That`s known with about as much certainty as what was going through Martin`s mind when being pursued. We`ll never know because the only witness still alive to tell us about the entire encounter is Zimmerman.

TruTenrMan: whoever told you that is absolutely correct in countries where the racial majority holds institutional power. Racism and bias are not the same thing. Racism requires institutional power that racial minorities don`t have in this country. It`s not true, however, in countries where minorities have the institutional power (like South Africa, etc.). Racism always lies with those in power. Power is required for the inherent threat behind racism.
0
Reply
Male 2,552
I have been told by a Lib-tard that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a minority to be racist, and IMPOSSIBLE for a majority to experience racism.
0
Reply
Male 1,059
SmagBoy1 actually has a point. I guess even a stopped clock is right every once in a while.

Problem is, in this case, it`s impossible to prove whether the eventual aggressor (Martin) was truly fearful of bodily harm just from a person, who was about 3 inches shorter than him and was not brandishing a weapon other than a cell phone, looking at him. What is known is that the victim (Zimmerman) headed back to his car and was walking away from Martin when Martin confronted him, so any possible perceived threat was ended.

A normal response would have been to disable the pursuer and then run away, but instead, Martin punched Zimmerman and then savagely beat him, possibly intending to kill him. At that point, Martin was the aggressor and Z. was the victim. The rest is history.
0
Reply
Male 390
A black man who agrees with the verdict. Proves everything. The whole thing is OK now. Stand your ground is a civilized law that makes complete sense in the 21st century, as long as we keep behaving like barbarians who enjoy hunting and killing humans.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Believe I linked to this within an earlier GZ post.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Mister Barkley says something straightforward for once! Huzzah!
0
Reply
Male 4,431
Charles Barkley, and good for him, is making the same mistake that the jurors and that 5Cats have made and that that they are considering there to have been two separate events. They`re pretending that Zimmerman didn`t engage Martin, that he didn`t pursue Martin to the point of legal assault (look up the definition) and that Martin`s actions weren`t justified, that Martin doesn`t get to defend himself from assault.

But, hey, like I`ve said before, that`s what the jury found and that`s what the verdict is. Doesn`t mean it`s the right verdict. Zimmerman should be held accountable for his actions. Martin is dead, Zimmerman is a free man who can still carelessly and legally carry a gun.
0
Reply
Male 7,782
He`s spot on. As far as law in concerned there wasn`t enough evidence to convict. Did Zimmerman target him and go after someone he shouldn`t have? Absolutely. Travyon wasn`t an innocent youth but in the end someone died that shouldn`t have that night.

That whole altercation could have been avoided had Zimmerman not tried to play hero that night.
0
Reply
Male 40,277
Link: Charles Barkley Has Intelligent Things To Say [Rate Link] - About the Zimmerman trial, on a CNBC show. Good for him! Story in credits link below.
0
Reply