There is an issue with a Zimmerman trial witness not being talked about on the mainstream media, but it sure is a hot topic on talk radio.

It was revealed in the Piers Morgan interview of Racheal Jentel.
She said what she and Trayvon were most concerned about was that Zimmerman was a gay stalker who was intending to rape Trayvon.

The issue this raises is the homophobia in the black community.
And it's being pointed out that Sharpton and his kind definitely don't want to talk about this because Sharpton once called someone a "punk faggot" on a national tv show.

What I wanna know is, since Paula Dean had her whole reputation destroyed only because she used the word "nigger" a long time ago, why hasn't Sharpton had his reputation destroyed when he used the word "faggot"?

I mean shouldn't he at least have to go in front of Richard Simmons and beg forgiveness? Or be grilled by Matt Lauer? lol

"be grilled" LOL

It's one of the most blatant double standards and hypocrisy I have ever heard about,  and believe me I've heard about a bunch of those.  lol

Here we have this dude who has set himself up as the "St Peter of Bigotry".
And everybody like Don Imus and the rest are required to bow before him and beg his forgiveness.

BUT,  when he calls people "faggots",  there is not a goddamn peep out of anybody,  there is nobody he has to apologize to,  and it just makes him a bigger celebrity with more worshippers.

What an unadulterated,  unmitigated,  indefensible crock of shit.  lol
And to think,  his credentials for becoming the "St Peter of Bigotry" was being James Brown's road manager (no shit).  lol

I would not limit the fear of Homosexuals approaching children to the black community. It is this generalization that fails to recognize that people of the same sex can have a loving relationship, and that loving relationship somehow is equated with a deviant act which we should fear that it equates with a child molester. It does not. To the extent that black churches are very influential in the black community, and to the extent that until very recently Christians across the board have condemned the status of homosexuality, it is not surprising that Black ministers would make such statements. It was wrong when it was said, and it is wrong today.

However, the fear of the same is very real and tangible. That fear may not be reasonable. Yet, if Trayvon had survived and had expressed the fear that a gay man was tracking him.......under stand your ground law his fear of the same would be presumed to be reasonable and the state would have to rebut the same. I know in the black community this is not without some actual events which go beyond mere urban myth. I personally know of a police officer who was a key witness in the conviction of a white male homosexual who would pick up black kids and pay them money to perform oral sex. Not one kid, but by the time it was over multiple kids. These stories are no different than the introduction of one person in the trial who had been burglarized by black teens......therefore the fear of trayvon was deemed reasonable........a strange cracker approaching a black teen at night ......you know....it had to be for homosexual sex.

Seaoat,  I would like to see if anybody can give us actual data,  and not just homophobic bigotry and wild claims and superstition,  that would cause any concern about white homosexuals (or hispanic white or whatever he is) stalking and raping black teenagers.

I put that right up there with Bill O'Reilly saying lesbian gangs are terrorizing the countryside.  lol

In other words,  I'm calling bullshit on it.  lol

In other words, I'm calling bullshit on it. lol


I can only speak of one case and one police officer. The perp would befriend, buy things, and give cash. He would then ask if he could perform oral sex exclusively on young black teenagers. I went to a public high school. We had a neighboring town which had a catholic all male high school. People would often hitchhike to school in the 60s. I grew up listening to those kids tell their stories about getting picked up and having men offer to give them oral sex. Were those kids embellishing reality. Probably. However, among all those mostly white kids I grew up with were rampant stories of male drivers offering to give oral sex to teenagers.

Now in regard to the case where the defendant was giving oral sex to only black teenagers........well I knew the officers and others who went to the officers wedding who told the same facts verbatim. Now, is the stories I heard as a kid from my catholic friends or the actual case not enough.....I would agree, we have already established that a law abiding citizen should be given the benefit of the doubt concerning his fears......and trayvon may have been fearful of Zimmerman wanting to have homosexual sex with him......and Zimmerman may have been fearful of great bodily harm..........but the burden would not be on either of them.....the law says the fear is presumed, and must be rebutted......so if you are calling BS.....rebutt that fear........you know it is your duty.

2seaoat wrote:and trayvon may have been fearful of Zimmerman wanting to have homosexual sex with him......and Zimmerman may have been fearful of great bodily harm..........but the burden would not be on either of them.....the law says the fear is presumed, and must be rebutted......so if you are calling BS.....rebutt that fear........you know it is your duty

Glad to.  You're leaving out the actual test the law specifically provides.  That the person must "reasonably believe" that he/she is in imminent danger of bodily harm.

And I agree,  if it can be established that Trayvon Martin is such a homophobe that he did actually "reasonably" believe this,  that the law would provide a potential defense.

But it's not my "duty" to even discuss that.  Because I have written at least a dozen posts saying I have a beef with the word "reasonable" because the law leaves it to the jury to define what the word means.  

And now let's apply my concern to exactly the situation we're discussing.  
If indeed we had learned of Martin's motive for fear during the trial, and not after the trial was over; then if a juror is a homophobe,  then he/she will define Martin's belief to be "reasonable".  If the juror is not a bigot,  he/she won't believe it's reasonable.  In this example the law's use of the word "reasonable" without defining it, may or may not be conducive to justice.  
That's why I have a beef with it.

This discussion has now gotten to be so surreal.

We have people who will say in no uncertain terms that black people should not be profiled by white people.

But the same ones who are saying that are now telling us it's perfectly reasonable for homosexuals to be profiled by black people.

You just can't make this shit up. Double standards seem to be the rule of the day. lol

Bob wrote:This discussion has now gotten to be so surreal.

We have people who will say in no uncertain terms that black people should not be profiled by white people.

But the same ones who are saying that are now telling us it's perfectly reasonable for homosexuals to be profiled by black people.  

You just can't make this shit up.  Double standards seem to be the rule of the day.  lol

 

You fail to recognize that there can be homosexual child abusers who do not get any sexual stimulation from a female. You think that somebody who has been described as a creepy cracker, was not fear, and if that fear was because of a fear of a homosexual child abuser which you find improbable and not reasonable.....and only a homophobe on the jury would confirm that fear.

In the last 20 years being bombarded by homosexual child abuser priests, and the likes of Gacy and others......you think a kid in the dark with somebody following him would be unreasonable to have fear, and Mr. Zimmerman was reasonable to think he needed to shoot an unarmed kid in the heart...........Just a word of reality........those kids who hitch hiked......well they did not take kindly to the advances.....they fought back.....was their fear also unreasonable.......would the alter boy who had fear and fought the advances of the priest.....would that also be unreasonable.......it is not simple verbs and nouns......it is comprehension of concepts.

Bob wrote:This discussion has now gotten to be so surreal.

We have people who will say in no uncertain terms that black people should not be profiled by white people.

But the same ones who are saying that are now telling us it's perfectly reasonable for homosexuals to be profiled by black people.  

You just can't make this shit up.  Double standards seem to be the rule of the day.  lol

Welcome to the hypocrisy! LOL

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Yhq1EwO5E&list=PL6DC37A612F62BE56

Tell you what, seaoat.

Go get the statistics. And if they reveal what you're saying I'll take back everything I've said in this thread and I'll never post to disagree with anything you say ever again.

What I want are these statistics.

1. The number of times a white has been attacked by a black in a predominantly black neighborhood of a large city.

2. The number of times a black has been attacked by a homosexual in a predominantly homosexual neighborhood of the same large city.

I think those statistics will reveal that your concern is about as valid as Bill O'Reilly's concern about his being attacked by a lesbian gang. lol

2seaoat wrote:You fail to recognize that there can be homosexual child abusers who do not get any sexual stimulation from a female.   You think that somebody who has been described as a creepy cracker, was not fear, and if that fear was because of a fear of a homosexual child abuser which you find improbable and not reasonable.....and only a homophobe on the jury would confirm that fear.

In the last 20 years being bombarded by homosexual child abuser priests, and the likes of Gacy and others......you think a kid in the dark with somebody following him would be unreasonable to have  fear, and Mr. Zimmerman was reasonable to think he needed to shoot an unarmed kid in the heart...........Just a word of reality........those kids who hitch hiked......well they did not take kindly to the advances.....they fought back.....was their fear also unreasonable.......would the alter boy who had fear and fought the advances of the priest.....would that also be unreasonable.......it is not simple verbs and nouns......it is comprehension of concepts.

There is no such thing as a homosexual child abuser. Pedophiles are sexually attracted to children. Some have preferences of male or female,some like both but it has nothing to do w/ homosexuality.

Bob's world.....profile equals fear

Just mere words. Words and concepts do not matter. To profile someone is a classification system, and fear is the reaction to that classification.

You argue that Trayvon's fear was equal to Zimmerman's profile where he declared that these suspects........punks.......assholes.........always get away.
What fear did the man with the gun have following this classified suspect. He had the fear that this person would commit a crime and did not belong on that sidewalk. He was so confident in his classification that he called the police. Was his fear reasonable. No There was not even a scintilla of proof that this person walking on a sidewalk other than the classification made by Mr. Zimmerman was a criminal.....Zero.

However, did Trayvon look at Mr. Zimmerman when he first saw him and say, I hate these homos, punks.....assholes.....they always get away from molesting teenagers, as he crossed the street and confronted Zimmerman, your use of the language and concepts would be correct. It would be a wrongful classification systems and would be profiling.

No, he ran. He expressed fear. He had reasonable fear, and I challenge any person on this forum to say otherwise being followed in the dark by a stranger when you are 17.......

Now trayvon, also had a classification system.......people following a person in the dark when you are afraid. His was fear was in reaction to the very real act of a stranger following a person. In a country which teaches that fear of strangers is a good tenet, and that children should be cautious about any stranger that approaches, you want to say that both were profiling......well to the extent he profiled the person following him as a stranger, and he was following......I would agree that he profiled.

However, to jump to his ultimate conclusion that the stranger could be wanting to molest him, this is not profiling homosexuals, we agree that it is profiling a stranger following, and from that profile of a stranger, one very rational conclusion which kids are taught since childhood is that strangers following you are dangerous.....you think from fear trying to understand why a stranger is following is the same as attaching a classification to a person who is walking on a public sidewalk. To the extent that he classified the person as a stranger who was scary and following him we agree. Americans are not taught that black teenagers cannot walk on sidewalks in America. If Zimmerman ran from Trayvon as he called the police telling them that one of those homos are walking in the neighborhood and they always get away........and a woman testified that her son was abused by a homosexual and Trayvon had that knowledge......I would agree with you 100%.......that did not happen.

2seaoat wrote:Bob's world.....profile equals fear

Not Bob's world, seaoat. Rachael Jentel's and Trayvon Martin's world. She told you in that interview that she and Martin were in fear of Martin being raped because they had "profiled" someone following Martin to be a homosexual rapist.

So if you have a beef with that, the beef is with her, not me.

I want to tell you all something.  It's one thing to listen to the Brother Carls and the Fred Phelpses and the other white bigots spew their homophobia.  They've never been the object of bigotry so most of them are just too ignorant to know any better.

But when it's another goddamn minority doing it which has itself been the target of bigotry and should know better than anyone else what bigotry is all about,  then it's goddamn hard to take.

To have to listen to that lowlife Sharpton make a career out of bitching about bigotry, and then learn yesterday that he calls people "faggots", is just almost too much to take in.

What I want are these statistics.


You want me to take the time to get stats to back up an illogical conclusion, to show that the profiling by Zimmerman was the same profiling, Trayvon used to profile Zimmerman, and these stats of showing homosexual attacks on blacks and black attacks on white will lead us to certainty that Trayvon's fears were not reasonable.

I would have to be drinking again......no actually I would have to be drunk.....drinking alone cannot excuse the total lack of clarity in your conclusion or concepts. Lets try logic.

1. Trayvon is a criminal because he is black and walking on a sidewalk at night.

2, Zimmerman is a homosexual child abuser because he is following a teenager at night with his car, and then on foot.

Do people get instructed rationally that black teenagers on sidewalks are criminals. There is no such rational instruction or classification given by any organization other that one centered on racism.

Do children get instructed rationally that strangers following them is dangerous, and that something bad can happen to that child.

Is not the fear of a black teenager where one concludes that they are a criminal without any proof of the same racial profiling.

Is not the fear of a stranger, where one concludes that a person following a person at night, is not profiling but a real and present danger to a child? Is the fear expressed by that child that the motivation of the stranger may be sexual not first profiling of a stranger following a child, and then an attempt to rationally classify the reality as compared to the utter lack of facts in a typical profiling case?

The profile was a stranger following in the dark.......a real and present fear, it was not profiling to think of what that action may be rationally connected to.....sexual assault, robbery, or simply a hate crime for who he was, because the threshold of action had already been reached....

To have to listen to that lowlife Sharpton make a career out of bitching about bigotry, and then learn yesterday that he calls people "faggots", is just almost too much to take in.



Two wrongs do not make a right.

Seaoat,  I throw in the towel.  You win.  
You and I have both spent enough time arguing about this trial.  Let's move on to something else and put this trial behind us.   lol

Here's another good topic,  seaoat.

What is Joe Biden doing to earn his salary and his cadillace health insurance and his taxpayer paid free residence (a big mansion) and all the other amazing perks he gets?

My position:  In the past at least he was saying stupid but entertaining soundbites.  So I guess that earned him the minimum wage or something.
But now he's not even doing that anymore.

Through discussion we find a path to truth. None of us possess the truth. We challenge and learn. The process is far more important than the destination. This thread actually has been very important in people thinking about the classification used by Mr. Zimmerman, and the classification used by Trayvon. I did not find it a waste of time, or I would not have responded. You never win if discussions are not a destination.

I guess I'll have to put up another thread for the Biden topic so I'll do that now.

Just being a teen and being followed in the dark is horribly frightening. Has it ever happened to any of you?
It did happen to me. Just once, and only for a short distance. I have never forgotten the fear it invoked. Yes, fear for my life. I can still feel exactly how it made me feel. This was more than 40 years ago.
I can very much empathize with Trayvon, in this situation.

jose balu wrote:Just being a teen and being followed in the dark is horribly frightening. Has it ever happened to any of you?
It did happen to me. Just once, and only for a short distance. I have never forgotten the fear it invoked. Yes, fear for my life. I can still feel exactly how it made me feel. This was more than 40 years ago.
I can very much empathize with Trayvon, in this situation.  

At the time did you think it was a homosexual following you?  Or more likely that somebody was gonna try to mug you (rob you)?

Bob wrote:

jose balu wrote:Just being a teen and being followed in the dark is horribly frightening. Has it ever happened to any of you?
It did happen to me. Just once, and only for a short distance. I have never forgotten the fear it invoked. Yes, fear for my life. I can still feel exactly how it made me feel. This was more than 40 years ago.
I can very much empathize with Trayvon, in this situation.  

At the time did you think it was a homosexual following you?  Or more likely that somebody was gonna try to mug you (rob you)?

No. It was a man. I was a 14 year old girl. I think it was someone wanting something other than money. Um, don't you?
Would not have mattered if they were homo, or straight, or celebate. Or made of cheese. I didn't know who he was or what he wanted.  It truly DID make me fear for my life. It still makes me shudder, and ties my stomach in knots.