He also didn't listen to them. He chased the subject when he wasn't even asked to. If I think someone is breaking into my neighbor's house I'm gonna call the cops and lock my doors, not call the cops then go to my neighbor's house with a gun a lust for blood.
What you're failing to understand is that unless you threaten someone with physical harm it's not a crime. Calling someone a n-word, while stupid, is not sufficient provocation to justify a physical response. You WILL lose that one in court every time. And as relates to this case, simply following someone is not sufficient to justify a physical response, either. You will also lose that one in court every time. Hell, as far as this one goes I blame the parents more than I blame Martin. His parents should have tried to teach him that there are usually more appropriate responses to stressful situations than hitting someone.
You don't even know that he continued to chase him after told that they didn't need him to do that. He acknowledged with an "OK". He reports that he started to head back to his vehicle after that, and there really isn't anything to refute that. As for lusting for blood? Really? And you wonder why people think your side is going over the top with this? You're speculating.
So someone chases you, it is your duty to stop and say "hey bro, what you chasing me for? You're not even a cop?". That's idiotic. Chasing someone is a threat. Stalking someone is a threat. What you don't get is that threats aren't just direct phrases and actions, sub text is as important.
I didn't say he had a lust for blood, I implied it. According to your faulty logic context is meaningless unless I actually said he had a lust for blood. Context is b****.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>George Zimmerman won't be getting his gun back right away <a href="http://t.co/tHQQMJRLN2">http://t.co/tHQQMJRLN2</a></p>— Yahoo! News (@YahooNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/YahooNews/statuses/358078564962287618">July 19, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Uh, no, the simple fact that someone is following you is NOT in and of itself a threat. It does NOT give you the right to clock the person. I get that it's going to make you nervous - maybe scare the crap out of you. But physically confronting the person following you is about the least wise option you can choose out of a range of options. I am talking about what is legal and what is not. I am also talking about what is smart and what is not. If nothing else this case should be a shining example of why you should really try to avoid a physical confrontation with someone. The other guy just might have a gun. Personally, to me violence is ALWAYS the last resort. You can call me whatever the F you want, I don't care. You can follow me if you want, I don't care. I am always armed, of course, which keeps me meek and gives me an incentive to avoid confrontation. A guy like you, who seems to be cool with clocking someone just for namecalling, is probably exactly the type of person who shouldn't be carrying a weapon. You don't appear to have the temperament or the self control for it.
Like I said, tell that to a woman walking to her car at night alone. Call some random black guy on the street the n word. You will get the piss knocked out of you. The fact that you do not see it as a threat just means you are not a reasonable person.
Just like there are black people that will always hate white people. Not saying either way is right but that goes both ways. But there will always be a segment of the population that believe only black people can be slighted by the justice system...that doesn't go both ways. One of the most reputable law professors in this country said that Zimmerman's civil rights had been egregiously violated in this case. Of course, no one cares about that because he is a "white hispanic" and it is a boring, non-controversial point of discussion. Pursing a civil rights case from this is only asking to divide this country further. Those that believe that justice will be served at the federal level will be deeply disappointed and that will exacerbate the racial tension this case has created.
See, I'm not stupid enough to do any of those things, though. I get that it's provocative. What you do not seem to get is that while provocative, those things alone are not sufficient reason to engage in force. The fact that you think that they are only shows your level of immaturity. This really is not that complicated. *******, I am starting to remember why I stopped coming to D&D all those years ago, too many stupid freaking people.
You have this assumption that Z called TM a '*****', which is completely unfounded. Z very likely called him a punk and accused him of being a criminal, but I highly doubt he referred to him in any racist manner. Its perfectly acceptable to call someone a 'crazy ass cracka'. The hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me.
There are a lot of signs like that in a protest though. I wouldn't make much of it. You aren't even willing to discuss the possibility of it being about race so I don't know why I waste the time trying. It's just. "Nope. It's not. Nope, impossible." Call the cops and leave it at that? I don't know, but if Trayvon was really going from house to house and being suspicious I'd think someone else would vouch for that. I just don't believe all of GZ story, very easy to exaggerate on something like that... He did run at some point. As if I ever said that. It's that the Criminal Justice System doesn't work the same for black people.
Nope. I never even said that. You assumed I said that. I never did. I merely called up another example of what you deem to be not self defense worthy in calling a black man the n word. I was saying the threat of violence is not always a direct threat, context and tone are as important as physical actions and direct threats. Also, I don't think it's ok to call someone a crazy ass cracka. It isn't.
Eh, not a huge loss. The PF9 is a POS. I used to have one, damned thing literally broke on me at the range. Seriously, the takedown pin snapped in half while I was shooting. I got rid of it after that and would never carry one again. He should look into a Glock or XD for his next one anyway. But I suppose he could probably sell the KelTec on Gunbroker.com for a ton of $$, to help fund the security he will need for the rest of his life.
Are you being dense on purpose? What part of "namecalling someone does not warrant physical response" do you not understand? Yes, some people will kick the **** out of you for the smallest offense, but those people also go to jail and pay fines when the case goes to court.
It's not just the signs. There have been sporadic outbreaks of violence, vandalism, and theft. And the undercurrent is violent. The threat is there. Give us what we want or we will riot. You aren't even willing to discuss the possibility that it wasn't about race, so ditto.
I never claim to speak for every black person though. You continue to say "We don't like this! We can't sympathize with this!" I'm not using the royal we here and I'm not trying to make this a black people vs white people thing. I'm trying to make this a Criminal Justice System vs Black people thing and you're getting quite defensive about it is all.
