I blew your attempted "gotcha" out of the water years ago. I would have acted no matter what the people's race was. another fail from FranchiseBlade
I like how he goes out of his way to point out that he flies first class, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. So funny.
for the sake of argument, let's say the support of innocence for OJ and zimmerman are equivalent. WHY do you continue to condone this sort of illogic?
So, you would act without waiting for evidence and facts. You would have committed a crime against middle easterners, without waiting for evidence. Yet when a black person is killed, you need to wait for more evidence before agreeing that the killer should be arrested. I'm glad you've clarified your position.
You needing evidence before acting isn't what you said a moment ago or in your original post. I see that after being called out for what you are, you aren't able to take responsibility and try and change your tune. Not surprising.
1. I see a big difference 2. I have been called a racist quite regularly 3. History is on my side - Which is more likely .. . historically speaking .. . . a white person going free from killing a black person . . . or a black person going free from killing a white person? He who ignores history is bound to repeat it. I don't speak for PGabs . . but I know the difference between me and Texx is 'Black and White' . . Night and Day . . . :grin: Rocket River Overwhelming Evidence *grin*LAUGH*
S.Jax- I know its frustrating to deal with race baiting individuals on here. People who for the most part never wait for the opinions of the other side when it comes to politics or certain minorities cast in negative lights. The fact the WE all know who they are means we need to bypass their opinions and post b/c based on the history of their own words they've shown to not have any type of credit with what they say. Now others can defend their actions all they want but surely wont hold them responsible for the hypocrisy they've displayed constantly throughout this thread and others. An animal that shows its stripes as a Zebra can't say its a Mustang. As long as he keeps the very horribly thin veil of secrecy, he can "claim" he's something else.
Keep in mind that we aren't a jury and at this point everyone who participated in this thread should be disqualified from participating in a jury on this case. The name of this forum is "Debate and Discussion" so it makes sense we are debating the issue of whether Zimmerman acted in self-defense or not. Regarding the issue of whether Zimmerman uttered a racial epithet or not I don't think matters. I have avoided the issue of race when looking at the situation and based on the evidence that we have while race strengthens the position that Zimmerman targeted Martin even without knowing the race of the individuals the fact remains Zimmerman deliberately followed Martin and precipitated the confrontation that ended up in a shooting. While yes we probably don't know the facts and likely never will know everything about it keep in minds that juries don't always know all of the facts and the presentation of those facts is filtered by evidentiary rules and are since we have an adversarial system are presented always presented with some level of bias by prosecution and defense. We are left with the facts as we know it. It's reasonable say we don't know enough, I say it all the time, but at the same time then I don't understand the vehemence with arguing a null position by resorting to ignorance or speculation against facts. Is there is a possibility that Zimmerman acted out of self-defense and the shooting is justified? Yes, I outlined that scenario back on page 15, I think, of this thread. Given what is known and what more info is coming out that position doesn't seem very likely. While I agree that certain posters have been vilified and piled on and I think everyone should take a step back. While their position may have some merit in the sense of keeping an open mind (a position which they themselves have frequently not extended on other issues) it is a position that fails to take into account facts dismisses contrary evidence by falling back on ignorance. That is neither "debate" or "discussion" but "trolling."
Anyone that is even arguing about this is straight up stupid! The kid was unarmed, with a male following him.. If a guy was following me at that age, I'd think one, this dude is trying to bone me in my ass, two, this dude wants to kick my ass, 3, this dude is trying to rob me. I don't care if it was self defense, if a guy comes up to you and try to fight you and you pull out a weapon, esp a 17 year old kid. The guy will freeze. Cleary this dumbass wanted to test his weapon on someone after all that time at the shooting range... this is nonsense..
Your first thought when you see a male behind you is that he wants to rape you? Seek out help. Talking about your past experiences often helps stop you from reliving them.
Listen, anyone that defended OJ was crazy or stupid. That was a crazy, stupid thing to do when he was probably the most obviously guilty murderer in our lifetimes and it was common enough among blacks to believe him innocent (or say they did) as to be pretty alarming. But this is not apples to apples. I don't know if you grew up here, ATW. I don't think you did but you probably know our history pretty well. This is a country where blacks were slaves (also property, also 3/5 of a person) for nearly 100 years and for the next 100 they were hanged or burned or beaten to death sometimes as vigilante justice (lets say they looked at a white lady wrong) and sometimes just for fun. And the white killers were never charged. For pretty much 200 years of our history, a white person never went to trial for the murder of a black person. And blacks, during those centuries, were subject to street justice or kangaroo courts. When it came to "white said/black said" which race do you think won at least 99.9% of the time, regardless of any evidence? Now. While those things were happening to blacks, it was whites that were doing it to them. This really only started winding down about 50 years ago. And it didn't suddenly stop when civil rights were made the law of the land. Try driving through the south with a black buddy sometime. I woke up just about 5 years ago in an Alabama motel to find in the light of day that a huge confederate flag flew outside the place where I'd slept. When I checked out I asked the black female clerk, "Doesn't that bother you?" She said, "That's just the way it's always been here." Racial profiling exists today, by private citizens that cross the street to avoid a black person or that make sure their cars are locked if a black guy comes walking by, taxi drivers that famously avoid black fares and of course most especially by cops. This profiling is always to the detriment of black people and never to the detriment of whites. And many in here have defended the practice over the years, most notably texxx's brother George. He said constantly that of course blacks should be profiled. Oh no, I've lost my train of thought. What was your question again? Oh yeah, you were asking why blacks and whites have different attitudes toward our system of justice in this country. Say what?
I am willing to accept that Martin busted Zimmerman's nose but wouldn't charge martin with assault since most evidence points to that Zimmerman started the confrontation. This was noted earlier but one of the disqualifications of self-defense is if you voluntarily enter the confrontation. The Stand Your Ground rule greatly muddles this but even under that rule Zimmerman most likely doesn't qualify. If anything Stand Your Ground strengthens the position that Martin acted out of self defense and Zimmerman was losing the fight and escalated to deadly force. I know you aren't arguing this but just elaborating on your post.
I am kind of disappointed there isn't more discussion about the dangers of the Stand Your Ground law and I think I am going to start a separate thread on it since this thread has become primarily about race.
