"Racism is dead in America." Bullshit
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Sunday, August 30, 2026 19:02
VIEWED: 28755
PAGE 12 of 27
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
Injuries are substantive proof of assault
CT, it's not 'assault' if it was Trayvon acting in self-defence, which seems to have been the case. Even if Trayvon jumped Zimmerman, HE WAS BEING STALKED - so such an action could reasonably be construed as defensive.
It's not personal. It's just war.
Exactly. Z's injuries are substantive proof of nothing.
As to the alleged eye-witness, we've already heard one witness state that their statements to police were changed from what they said they heard and saw.
You say self defense. Was Zimmerman approaching Martin with a gun out? Zimmerman had the same right to be in that place as Martin. He had the right to follow a suspicious looking person. His neighbors had appointed him to the community watch. In essence, asking him to do that very thing.
Zimmerman's injuries do back up a justification for use of force. Which is all required under Florida law. "Why did you use deadly force?" "Because I was being battered by the decedent." End of story. Brutal, but the end.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Troll
I just want to know - have we finally, FINALLY gotten past the idea that if you are armed and you are stalking someone that you can't claim self-defense?
As long as the gun is holstered, it has no bearing on the events. There was no stalking. Zimmerman had the same right as Martin to be in that spot. Whatever happened between the two of them remains a mystery. But from an eyewitness and the subsequent physical injury to Zimmerman we know that Martin battered Zimmerman. At that point, the gun comes into play. Zimmerman had all the justification to use deadly force required under law.
Do I think it was right and prudent? Depends on the circumstances. Did Zimmerman try to hold Martin at gunpoint? Unknown. Could it have gone down better? Absolutely.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:You can't legally punch someone for hitting you, but you CAN kill someone for your self defense (if they're poor).
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I just want to know - have we finally, FINALLY gotten past the idea that if you are armed and you are stalking someone that you can't claim self-defense?
So, jungle anyone?
Under Florida law, yes. Under Florida law you can punch someone for hitting you. Since the law is silent on the use of non-deadly force when threatened, it is permissible. In fact, since an eyewitness saw Zimmerman and Martin fighting, we can conclude that Zimmerman did or attempted to, punch Martin for hitting him.
Where does relative wealth enter into it?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Troll
I just want to know - have we finally, FINALLY gotten past the idea that if you are armed and you are stalking someone that you can't claim self-defense?
Also, if you're armed, stalking someone and accosting them, you're not "standing your ground" or defending your "castle"; you're hunting people, plain and simple, and just begging for any excuse to kill someone.
There was no stalking. Zimmerman had the same right as Martin to be in that place. There was no prohibition for Zimmerman following Martin. In fact, as a community watch member he had a justification for doing so.
What was Martin's justification for hitting Zimmerman?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I stand by my comments.
I could have accepted an insult delivered in heat. But when calmer demeanors return, I expect an apology from an adult.
Quote:
And, FYI - someone forwarded the available info and case specific data to former states attorney and governor jennifer granholm, who I have a ton of respect for - and while she said it far more diplomatically, her review of the situation is in all particulars identical to mine.
Second degree murder.
Thankfully, politicians and security guards are not part of law enforcement. One group passes laws ignorant of their unintended consequences. The other is not held to the same standards of performance as police.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Relevant quotes:
"The issues here are not racism"
"
The issue is that there is a perception that a certain group (or groups) are dangerous. For the most part, its earned..."
"Then, thrown into the mix, is the idea that "clothes make the man". Combine the 2, a perceived dangerous group, in clothing that promotes said image of savagery..."
"a solution will require a shift in culture of said group."
"Asians are not known as being an overtly dangerous group."
"if the kid was asian, and wearing gangster gear (Fubu, hoodie, Tims... whatever) would this have turned out the same? It might have."
"this kid was a victim of the negative aspects (both perceived and vetted) of his grouping."
"Maybe the group should work to change its perception"
And of the perpetrator?
"a man who is determined to keep his area safe..."
Hello Wulf,
Your comments remind me of the Wulf I knew.
Apparently, when black people start behaving themselves, there will be less incidents like this one.
Also, Asians are alright, but not when they dress funny.
I note that you place the real onus of change on the cultures of the victims, and not the culture that may prey on them because of gross racial and style generalizations.
--Anthony
ETA: Relevant quotes from Wulf's post.
_______________________________________________
Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196
Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I take offense to that.
"cultures of the victims"? Explain that.
Also, stating that a culture has a perception is not un-true, or un-kind. It just is. If it has a negative aspect, working to change it for the positive might be the SMART thing to do.
AND, as to "and style generalizations.." Are you kidding me?
Heres a test. If you dress up as a police officer, would you be surprised if people thought of you as law-enforcement?
Same thing. Clothing does invoke perception. Arguing that you can dress up as a cop (when you are not one) and then be angry if people think you are law-enforcement is just stupid.
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I take offense to that.
Hello,
I also found it offensive.
Quote:
"cultures of the victims"? Explain that.
In this case, the victims are those who are murdered because of the gross generalizations you mention. You put the onus of culture change on them, so that they are no longer murdered because of what people assume about them.
Quote:
Heres a test. If you dress up as a police officer, would you be surprised if people thought of you as law-enforcement?
What an interesting leap. Obviously if I dress in a manner proscribed to a profession, I will be determined to be of that profession. The iconic nature of police uniforms is actually protected by law in some places.
Quote:
Same thing. Clothing does invoke perception.
Yes, my wife's beloved hoodies, by your example, mark her as a gangsta who may be pre-emptively murdered by some shlub trying to protect his neighborhood.
Meanwhile the culture of gun-toting neighborhood commandos is given a pass for jumping to conclusions about people due to the color of their skin and choice of clothing.
Where is the talk about the culture of the aggressor? The culture of might-makes-right, assumptions are warranted, I am a yahoo cowboy, and God can sort em out?
If that culture changed, then all the other cultures and people who enjoy types of fashion would be safe. Including my poor wife and her gangsta hoodie.
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196
Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Again.
If you don't want people to think you are a cop, don't dress and act like one.
If you don't want people to think you are a thug (and treat you like one), same thing applies.
Sorry that pisses you off. It doesn't change that its true, however.
We all have our crosses to bear. Being a tall, handsome, white, male... I have had to deal with being thought of as wealthy. Born with a silver spoon and all of it. I wasn't.
But because there is a perception of certain characteristics, culture and the like, you will be judged in the first 10 seconds of someone seeing you.
Its the way of the world. You may not like it, but do grow up.
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
You may not like it, but do grow up.
Hello,
A grownup is someone who knows that you can't judge a person by their appearance.
It's what you do that matters.
'Walking while gangsterish' is a crime only in immature minds. The culture that needs to change, Wulf, is yours. The culture of people who excuse abuses. The "that's what they get for dressing that way" culture.
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196
Never forget what this man is. You keep forgiving him his trespasses and speak to him as though he is a reasonable human being. You keep forgetting the things he's advocated. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME