Real World Event Discussions

"Racism is dead in America." Bullshit

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Sunday, August 30, 2026 19:02
VIEWED: 28755
PAGE 16 of 27

OONJERAH

Thursday, March 22, 2012 11:48 PM

Did he slur?

MAL4PREZ

Friday, March 23, 2012 12:16 AM

See, and I hoped the Wulfie would be the one to learn from all this. Silly me.

Yeah, Wulfie, you're the one who said that hoodies are the real issue to be discussed here. You really are living under a rock, and I pity the person you take your PTSD/groupist/hero-wannabe issues out on. I sure hope we aren't reading a story like this about you someday, and you aren't left having to live with the reality that YOU, like Zimmerman, are the real power of oppression, getting in the way of people's personal freedoms - by killing some poor kid because he wore the wrong thing and walked the wrong way while having the wrong color skin.

I am wearing a hoodie today, BTW. I do many days. Sometimes, I wear it with big black leather boots. Should I be shot? Or is that only if I slouch while I walk?

This is ridiculous!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NIKI2

Friday, March 23, 2012 1:01 AM

Amen Mal4.

Yeah, Oonj, that's where I heard it too. Problem for me was they never played the whole thing again, and played the supposed slur over and over and over. Had me talking back to the TV, it did, saying "So let us hear the whole thing again!" Having heard it again (thank you), I'm afraid I'm jumping off the fence on the side that he did say it. No, WHISPERED it...maybe even he knew how it would sound.

Sad, sad, sad. From everything I hear and read about the boy, I think we lost a good one, for no good reason.

1KIKI

Friday, March 23, 2012 6:32 AM

"Zimmerman had the same right to be in that place as Martin."

Actually, no, he didn't.

He was STALKING Martin. And Martin knew he was being followed - he said so to his g/f. And dispatch knew Zimmerman was stalking, they told him not to. The fact that he was stalking Martin is well established. No one has the 'right' to STALK anyone. Then Zimmerman cornered Martin. You seem to keep thinking that Zimmerman was out for a pleasant walk and he and Martin just happened to pass on the street, both having the prefect right to be there. That wasn't the case. Zimmerman was acting in a threatening manner to Martin. If Martin had had a gun, he would have had every right to shoot Zimmerman.

What I wonder Troll, is why your arguments seem so factually deficient. I mean, you couldn't miss more salient facts if your name was ... oh, THAT'S who you are.

Well, gosh, I'm going to just have to ignore you from now on.

ANTHONYT

Friday, March 23, 2012 6:54 AM

Quote:
If Martin had had a gun, he would have had every right to shoot Zimmerman.

Hello,

Ugh.

I'm not Ughing at you, Kiki, because I know what you are trying to say. But rather I ugh at the idea behind it all. The casual killer idea.

I don't think anyone would have been advised to shoot anyone else in this scenario, and I am very sad that it happened. I'm more sad that we may never get enough evidence to convict in a case that is probably murder, and a killer will be free to stalk again.

A lot of folks seem to think that if they have a gun and the law gives them the 'right' to shoot someone, (meaning they can get away with it) then they should go ahead and do it. But to paraphrase a favorite movie, just because we CAN do something doesn't mean we SHOULD.

I love firearms. Shooting is a great sport. They also make great equalizers between the weak and the strong.

But damn if I don't think people are too quick to reach for a gun in order to solve their problems.

Perhaps it's just me being silly or foolish, but it takes more than someone acting in a threatening manner to get me to go about killing them. I'd have to actually believe that I was going to die. Mind you- not merely argue to an officer or a judge that I was in fear for my life, which is a legal technicality that must be observed. No. I'd have to actually think it was true. "Holy shit, I'm about to die, I'm out of options, God help me, I have to kill someone."

Because killing someone? It doesn't get much more terrible than that. It shouldn't be a casual thing or a first response or something we do just because we can get away with it.

It should be a terrible nightmare that happens when all better options slip through your grasp, and one that you deeply regret even if it was necessary to save yourself.

--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.

1KIKI

Friday, March 23, 2012 7:09 AM

For myself, I can't even imagine shooting anyone. It's such a big blank it just doesn't have an imaginable form.

But people keep assuming that Zimmerman had the 'right' to do what he did. What about Martin's rights? He was being stalked. He got cornered. Martin was the person who was being threatened, and Zimmerman was the aggressor.

That's all I'm pointing out - there's the sauce, and the goose, and the gander.

AURAPTOR

Friday, March 23, 2012 10:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

No one has the 'right' to STALK anyone.

Try telling the Paparazzi that one.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

1KIKI

Friday, March 23, 2012 5:29 PM

Public figures have less protection than you or I, and even then paparazzi are limited in what they can do. For example they can't 'impede' a person on a public street. They are also not allowed to corner someone.

But you know little Rappy, keep dreaming your little dream that Zimmerman was within his rights. That way when a rapist, mugger, car-jacker or robber corners a targeted victim and the victim fights back, you can always stick up for the rights of the criminal to shoot the targeted victim in 'self-defense'. Be loud and proud about it now. But don't forget to be consistent later. I will be posting quotes from you.

1KIKI

Friday, March 23, 2012 5:46 PM

Troll (as if)

Just one more thing - you may want to quibble about the word 'stalking'. Go ahead. No one here is using it in the legal sense, they are using it in the common parlance. But go ahead. The next time a rapist corners a woman, or a mugger follows a victim, or a carjacker walks up to a car stopped in traffic, we'll all remember that you defend that on the basis that you'd rather quibble about the legal definition of a particular word choice. Just so you're clear that this will be hung around your neck.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, March 23, 2012 5:47 PM

Where does self-defense start and end?

In defense of your life? Your families life? Your home? Your country?

Riddle me this. Answer that. When does the taking of another life, have no justification?

Some would say when its about property. Yet, if that property sustains you, and your family, is it not justified?

Or, if the continual plundering of property (your neighbors as well) threatens the health and safety of your home and family... is it not justified?

Again, I still say this was a clusterfrak... a perfect storm of culture clashing..

There is no answer to it, no law that will ever stop it from happening, no magic bullet.

But maybe, since we do live in a society where every people and culture are included, there should be an understanding.

However, I know that these words will fly over the heads of at least 92% of the population.

Its just easier to find a scapegoat, instead of actually fixing the problem. Such is the way of idiots.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"