patrick.net

Blurtman says

Exactly. Racists are biased, as is apparently Dan8267. His interpretation is consistent with his bias.

The definition of racist isn't "someone that disagrees with you". If you are going to accuse me of racism, then prove it you pussy. There is more than enough evidence on this site that I call situations as I see them regardless of race.

By the way, dumbass, I'm white and it's pretty fucking hard to be an anti-white racist when you are white.

But hey, if you want to challenge me on bigotry, then explicitly state what races you think I'm prejudice against and show examples of my writings that support this. Otherwise, you are full of shit.

CL says

Blurtman says

If the white teenager was giving a beating to the young black man, and he was shot and killed, I would feel the same way, which is - there is enough reasonable doubt for the shooter to walk and do no time.

So, an armed black man can pursue an unarmed white teenager..... And to be clear, if that white teenager fights back in any way, the black adult male can shoot him to protect HIMSELF?

Why doesn't the pursued have the right to defend himself with fists from the pursuer? If only he had been more passive, his stalker wouldn't have had to shoot him? Is that it?

I am not sure confronting and fighting with someone who is following you is the best solution, as we can now all see. And yes, if you are on top of someone and you are beating them, you can't expect them to follow proper rules of fisticuffs. The person may be in survival mode, not really calmly thinking, and may do whatever it takes to survive. Knife, gun, punch to the nuts, eye gouge,,.... There is enough reasonable doubt for Zimmer to get off.

CL says

Do you see the Panthers and think, "Thank god for the 2nd amendment?" or "them coloreds is uppity"?

I personally think "thanks, mofos, for the ban on loaded open carry in CA".

CL says

The next moral should be, you don't have a right to shoot someone you're harassing, even if he gets the better of you when you inappropriately harass him.

This harkens back to my original objection to the use of the Stand Your Ground law. Imagine if some asshole in a bar walks up to a couple, sucker punches the guy and gropes the woman. So the guy punched gets up and punches the asshole right back knocking him on his ass. Does the asshole then have the right to pull out a gun and shoot the man under the Stand Your Ground law? Basically, the Zimmerman case is no different.

CL says

Zimmerman supporters: ask yourselves if the tables were turned, would you feel the same way?

All other things equal -- I think that, without a doubt, if Zim was black and Trayvon was white some of the most ardent Zim supporters on this forum would be: rabidly questioning the crock-of-shit story cooked up by Zim; at every turn pointing out Zim's violent history; and wailing and moaning at how unfair, racist and unjust it is that Zim is not getting charged with a hate-crime.

Dan8267 says

Blurtman says

Exactly. Racists are biased, as is apparently Dan8267. His interpretation is consistent with his bias.

The definition of racist isn't "someone that disagrees with you". If you are going to accuse me of racism, then prove it you pussy. There is more than enough evidence on this site that I call situations as I see them regardless of race.

By the way, dumbass, I'm white and it's pretty fucking hard to be an anti-white racist when you are white.

But hey, if you want to challenge me on bigotry, then explicitly state what races you think I'm prejudice against and show examples of my writings that support this. Otherwise, you are full of shit.

No at all. You can be racist and white, certainly. You can believe that all whites are advantaged, and all minorities poor, and therefore, you can be pro affirmative action, which is basically well intentioned racial discrimination. Racism is all about biases. Your describing Zimmerman as white clearly shows your racist bias. If it makes you feel any better, you may be one of them "good racists" whose beliefs cause harm, nonetheless.

Dan8267 says

Hardly. Zimmerman had no reason to be "suspicious" of Martin other than because of prejudice. What the hell did Martin do that was "suspicious" and warranted being stalked by car and on foot other than wearing a hoodie while black?

It's pretty reasonable to suspect Zimmerman of racism, and yes Hispanics can and have been racist against blacks.

Does anyone here honesty believe that Zimmerman would have chased after Martin if Martin had been white? I mean really, be honest.

I still don't understand. Why is ZM white and not Hispanic? Whether ZM is racist or not doesn't change anything as far as how he is characterized unless the point is to specifically pit white vs. black. The most recent things I've read is that he identifies himself as Hispanic. Why can't we call him Hispanic and leave whites out of this?

CL says

Do you see the Panthers and think, "Thank god for the 2nd amendment?" or "them coloreds is uppity"?

It's a bit before my time, but I don't get the impression that the NRA ever supported the Black Panther's right to bare arms.

CL says

Zimmerman supporters: ask yourselves if the tables were turned, would you feel the same way?

As a Martin supporter, I'd definitely would be just as upset if a black man stalked a white teen and killed him, regardless of whether or not the white teen fought back. The only relevance race has in this case, in my opinion, is as a probable motive for the crime. Even if that wasn't the motive, though, it's still a crime.

The aggressor does not get to claim self-defense especially when it is more than reasonable for the victim to be defending himself. I'll give a lot more leeway to an unarmed man defending himself with non-lethal force than an armed man using lethal force in defense against an unarmed man.

Is there a person here who honestly believes that Zimmerman would have been killed if he did not have a gun? Does anyone believe that Martin would have killed Zimmerman with his bare hands? That's pretty freaking unlikely. At worst Zimmerman would have suffered a well-deserved ass-whooping that would have taught him that being "suspicious" of other people might make them suspicious of you.

ch_tah2 says

I still don't understand. Why is ZM white and not Hispanic?

Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. Anyone speaking Spanish in the Americas is a Hispanic. Zimmerman is a white, light-skinned Hispanic. Just look at him.

He is obviously white. He is not obviously Hispanic.

A black teen being stalked by a white man with a skinhead, just might, just might, think that white man is up to no good given the history of the South.

ch_tah2 says

Whether ZM is racist or not doesn't change anything as far as how he is characterized unless the point is to specifically pit white vs. black.

Look, I'm not a lawyer, but even I know that motive is important when determining guilty in a murder trial. Motive is part of what determines whether or not a killing is non-criminal defense, involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, second degree murder, or first degree murder. It just is.

However, I would agree that a severe crime has been committed whether or not Zimmerman's motives were racist. The fact that he instigated the whole affair, chased after an innocent person, and gave the victim no way out is why I don't buy self-defense.

ch_tah2 says

Why can't we call him Hispanic and leave whites out of this?

To do so would be disingenuous. Racial distrust, possibly on both sides, clearly played at least a part of this tragedy.

Dan8267 says

Zimmerman would have suffered a well-deserved ass-whooping

I don't get why either person deserved to be harmed? In theory, couldn't they have just talked?
-Z: what are you doing here?
-TM: going home, why?
-Z: just checking, there have been a lot of burglaries around here.
-TM: well, not me, just bought some skittles and iced tea
-Z: ok
-TM: ok

Why do you advocate violence?

leo707 says

All other things equal -- I think that, without a doubt, if Zim was black and Trayvon was white some of the most ardent Zim supporters on this forum would be: rabidly questioning the crock-of-shit story cooked up by Zim; at every turn pointing out Zim's violent history; and wailing and moaning at how unfair, racist and unjust it is that Zim is not getting charged with a hate-crime.

+1

Hispanic is an invention of the Nixon administration. Working with commonly accepted paradigms, Zimmerman's mom would not be described as white. His dad would be certainly, as he is a Jewish American. And so Zimmerman is half white and half not white, or brown if you prefer. He would be profiled as an Hispnaic male, even if he did not utter one word. And does anyone know if Zimmerman actually speaks Spanish? Again, biase after bias is evident by racists on this board.

marcus says

leo707 says

All other things equal -- I think that, without a doubt, if Zim was black and Trayvon was white some of the most ardent Zim supporters on this forum would be: rabidly questioning the crock-of-shit story cooked up by Zim; at every turn pointing out Zim's violent history; and wailing and moaning at how unfair, racist and unjust it is that Zim is not getting charged with a hate-crime.

+1

If GZ was black and TM was white this story would have never made it into the news and nobody would be discussing it.

Dan8267 says

A black teen being stalked by a white man with a skinhead, just might, just might, think that white man is up to no good given the history of the South.

I'd like to see stats on if more blacks are killed by whites or hispanics. And the skinhead reference seems to completely ignore ZM's hispanic half unless you are implying he is a neo-nazi that hates himself.

As for motive, I agree with your point, but my beef is with the media. They are making this a white on black crime, when it really should be hispanic on black crime.

mell says

If GZ was black and TM was white this story would have never made it into the news and nobody would be discussing it.

True, because GZ would have been arrested immediately, charged and convicted for committing murder.

Dan8267 says

Blurtman says

If you legitimately fear for your life. So the moral of the story is - don't pummel a neurotic person.

I think the moral of the story is that if you are a black male and a white male chases you, make sure you have a gun and shoot him before he shoots you. If Zimmerman walks, every black male has a legitimate fear for his life when approached by any white male.

The Stand Your Ground law basically says, he who shoots first out of paranoia has the law on his side.

Why does it have to be black and white? If any man or women is on top of someone continually punching them, the person on the bottom may chose to use a gun. I would hope they wouldn't, but a person who is being pummeled has the option to use deadly force to stop it, and it will be deemed no 2nd degree murder.

ch_tah2 says

And the skinhead reference seems to completely ignore ZM's hispanic half unless you are implying he is a neo-nazi that hates himself.

Wtf ? He could pass for white, and his head is shaved. Is this really that hard to comprehend ?

To the article ...

This was "Manslaughter by Culpable Negligence" ... ie reckless actions by Zimmerman lead to confrontation and wrongful death. You aren't a police officer and you are chasing people around on the street at night ... armed. This is what will happen.

So Florida has a decision to make:
- not convict and allow private citizens to play chase while armed
- convict and send a message that if you are carrying you have strong legal obligations that go along with that choice

I know which one I would pick.

I remember taking a simple self defense lecture course and something that stuck with me to this day, the instructor asked "Who here has ever been in a fist fight, raise your hand". He then said, "That tells me that all of you who kept your hands down, you have done a better job of self defense, than those that raised their hands."

It really is that flipping simple.

Rew says

This was "Manslaughter by Culpable Negligence" ...

That, if proven, is a huge difference to 2nd degree murder.

marcus says

mell says

If GZ was black and TM was white this story would have never made it into the news and nobody would be discussing it.

True, because GZ would have been arrested immediately, charged and convicted for committing murder.

If you believe this to be true then you should engage in opposing wrongful conviction of blacks shooting whites, not engage in advocating wrongful conviction of GZ for 2nd degree murder.

marcus says

Wtf ? He could pass for white, and his head is shaved. Is this really that hard to comprehend ?

Not at all. I guess I don't understand Dan's point. So TM thought a neo-nazi was following him, and that's why TM decided to start the fight? It seems like this line of thinking helps to suggest that TM was the aggressor.

GZ is obviously Hispanic, my girlfriend is from straight out of Sinaloa, Mexico and not one member of her family is as dark as GZ. Anyone who says GZ looks white walks around wearing their ass for a hat.

"Zimmerman: In A Just World, This Trial Is Over"

Uh, your country is COLLAPSING, you have legalized TORTURE, legalized WAR CRIMES, legalized FINANCIAL FRAUD, legalized MURDER, legalized KIDNAPPING, an out of control POLICE STATE, lack of rule of law, your judiciary is completely CORRUPT, your so-called 'leaders' are all wholly-owned subsidiaries of Goldman Sachs and yet here you are ...worrying about Zimmerman.

In a TRULY just world, people like you would be used as fertilizer for plants or as pet food.

I guess why I can't identify with this guy ZImmerman, is I've never felt the "wannabe cop" urge. The desire to cruise my neighborhood looking for suspects until I find them, then chase after them. Neighborhood watch does attract these sort. If I saw something happening, I'd phone it in and done, preferably from behind a locked door.

ch_tah2 says

I don't get why either person deserved to be harmed? In theory, couldn't they have just talked?

-Z: what are you doing here?

-TM: going home, why?

-Z: just checking, there have been a lot of burglaries around here.

-TM: well, not me, just bought some skittles and iced tea

-Z: ok

-TM: ok

Why do you advocate violence?

Why do you advocate violence?
That's a Straw Man argument.

Yes, in theory they could have both talked. In theory, Zimmerman could have simply not stalked Martin. In theory, the conversation could have gone:

-Z: What are you doing here?

-TM: None of your damn business. Tell me your name, social security number, and address. If you don't fell comfortable doing that then get lost.

-Z: You're right. I forgot this isn't Nazi Germany.

But the bottom line is that Martin had far more legitimate cause to fear for his life and to use force to defend himself. Martin was the one stalked. Martin was the one who fled. Martin was the one who called for help.

Hell, it would have been reasonable for Martin to suspect that Zimmerman might shoot him. Oh wait, that did happen. So Martin is clearly justified in acting in self defense.

How could Zimmerman act in self defense? By not pursuing Martin. Case closed.

mell says

If GZ was black and TM was white this story would have never made it into the news and nobody would be discussing it.

If Zimmerman were black and Martin white, Zimmerman's ass would have been arrested under Florida's 10-20-Life law on day one and the court system would be presuming his guilt and would have given him a worthless public defender that had no interest in his client.

The whole reason that this case made the media was that Zimmerman was left go with no consequences. Now that's likely because of Zimmerman's family relations to a judge, but hey, Martin didn't have such relations.

Dan8267 says

Why do you advocate violence?

That's a Straw Man argument.

No, it's not. You specifically said ZM deserved to get an "ass-whooping." Yes, the whole thing was avoidable at many stages. That still doesn't mean either person deserved any violence towards them.

ch_tah2 says

I'd like to see stats on if more blacks are killed by whites or hispanics.

Irrelevant. The horrific history of whites lynching blacks in the South is cause for reasonable concern on the part of blacks.

ch_tah2 says

And the skinhead reference seems to completely ignore ZM's hispanic half unless you are implying he is a neo-nazi that hates himself.

Not at all. What matters in the case regarding whether or not Martin had just cause to act in self-defense would be Martin's reasonable perception at the time of the crime, not what we learn about Zimmerman's background after the murder. Martin had more than reasonable reason to think that Zimmerman was a white guy trying to beat, kill, or lynch a black teen. As such, I can find no fault in Martin using force in self-defense, especially since the force he used was non-lethal.

MsBennet says

Why does it have to be black and white?

As I've stated above, race is relevant in this case as a probable motive, but a crime has been committed either way.

MsBennet says

If any man or women is on top of someone continually punching them, the person on the bottom may chose to use a gun. I would hope they wouldn't, but a person who is being pummeled has the option to use deadly force to stop it, and it will be deemed no 2nd degree murder.

Counter-example:

Dan8267 says

This harkens back to my original objection to the use of the Stand Your Ground law. Imagine if some asshole in a bar walks up to a couple, sucker punches the guy and gropes the woman. So the guy punched gets up and punches the asshole right back knocking him on his ass. Does the asshole then have the right to pull out a gun and shoot the man under the Stand Your Ground law? Basically, the Zimmerman case is no different.

MsBennet, in the above scenario, would you say the asshole has the right to use deadly force against the man and woman for fighting back?

Rew says

So Florida has a decision to make:

- not convict and allow private citizens to play chase while armed

- convict and send a message that if you are carrying you have strong legal obligations that go along with that choice

Yes, Florida's Stand Your Ground law is also on trial here. It's a stupid law, as self-defense has always been legal, but self-defense means using the minimum level of force necessary to secure oneself, not the maximum.

If the jury is dumb enough to accept the SYG law as justification for Martin's murder, then every asshole will have a license to kill and get-out-of-jail-free card. In fact, it would strongly encourage killing as the victim is more dangerous if he is left alive to testify. Why hit your opponent to subdue him when he might file assault charges and a lawsuit when you can legally kill him and prevent that by saying you were scared?

ch_tah2 says

I guess I don't understand Dan's point.

Of course not. You don't want to.

One has to want to understand something before being able to do so.

Of course, I'm not trying to get you to understand my argument. I'm trying to get everyone else reading our debate to understand that you are willfully biased.

Dan8267 says

Not at all. What matters in the case regarding whether or not Martin had just cause to act in self-defense would be Martin's reasonable perception at the time of the crime, not what we learn about Zimmerman's background after the murder. Martin had more than reasonable reason to think that Zimmerman was a white guy trying to beat, kill, or lynch a black teen. As such, I can find no fault in Martin using force in self-defense, especially since the force he used was non-lethal.

So, at what point did TM use self-defense? Are you saying TM hit Z without Z hitting him first? And are you saying TM hit Z purely based on the appearance of Z and historical information?

ch_tah2 says

You specifically said ZM deserved to get an "ass-whooping." Yes, the whole thing was avoidable at many stages.

Being in favor of using violence when necessary in self-defense is a hell of a lot different than advocating violence. A pacifist isn't someone who stands by while Ann Frank is raped and murder. A pacifist is someone who uses violence as a last resort, not a first resort.

You are intentionally trying to twist my words. You will always fail at this. My philosophies are as clear and precise as well-written source code in my head. As such, it's trivially easy for me to make them clear in writing.

Dan8267 says

mell says

If GZ was black and TM was white this story would have never made it into the news and nobody would be discussing it.

If Zimmerman were black and Martin white, Zimmerman's ass would have been arrested under Florida's 10-20-Life law on day one and the court system would be presuming his guilt and would have given him a worthless public defender that had no interest in his client.

The whole reason that this case made the media was that Zimmerman was left go with no consequences. Now that's likely because of Zimmerman's family relations to a judge, but hey, Martin didn't have such relations.

You obviously know Florida much better than I do, but you seem to purely speculate on why GZ was let go. Again, I think then it would be proper to engage in prevention of wrongful conviction of blacks and changing laws such as stand your ground. but not cheer on the prosecution in that murder trial. I think there was some thread where you said that 2 wrongs don't make a right ;) And based on as I see the facts and (stupid or not) laws, anything worse than convicting him of some sort of minor manslaughter is not in the cards.

Dan8267 says

Of course, I'm not trying to get you to understand my argument. I'm trying to get everyone else reading our debate to understand that you are willfully biased.

Ummm...I'm not the one advocating one side getting an "ass-whopping." Hopefully, you can see that you are biased.

I'll be honest, I don't care that much about the verdict. I don't think he will be found guilty of 2nd deg murder because the case is so weak. My main interest in all of this is that I wish the media and others would stop stoking the white vs. black fire.

ch_tah2 says

So, at what point did TM use self-defense? Are you saying TM hit Z without Z hitting him first? And are you saying TM hit Z purely based on the appearance of Z and historical information?

None of these questions are relevant to my argument that Martin is the one who had reasonable fear for his life in this situation and, as such, would be the party that can reasonably claim self-defense.

It would be self-contradiction to believe that both parties reasonably could use force in self-defense as two parties with no interest in harming the other would never come to blows. The question is which party had the better justification for self-defense. The answer is obviously the party that
- did not cause the situation
- attempted to flee from the situation
- was prevented from fleeing
- was stalked

I wonder how much this case would change if Martin had been a white girl instead of a black man. Imagine Zimmerman chasing down an unarmed white girl, who then uses what she learned in self-defense class to knock Zimmerman on his ass, and then Zimmerman shoots her. How many people would be defending Zimmerman in that scenario?

If you are not racist or sexist, you should reach the same damn conclusion for both scenarios.

ch_tah2 says

Ummm...I'm not the one advocating one side getting an "ass-whopping." Hopefully, you can see that you are biased.

Nor am I, but I am stating that self-defense is far more reasonable a justification for Martin's behavior than Zimmerman's. That does not make me biased. It means I have common sense.

But hey, how about you answering a question. Was Zimmerman's use of force justified? You painted yourself in that corner.

Dan8267 says

Imagine Zimmerman chasing down an unarmed white girl, who then uses what she learned in self-defense class to knock Zimmerman on his ass,

OK now, that never happens. For women highly skilled in self-defense and in strong shape their best bet is to land one or a few evil surprise punches/kicks where it hurts/disables most to free themselves and then outrun and outscream their aggressor. Unless they have been trained by AF ;)

mell says

You obviously know Florida much better than I do

I live in Florida. The 10-20-Life law is advertised in every black neighborhood.

mell says

but you seem to purely speculate on why GZ was let go.

I clearly said "likely" not "absolutely". Furthermore, it is not wild speculation. Zimmerman had gotten off of several criminal and civil infractions due to his family relationships. It is hardly unreasonable to suspect that this might be the case in this situation as well.

mell says

Again, I think then it would be proper to engage in prevention of wrongful conviction of blacks and changing laws such as stand your ground. but not cheer on the prosecution in that murder trial.

Unfortunately, the Zimmerman case is inherently interwoven with both the Stand Your Ground law and the 10-20-Life law. That cannot be separated at this point.

However, if you are asking my opinion on those laws, I consider both to be Unconstitutional. The 10-20-Life law violates due process, and the Stand Your Ground law violates the 14th Amendment (as well as being bad for other reasons).

In any case, I can honestly say that my opinions on this case would be the same if the races were reversed or if genders were changed.

Dan8267 says

Was Zimmerman's use of force justified?

If you are referring to Z shooting TM, then the answer is: it depends.

Ok, so you answer, did TM (based on Z's appearance and the historical background you described) have a right to hit Z first without any provocation other than being followed?