Post: #126

(03-27-2012 01:53 PM)JayMillz Wrote:  http://news.yahoo.com/wisconsin-shooting...56052.html

Wisconsin shooting puts "castle" law under scrutiny

MILWAUKEE (Reuters) - The decision by authorities not to charge a homeowner who shot dead an unarmed black man in a small Wisconsin town three weeks ago has drawn scrutiny to the state's new "castle doctrine" law and comparisons to the Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida.

Authorities ruled the killing of Bo Morrison, 20, by a Slinger, Wisconsin, homeowner on his porch justifiable in possibly the first such case under an expanded castle doctrine law enacted late last year, prosecutors said.

The law allows homeowners facing imminent danger to their lives to protect themselves using deadly force if necessary.

I remember reading about that case. Justifiable shooting. Moral of the story: when hiding from the po po, don't go breaking into other people's homes - the homeowner might mistake you for a home intruder coming to do him ill and shoot you.

"Morrison, who had previous run-ins with the police and had a blood-alcohol content more than twice the legal limit for driving in Wisconsin, left the party.

Kind, who said his concern was elevated because his wife, two children and a child guest were in the house, retrieved a handgun after he heard noises on his porch, the report said.

Kind loaded the handgun, went to the porch and confronted Morrison, who was wearing dark clothing, the report said. Kind fired one shot as Morrison walked toward him, then yelled for his wife to call 911, the report said.

An attorney representing Kind said the shooting of Morrison in the enclosed porch would have been considered justifiable under Wisconsin's prior law as well."

Pray tell, what would the anti-gun crowd have us do? Offer the intruder (who may kill you and/or your family) tea and biscuits?

Post: #127

Here's the initial police report filed the night of the Martin shooting:

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/d...Report.pdf

Red flags galore.

Also note, they knew his full name, place of birth, and listed him as 6'0, 160, not 6'3, 140, which is what was reported by the Miami Herald.

Post: #128

   

Post: #129

http://www.local10.com/news/Police-Trayv...index.html

Glad I'm armed if I happen to be in the path of a gang of teens that decides they are going to start randomly assaulting people like we saw last year in Wisconsin and Philly.

No, the kids in this video didn't assault anyone, but if you don't think the potential exists for this kind of flash mob to get violent in a hurry, you have been drinking way too much politically correct koolaid. I imagine we'll see more of these if no charges are pressed against Zimmerman, though at this point, the political pressure to bring this to a grand jury is enormous. But if they decline to indict, it's riot time.

For those who don't remember the Philly attacks, here's one that was caught on video: http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/loca...ack-081711

Post: #130

(03-27-2012 02:02 PM)assman Wrote:  

(03-27-2012 01:53 PM)JayMillz Wrote:  http://news.yahoo.com/wisconsin-shooting...56052.html

Wisconsin shooting puts "castle" law under scrutiny

MILWAUKEE (Reuters) - The decision by authorities not to charge a homeowner who shot dead an unarmed black man in a small Wisconsin town three weeks ago has drawn scrutiny to the state's new "castle doctrine" law and comparisons to the Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida.

Authorities ruled the killing of Bo Morrison, 20, by a Slinger, Wisconsin, homeowner on his porch justifiable in possibly the first such case under an expanded castle doctrine law enacted late last year, prosecutors said.

The law allows homeowners facing imminent danger to their lives to protect themselves using deadly force if necessary.

I remember reading about that case. Justifiable shooting. Moral of the story: when hiding from the po po, don't go breaking into other people's homes - the homeowner might mistake you for a home intruder coming to do him ill and shoot you.

"Morrison, who had previous run-ins with the police and had a blood-alcohol content more than twice the legal limit for driving in Wisconsin, left the party.

Kind, who said his concern was elevated because his wife, two children and a child guest were in the house, retrieved a handgun after he heard noises on his porch, the report said.

Kind loaded the handgun, went to the porch and confronted Morrison, who was wearing dark clothing, the report said. Kind fired one shot as Morrison walked toward him, then yelled for his wife to call 911, the report said.

An attorney representing Kind said the shooting of Morrison in the enclosed porch would have been considered justifiable under Wisconsin's prior law as well."

Pray tell, what would the anti-gun crowd have us do? Offer the intruder (who may kill you and/or your family) tea and biscuits?

You can't really compare this to what happened to Trayvon Martin. I also think you're directing your argument at the most extreme of the "anti-gun crowd." I would venture that most have no objection to having weapons to protect your home, but have issues with widespread carry permits. If there's someone on your porch late at night, and they come towards you, I can completely understand the homeowner shooting them (though there are other options to explore before stepping outside and confronting, overall, I'm okay with it because it's your property). They don't have a right to be there. It's another thing all together to confront someone on the street when you don't have the right to do so. The circumstances here just aren't comparable to the Martin case.

Post: #131

(03-27-2012 05:31 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  You can't really compare this to what happened to Trayvon Martin. I also think you're directing your argument at the most extreme of the "anti-gun crowd." I would venture that most have no objection to having weapons to protect your home, but have issues with widespread carry permits. If there's someone on your porch late at night, and they come towards you, I can completely understand the homeowner shooting them (though there are other options to explore before stepping outside and confronting, overall, I'm okay with it because it's your property). They don't have a right to be there. It's another thing all together to confront someone on the street when you don't have the right to do so. The circumstances here just aren't comparable to the Martin case.

I'm not the one comparing. JayMillz posted that story, I was merely responding. I agree that it's not a fair comparison.

It's the right 'to keep and bear arms' - i.e., not limited to keeping them in your homes. Your right (right, not privilege) to self-defense extends outside your home.

But again, I agree that it's a different situation than the Martin case.

Post: #132

(03-27-2012 05:41 PM)assman Wrote:  

(03-27-2012 05:31 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  You can't really compare this to what happened to Trayvon Martin. I also think you're directing your argument at the most extreme of the "anti-gun crowd." I would venture that most have no objection to having weapons to protect your home, but have issues with widespread carry permits. If there's someone on your porch late at night, and they come towards you, I can completely understand the homeowner shooting them (though there are other options to explore before stepping outside and confronting, overall, I'm okay with it because it's your property). They don't have a right to be there. It's another thing all together to confront someone on the street when you don't have the right to do so. The circumstances here just aren't comparable to the Martin case.

I'm not the one comparing. JayMillz posted that story, I was merely responding. I agree that it's not a fair comparison.

It's the right 'to keep and bear arms' - i.e., not limited to keeping them in your homes. Your right (right, not privilege) to self-defense extends outside your home.

But again, I agree that it's a different situation than the Martin case.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment really refers to militias. The Constitution as a whole was written broadly for a reason - this isn't the same country that it was when written, and is to be interpreted with that in mind. "Keep and bear" can be interpreted in any manner an individual wants. I don't want to get into a constitutional, or pro or anti-gun rant or discussion, but the constitution does not clearly grant all law-abiding Americans the right to carry guns. Individual states have made their own decisions about this.

Post: #133

The real Trayvon Martin

Tattooed gang member and drug dealer with a gold grill.

Burglar and jewelery thief. Casing homes and doing break ins. Wandering around a neighborhood that had multiple break-ins and robberies the previous few days "buying skittles".

Suspended multiple times. A series of increasing incidents one after another.

And his twitter posts. How does an unemployed youth have $1700 in cash to boast about, hmm?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/86809463/Trayv...ily-Caller

Post: #134

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/0...tins-death

Geraldo further explains his statement, which is kind of ridiculous. This is how I interpreted his statement in the first place, but he also could have done this more clearly when he first made the statement. By placing equal blame on the hoodie AND Zimmerman, his concern for black and latino boys got lost in this. Also, it makes things worse when you do the whole "I don't apologize for what I said, but for how you reacted to it" type of non-apology. Either think more clearly before you make a statement in the first place, or stand your ground.

Post: #135

(03-27-2012 06:06 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment really refers to militias. The Constitution as a whole was written broadly for a reason - this isn't the same country that it was when written, and is to be interpreted with that in mind. "Keep and bear" can be interpreted in any manner an individual wants. I don't want to get into a constitutional, or pro or anti-gun rant or discussion, but the constitution does not clearly grant all law-abiding Americans the right to carry guns. Individual states have made their own decisions about this.

That's fine, we don't have to get into it here. But the 2nd Amendment does indeed grant individuals the right to keep and bear arms. See SCOTUS decisions DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, and the recent federal district court ruling in Maryland, Woollard v. Sheridan, which all affirm the right to carry firearms outside one's home and strike down unreasonable regulations by states to restrict this right.

As for this isn't the same country when it was written, that's true. The founding fathers would be rolling in their graves if they saw what government has become. The Second Amendment is more critical than ever. It is what underpins every other right the Constitution guarantees. If the government has a monopoly on force, all those other rights can be taken away and the people will be powerless to do anything about it.

Post: #136

       

Post: #137

This case is getting coverage here in Brazil too. Saw some guys discussing it on Globo News channel here.

I don't know , but it seems that the mainstream media judged Zimmermann too early , now like some posted new evidence may show that the kid maybe wasn't that lil angel that he appeared to be. A long way to go till the truth comes out.

Post: #138

(03-27-2012 08:27 PM)Mr.GM Wrote:  This case is getting coverage here in Brazil too. Saw some guys discussing it on Globo News channel here.

I don't know , but it seems that the mainstream media judged Zimmermann too early , now like some posted new evidence may show that the kid maybe wasn't that lil angel that he appeared to be. A long way to go till the truth comes out.

Trayvon was not in the act of doing anything illegal nor did Zimmerman know of his history when he rolled up to him that night.

Even if he had a history, which consists of a clean juvenile record, and suspensions due to weed, graffiti, and tardiness, that has absolutely nothing to do with Zimmerman's culpability on the night of the 26th.

God forbid anyone from here gets smoked one day, and the media reports that the individual was a member of a "misogynistic" message board.

Hopefully that will have no bearing on the fact that that person is the victim of the crime.

The lead investigator, someone whose opinion matters, wanted Zimmerman arrested because he simply didn't believe his story:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-...d=16011674

Focus on the facts of the situation, which is what happened on the night on 26th, anything else is irrelevant.

Post: #139

(03-27-2012 08:45 PM)jariel Wrote:  Even if he had a history, which consists of a clean juvenile record, and suspensions due to weed, graffiti, and tardiness, that has absolutely nothing to do with Zimmerman's culpability on the night of the 26th.

One could easily argue that Zimmerman actually has a propensity for violence because of his past record. The Orange County Clerk of Courts website shows George Zimmerman was charged in July 2005 with resisting arrest and with violence and battery on an officer.

Post: #140

JayMillz, why are you still posting pics of baby faced Trayvon from years ago? Are you running PR for the Martin family at RVF to counteract the negative info that came out in the last 24-48hrs?

(03-27-2012 08:45 PM)jariel Wrote:  Trayvon was not in the act of doing anything illegal nor did Zimmerman know of his history when he rolled up to him that night.

Both are true. But clearly Zimmerman thought Martin looked suspicious. The way the media initially reported it, they made it seem that Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin simply because he was black.

But this is likely bullshit. For one thing it's not like Zimmerman hasn't seen a ton of black people before. We're talking about Sanford, FL. For another thing, Zimmerman apparently volunteer tutored black kids, which doesn't exactly make him Stormfront material.

Now we come to find out that Martin is a lot more shady than the babyfaced pics of when he was 12/13yrs old seemed to suggest. Drugs, possible theft, possible swinging at a bus driver, gold teeth sporting, multiple school suspensions, reports he was flashing a lot of cash (for a kid anyway).

Could it be that possible that Zimmerman, an experienced neighborhood watch captain (would he have this role if he were phoning the po po every single time he saw a black guy in the neighborhood in Sanford??) thought that Martin looked suspicious for reasons other than skin color?

I don't do neighborhood watch or have a family, but if I lived in a community and had wife and kids, I'd probably want the neighborhood watch guy to question people he didn't recognize who he thought were acting shady.

(03-27-2012 08:45 PM)jariel Wrote:  Focus on the facts of the situation, which is what happened on the night on 26th, anything else is irrelevant.

Right, let's focus on the facts, which many of the people on the Martin 'side' are not doing. They are jumping to conclusions (ironically this is what they are accusing Zimmerman of doing) and calling for Zimmerman's head.

1. We don't know that Zimmerman attacked Martin. Confronting Martin to ask what he's doing there is NOT a crime.

2. It is possible that Marin was the aggressor here and the eyewitness testimony here, while not at all definitive on that issue, does not contradict this scenario.

3. Zimmerman was clearly getting his ass whooped, including having his head pounded into the pavement (hence the blood on the back of his head). I suspect everyone here understands that if your head hits pavement enough times with enough force, you are going to get seriously hurt.

With what we actually know, I don't see how people are concluding that Martin is the victim and not the aggressor, or that Zimmerman is a murderer or even guilty of manslaughter. Wanna 'splain it to me using actual facts as opposed to emotionally charged speculation?

Post: #141

   

Post: #142

I'd be willing to be that most if not all of the people on here defending Trayvon are black, and had the roles been reversed they would be saying it was ok because the shooter was defending himself from a violent attacker. That makes them hypocritical racists.

Post: #143

(03-27-2012 10:22 PM)Brian Wrote:  I'd be willing to be that most if not all of the people on here defending Trayvon are black, and had the roles been reversed they would be saying it was ok because the shooter was defending himself from a violent attacker. That makes them hypocritical racists.

You're just speculating here. Now if we're talking about Sharpton and Jackson and the like, yes, I know those guys are nowhere to be found when the reverse situation happens. But you can't say that about the guys arguing against Zimmerman in this thread. For all I know, Zimmerman started the fight, got pinned down, wrestled the guy off, pulled out his gun and shot him. The evidence, aside from his testimony, is consistent with that scenario too. Seems less likely to me than a scenario in which he shot while being beat on, but it's possible.

Given the way the info has been coming out, we're likely to see more dribs and drabs in the coming days.

Anyway, it would be nice to see a RATIONAL discussion, not one full of emotionally charged invectives. Just posting silly pics doesn't help (and makes you look like you've got nothing intelligent to say on the matter). For fuck's sake, this is RVF, and yet many of the posts in this thread could have been written by women.

Post: #144

(03-27-2012 09:54 PM)assman Wrote:  But this is likely bullshit. For one thing it's not like Zimmerman hasn't seen a ton of black people before. We're talking about Sanford, FL. For another thing, Zimmerman apparently volunteer tutored black kids, which doesn't exactly make him Stormfront material.

Seems to me the first play out of the "I'm not a Racist" Playbook is to note how many black friends one has, how many black men/women one has fucked, or anything of the sort which is supposed to automatically rule out whether or not is one racist, prejudice, or bigoted. It means nothing. The Founding Fathers of this country couldn't stop swimming in Black women's pussies, but they never cared to make them or their people free people or even treat them as fellow human beings. NYPD's Justin Wolpe had a Black girlfriend, they didn't stop him from being a racist.

Zimmerman is a high school graduate who's been fiddling around at a second-class community college since 2003. He's been arrested three different times for violence-related situations. He might have been doing community service, as he hardly qualifies for the type of individual who should be mentoring anybody, especially young Black American kids.

(03-27-2012 09:54 PM)assman Wrote:  Now we come to find out that Martin is a lot more shady than the babyfaced pics of when he was 12/13yrs old seemed to suggest. Drugs, possible theft, possible swinging at a bus driver, gold teeth sporting, multiple school suspensions, reports he was flashing a lot of cash (for a kid anyway).

I live in Miami and volunteer with kids. The Latin American and Black American boys do the grills just for fun, it doesn't mean they're gangsters. We make fun of the "Kendall thugs" all the time, these are self-professed White "Hispanics" who act more like society-manufactured Black people.

White American kids will drive into the hood to cop weed and beeks if they have to, so let's fall back on a bag with "traces of weed" as meaning this kid was some sort of big time drug dealer or had a drug problem -- especially considering the blood test they did him on came back clean.

(03-27-2012 09:54 PM)assman Wrote:  Right, let's focus on the facts, which many of the people on the Martin 'side' are not doing. They are jumping to conclusions (ironically this is what they are accusing Zimmerman of doing) and calling for Zimmerman's head.

1. We don't know that Zimmerman attacked Martin. Confronting Martin to ask what he's doing there is NOT a crime.

2. It is possible that Marin was the aggressor here and the eyewitness testimony here, while not at all definitive on that issue, does not contradict this scenario.

3. Zimmerman was clearly getting his ass whooped, including having his head pounded into the pavement (hence the blood on the back of his head). I suspect everyone here understands that if your head hits pavement enough times with enough force, you are going to get seriously hurt.

Every piece of evidence in Zimmerman's favor starts with "Zimmerman says".
Furthermore, we have one "witness" who apparently has chosen to remain anonymous, unlike ALL the other witnesses who have come forward, and is the only witness who didn't bother to call 911. The other 2 "witnesses" on his side are nothing more than character witnesses for the court of public opinion. They have nothing to do with the case whatsoever. They're using one white guy to say "I'd do the same thing" and the other is the token Black dude who will support the "He's not a racist" meme.

Post: #145

(03-27-2012 10:22 PM)Brian Wrote:  I'd be willing to be that most if not all of the people on here defending Trayvon are black, and had the roles been reversed they would be saying it was ok because the shooter was defending himself from a violent attacker. That makes them hypocritical racists.

Question how can you defend yourself if you ARE THE ATTACKER?

So if I ACCOST you, and you see that i have a gun, and then you end up getting the best of me, I then am justified to shooting and killing you?

Trayvon was STANDING HIS GROUND....HE DID NOT NEED TO RETREAT..HE MET FORCE WITH EQUAL OR GREATER FORCE....

So what part of that has to do with being black?

Post: #146

(03-27-2012 10:40 PM)PhilE Wrote:  

(03-27-2012 10:22 PM)Brian Wrote:  I'd be willing to be that most if not all of the people on here defending Trayvon are black, and had the roles been reversed they would be saying it was ok because the shooter was defending himself from a violent attacker. That makes them hypocritical racists.

Question how can you defend yourself if you ARE THE ATTACKER?

So if I ACCOST you, and you see that i have a gun, and then you end up getting the best of me, I then am justified to shooting and killing you?

Trayvon was STANDING HIS GROUND....HE DID NOT NEED TO RETREAT..HE MET FORCE WITH EQUAL OR GREATER FORCE....

So what part of that has to do with being black?

What makes you think Zimmerman was the attacker? There was someone he didnt recognize in his neighborhood, and they've had lots of recent robberies. Did he punch Trayvon? Tackle him onto the ground? Nope. At most, and even this is speculation, he asked him a question. Trayvon was the attacker. Thats very clear by the evidence. Did Trayvon have grass stain on his back, a broken nose, and cut on his head? No, Zimmerman did because the little wanna be gangbanger attacked him and was slamming his head into the concrete. If Trayvon was white and dressed in the same fashion and looked like a meth head or rag tag version of Eminem he still would have considered him suspicious because he wasnt recognized as a member of the neighborhood. If Trayvon was wearing khaki's and a sweater vest he probably wouldnt have considered him suspicious. If Trayvon would have said "hey, I understand your concern, I'm actually in town visiting my dad, he lives over there" do you think Zimmerman would have shot him? Of course not. But Trayvon wanted to be a bad ass gangster and beat the shit out of the guy who had the nerve to challenge him, and he ended up picking the wrong person to fuck with because he was packing heat. If this makes every wanna be thug ganster, white, black, hispanic, or asian think twice before attacking someone because they may end up dead then maybe this wasnt such a bad thing.

Post: #147

(03-27-2012 07:04 PM)assman Wrote:  

(03-27-2012 06:06 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment really refers to militias. The Constitution as a whole was written broadly for a reason - this isn't the same country that it was when written, and is to be interpreted with that in mind. "Keep and bear" can be interpreted in any manner an individual wants. I don't want to get into a constitutional, or pro or anti-gun rant or discussion, but the constitution does not clearly grant all law-abiding Americans the right to carry guns. Individual states have made their own decisions about this.

That's fine, we don't have to get into it here. But the 2nd Amendment does indeed grant individuals the right to keep and bear arms. See SCOTUS decisions DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, and the recent federal district court ruling in Maryland, Woollard v. Sheridan, which all affirm the right to carry firearms outside one's home and strike down unreasonable regulations by states to restrict this right.

As for this isn't the same country when it was written, that's true. The founding fathers would be rolling in their graves if they saw what government has become. The Second Amendment is more critical than ever. It is what underpins every other right the Constitution guarantees. If the government has a monopoly on force, all those other rights can be taken away and the people will be powerless to do anything about it.

Keeping arms is not the critical issue, but the definition of BEAR is where interpretation gets somewhat cloudy.

Post: #148

(03-27-2012 10:38 PM)jariel Wrote:  

(03-27-2012 09:54 PM)assman Wrote:  But this is likely bullshit. For one thing it's not like Zimmerman hasn't seen a ton of black people before. We're talking about Sanford, FL. For another thing, Zimmerman apparently volunteer tutored black kids, which doesn't exactly make him Stormfront material.

Seems to me the first play out of the "I'm not a Racist" Playbook is to note how many black friends one has, how many black men/women one has fucked, or anything of the sort which is supposed to automatically rule out whether or not is one racist, prejudice, or bigoted. It means nothing. The Founding Fathers of this country couldn't stop swimming in Black women's pussies, but they never cared to make them or their people free people or even treat them as fellow human beings. NYPD's Justin Wolpe had a Black girlfriend, they didn't stop him from being a racist.

Zimmerman is a high school graduate who's been fiddling around at a second-class community college since 2003. He's been arrested three different times for violence-related situations. He might have been doing community service, as he hardly qualifies for the type of individual who should be mentoring anybody, especially young Black American kids.

Ummm banging black chicks and tuturing black kids is not the same thing. Whether he qualifies in your mind to tutor anybody is besides the point. He was doing it. I'm guessing that guys who hate black people don't volunteer to tutor black kids. Is that an unreasonable assumption?

(03-27-2012 10:38 PM)jariel Wrote:  

(03-27-2012 09:54 PM)assman Wrote:  Now we come to find out that Martin is a lot more shady than the babyfaced pics of when he was 12/13yrs old seemed to suggest. Drugs, possible theft, possible swinging at a bus driver, gold teeth sporting, multiple school suspensions, reports he was flashing a lot of cash (for a kid anyway).

I live in Miami and volunteer with kids. The Latin American and Black American boys do the grills just for fun, it doesn't mean they're gangsters. We make fun of the "Kendall thugs" all the time, these are self-professed White "Hispanics" who act more like society-manufactured Black people.

White American kids will drive into the hood to cop weed and beeks if they have to, so let's fall back on a bag with "traces of weed" as meaning this kid was some sort of big time drug dealer or had a drug problem -- especially considering the blood test they did him on came back clean.

I'm not saying he's a dealer. I'm saying he is more shady than the initial media reports painted him out to be. Maybe Zimmerman picked up on shady behavior. The guy has a lot of experience with neighborhood watch.

(03-27-2012 10:38 PM)jariel Wrote:  

(03-27-2012 09:54 PM)assman Wrote:  Right, let's focus on the facts, which many of the people on the Martin 'side' are not doing. They are jumping to conclusions (ironically this is what they are accusing Zimmerman of doing) and calling for Zimmerman's head.

1. We don't know that Zimmerman attacked Martin. Confronting Martin to ask what he's doing there is NOT a crime.

2. It is possible that Marin was the aggressor here and the eyewitness testimony here, while not at all definitive on that issue, does not contradict this scenario.

3. Zimmerman was clearly getting his ass whooped, including having his head pounded into the pavement (hence the blood on the back of his head). I suspect everyone here understands that if your head hits pavement enough times with enough force, you are going to get seriously hurt.

Every piece of evidence in Zimmerman's favor starts with "Zimmerman says".
Furthermore, we have one "witness" who apparently has chosen to remain anonymous, unlike ALL the other witnesses who have come forward, and is the only witness who didn't bother to call 911. The other 2 "witnesses" on his side are nothing more than character witnesses for the court of public opinion. They have nothing to do with the case whatsoever. They're using one white guy to say "I'd do the same thing" and the other is the token Black dude who will support the "He's not a racist" meme.

If I were a witness whose story favored Zimmerman, I sure as fuck would want to remain anonymous. Black Panthers bounty. Spike Lee retweeting what he thought was Zimmerman's address. The flash mob into the convenience store today. The witness would have to be insane to want to be identified.

You have not identified any evidence that points to Zimmerman being guilty of anything.

Post: #149

nm

Post: #150

(03-27-2012 10:54 PM)Brian Wrote:  

(03-27-2012 10:40 PM)PhilE Wrote:  

(03-27-2012 10:22 PM)Brian Wrote:  I'd be willing to be that most if not all of the people on here defending Trayvon are black, and had the roles been reversed they would be saying it was ok because the shooter was defending himself from a violent attacker. That makes them hypocritical racists.

Question how can you defend yourself if you ARE THE ATTACKER?

So if I ACCOST you, and you see that i have a gun, and then you end up getting the best of me, I then am justified to shooting and killing you?

Trayvon was STANDING HIS GROUND....HE DID NOT NEED TO RETREAT..HE MET FORCE WITH EQUAL OR GREATER FORCE....

So what part of that has to do with being black?

What makes you think Zimmerman was the attacker? There was someone he didnt recognize in his neighborhood, and they've had lots of recent robberies. Did he punch Trayvon? Tackle him onto the ground? Nope. At most, and even this is speculation, he asked him a question. Trayvon was the attacker. Thats very clear by the evidence. Did Trayvon have grass stain on his back, a broken nose, and cut on his head? No, Zimmerman did because the little wanna be gangbanger attacked him and was slamming his head into the concrete. If Trayvon was white and dressed in the same fashion and looked like a meth head or rag tag version of Eminem he still would have considered him suspicious because he wasnt recognized as a member of the neighborhood. If Trayvon was wearing khaki's and a sweater vest he probably wouldnt have considered him suspicious. If Trayvon would have said "hey, I understand your concern, I'm actually in town visiting my dad, he lives over there" do you think Zimmerman would have shot him? Of course not. But Trayvon wanted to be a bad ass gangster and beat the shit out of the guy who had the nerve to challenge him, and he ended up picking the wrong person to fuck with because he was packing heat. If this makes every wanna be thug ganster, white, black, hispanic, or asian think twice before attacking someone because they may end up dead then maybe this wasnt such a bad thing.

So when are you and geraldo rivera starting a new show on FOX news?