quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

Maybe the issue of race never came up, because the jurors were dealing with the actual undoctored 911 tape and not the pack of lies that have been peddled here?

Just a thought...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

You see post history as you want... I see it differently....

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4322857

I fail to see how your example (which deals with sexism, not racism) disproves my point that Fargle, despite his outlandish rhetoric, is anti-racist (and anti-sexist for that matter).

I think that people who constantly make things about race, whether they are or not, are racists. I don't think I'm alone in that here.

This isn't a racial case.In never was.never should have been seen as such.
The jury sure didn't:
"While the George Zimmerman second-degree murder trial was viewed as racially charged, an anonymous juror told CNN's Anderson Cooper Monday night that the issue of race didn't come up during deliberations.

"I thought all of us did not think race played a role" in 17-year-old Trayvon Martin's death, a juror known as B37 told Cooper"

But a certain embedded element with the media and here seem to be obsessed with race (In fargles case,lynching) and have done everything within their power to make this a racial case.
Which is bizarre,because as has been beaten to death,Z is half latin,maybe has a black grandma-how white folk got dragged into this is beyond me...

quote:



Yeah dude, really.
First of all,when a citizen makes an arrest,it ain't kidnapping. At worst,it tends to be "unlawful detainment."

quote:


The jury delivered a verdict.

quote:


why? Because we are a nation of law.Not race baiting knee jerk reactionaries who spout nonsense they know nothing about. In bold,to make their anger and viciousness plain as day for the world to see.
Thanks Hoss

quote:


It was May 2, 1967, and the Black Panthers’ invasion of the California statehouse launched the modern gun-rights movement. "

Invasion?????

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

LOL just cuz Zimmy did not mention to the operator until asked that the kid was black, does not mean he didnt recognize right from the first instant he saw the kid that the kid was black.. how did Zimmy recognize that someone is male and not female as they are walking past your car and not recognize that the person is black? how did Zimmy see the kid saying something or mouthing something and not recognize the kid was black?
The kid being black would be sorta hard to miss as the kid is walking past Zimmy's car..
But again, that said, race was one of 3 elements (young.. male.. black) that caused Zimmy to set God's wheels in motion.. God must be cringing to be getting credit for a teenagers death.. not that I believe in God anymore than I believe Zimmy's lies/story..

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

Maybe the issue of race never came up, because the jurors were dealing with the actual undoctored 911 tape and not the pack of lies that have been peddled here?

Just a thought...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

You see post history as you want... I see it differently....

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4322857

I fail to see how your example (which deals with sexism, not racism) disproves my point that Fargle, despite his outlandish rhetoric, is anti-racist (and anti-sexist for that matter).

I think that people who constantly make things about race, whether they are or not, are racists. I don't think I'm alone in that here.

This isn't a racial case.In never was.never should have been seen as such.
The jury sure didn't:
"While the George Zimmerman second-degree murder trial was viewed as racially charged, an anonymous juror told CNN's Anderson Cooper Monday night that the issue of race didn't come up during deliberations.

"I thought all of us did not think race played a role" in 17-year-old Trayvon Martin's death, a juror known as B37 told Cooper"

But a certain embedded element with the media and here seem to be obsessed with race (In fargles case,lynching) and have done everything within their power to make this a racial case.
Which is bizarre,because as has been beaten to death,Z is half latin,maybe has a black grandma-how white folk got dragged into this is beyond me...

quote:

How ironic of you. As pointed out before, the racist roots of gun control, to which SYG was a defeat, go all the way back to the anti Chinese laws, in which the fundamental human right to self defense was denied to the race with least power.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:



Yeah dude, really.
First of all,when a citizen makes an arrest,it ain't kidnapping. At worst,it tends to be "unlawful detainment."

If you had actually been in class the day they taught that you would know the restrictions on "citizens arrest"...you clearly do not mr. lawyer man.

quote:


The jury delivered a verdict.

Which I have not challanged.

quote:


why? Because we are a nation of law.Not race baiting knee jerk reactionaries who spout nonsense they know nothing about. In bold,to make their anger and viciousness plain as day for the world to see.
Thanks Hoss

Perhps if you were to read what I post instead of what you think you can argue against you would not look the fool.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

How ironic of you. As pointed out before, the racist roots of gun control, to which SYG was a defeat, go all the way back to the anti Chinese laws, in which the fundamental human right to self defense was denied to the race with least power.

So you admit that America is a racist society. Good. I knew you'd get there eventually.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:



Yeah dude, really.
First of all,when a citizen makes an arrest,it ain't kidnapping. At worst,it tends to be "unlawful detainment."

If you had actually been in class the day they taught that you would know the restrictions on "citizens arrest"...you clearly do not mr. lawyer man.

quote:


The jury delivered a verdict.

Which I have not challanged.

quote:


why? Because we are a nation of law.Not race baiting knee jerk reactionaries who spout nonsense they know nothing about. In bold,to make their anger and viciousness plain as day for the world to see.
Thanks Hoss

Perhps if you were to read what I post instead of what you think you can argue against you would not look the fool.

Noting he doesn't comment on the fact that his whole line of thought re this is specious speculation,not remotely connected with what actually happened, and nothing but empty conjecture,and thus, is nothing but a waste of time.Zimmerman did not attempt to arrest M.
Nobody but you has ever suggested that.Thus,there is no way attempted kidnapping could be leveled at Z.To suggest so is a joke.That you've gone round and round on idle speculation re events that may have occurred in alternate universes is ludicrous.

What's your point?
Mine is,that there was never enough evidence to bring anything close to an acquittal,that this was obvious pretty quickly to a second year law student, and that the only reason there was a trial was that a supposedly independent judiciary yielded to political pressure. As things evolved,I've become increasingly aware of,let us say,a frightening overzealousness in the governments attempts to convict Z,one that worries me far more than the outcome of this case. I've watched justice be subverted by a mob mentality,and as an American, that worries me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

Well, we have something in common after all... I don't believe in God, and I don't believe *your racist lies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

LOL just cuz Zimmy did not mention to the operator until asked that the kid was black, does not mean he didnt recognize right from the first instant he saw the kid that the kid was black.. how did Zimmy recognize that someone is male and not female as they are walking past your car and not recognize that the person is black? how did Zimmy see the kid saying something or mouthing something and not recognize the kid was black?
The kid being black would be sorta hard to miss as the kid is walking past Zimmy's car..
But again, that said, race was one of 3 elements (young.. male.. black) that caused Zimmy to set God's wheels in motion.. God must be cringing to be getting credit for a teenagers death.. not that I believe in God anymore than I believe Zimmy's lies/story..

quote:

I've been pointing out your racism for pages now... are you American?

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

~FR~

In other news CollarMe members earn law degrees.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

The notion that someone can defend themselves based on what is happening at the moment, instead of on shoulda-coulda-woulda media hyped 20/20 hindsight, is bedrock common law and common sense.

The 'people of Florida' didn't write the decades old Supreme Court rulings

The rest of your legal assertions are unsupported by reality. A brown skinned person following you is not an 'attack', nor is going armed under a CCW, 'premeditation'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

I think "the people of florida" are taking a dangerous path if self defence can be claimed even when the defendant actively created the sitution that lead to the fight, this is against the concept of public safety. When you chase and leave a safe place to confront someone you are not defending yourself, you are attacking, and if you do because confident that when things turn in favour of your opponent you can use your gun, it's premeditation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

The notion that someone can defend themselves based on what is happening at the moment, instead of on shoulda-coulda-woulda media hyped 20/20 hindsight, is bedrock common law and common sense.

The 'people of Florida' didn't write the decades old Supreme Court rulings

The rest of your legal assertions are unsupported by reality. A brown skinned person following you is not an 'attack', nor is going armed under a CCW, 'premeditation'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

I think "the people of florida" are taking a dangerous path if self defence can be claimed even when the defendant actively created the sitution that lead to the fight, this is against the concept of public safety. When you chase and leave a safe place to confront someone you are not defending yourself, you are attacking, and if you do because confident that when things turn in favour of your opponent you can use your gun, it's premeditation.

Ok so it means that you are far into that road, by the way considering all what happened to assign a responsibility is not shoulda-coulda-woulda, I don't know how it works in common law but I don't see any other way to prove the subjective factor, that as I understand is the only discriminant in self defence.