quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

hmmm.. so cuz I dont believe for a second that Zimmy didnt recognize immediately that Martin was black.. (you dont need to be a genius to see that it simply does not make any sense).. that somehow makes me a racist? I am somehow a racist for not believing a half white, half hispanic's lies when a black kid is dead?.. somehow sticking up for a dead black kid makes me racist.. absolutely amazing.. but do continue on.. [8|]

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:

When you see racism in people who aren't racists, where do you suppose the "racism" you're seeing is coming from?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana

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.

The problem with causation is that it starts down the slippery slope.Once one person claims it,the other counters and next thing you know, all problems begin when Eve picks up the apple...

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.

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.

quote:

that's demagogic, what I wanted to say is that "I chased the guy, I confronted the guy, we started a brawl that lead to a fight and as he was stronger than me I killed him with my gun" is not a defensive attitude.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kana

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.

The problem with causation is that it starts down the slippery slope.Once one person claims it,the other counters and next thing you know, all problems begin when Eve picks up the apple...

that's demagogic, what I wanted to say is that "I chased the guy, I confronted the guy, we started a brawl that lead to a fight and as he was stronger than me I killed him with my gun" is not a defensive attitude.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

When you see racism in people who aren't racists, where do you suppose the "racism" you're seeing is coming from?

This presumes there is such a thing as people who aren't racist. I don't believe that such a creature exists. It goes against human nature, it goes against human history, it goes against everything I have observed during forty-seven years of life.

The difference between an anti- racist and those who are not is that the anti-racist uses reason and logic to overcome there own inherent racism in an act of will. An anti-racist sees a young black and walking down the street and - despite whatever initial reaction he or she felt - thinks to themselves there nothing wrong about walking down the street. The racist thinks he's up to no good. The racist thinks "these assholes always get away," and... well... we know what happened afterward.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

quote:

that's demagogic, what I wanted to say is that "I chased the guy, I confronted the guy, we started a brawl that lead to a fight and as he was stronger than me I killed him with my gun" is not a defensive attitude.

That's one possible theory of how things unfolded. It is also one that 6 jurors didn't believe was supported by the facts they had in front of them.

quote:

This isn't a racial case.In never was.never should have been seen as such.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

When you see racism in people who aren't racists, where do you suppose the "racism" you're seeing is coming from?

This presumes there is such a thing as people who aren't racist. I don't believe that such a creature exists. It goes against human nature, it goes against human history, it goes against everything I have observed during forty-seven years of life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

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

I've already admitted my inherent racism. You lack the courage to admit yours. What you think is racism on my part is, in fact, my recognition of the racism inherent in others and in society at large. If you want to go on pretending that you are pure then go ahead... but you are not fooling anyone of decent conscious.

I'm not sure if you're worth talking to anymore.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

They were vacation resorts compared to Indian Reservations.

Maybe... but debatable.

quote:

They were temporary.

So what? A temporary abridgment of you freedom is still an abridgment of you freedom.

quote:

They were inspired in part by the (misguided) thought to protect Japanese-Americans from reprisals and from the (overestimated) fear of sleeper agents.

Bullshit. That was just and excuse to justify what was an obviously racist program. In a few cases there may have been some justification - contrary to popular belief there were some German-Americans and some Italian Americans who were interred - but the vast majority were Japanese. Why. Because they were different. There weren't white, they had funny eyes and funny accents.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

This isn't a racial case.In never was.never should have been seen as such.

Racism…damn that word is used so much that when I hear it I usually have a more negative reaction to the person directing it than to the person it is directed at. I don’t think I am alone and it is a shame that by its overuse true racism is often denied or overlooked.

Racism is a complicated human emotion, and it is emotional… I often find myself at different, and some times at the same time, having conflicting reactions to events that are racists by definition.

My racial views come from my upbringing and age and by personal experience but all are tempered by emotion and reinforced by selective facts… Otherwise a mess of emotions and facts that change depending on the circumstances and my mood at the time.

I am the only one that knows my deepest feelings on race and if honest with myself I am not racists. Yet at times without thinking a thought or action will come out that is… For instance my statement below in my mind is NOT racists but I’ll bet many reading it will think it is. I can only hope that those that think I am will engage me in conversation and if we can’t change the others mind at least understand each other.

So here it goes:

It seems to me the basic reason racism comes up in the Zimmerman case is that Zimmerman targeted the young man simply because he was black.

In my way of thinking this is not racism. I feel for Police who, in the same situation, are constantly accused of profiling according to race and some even loosing their jobs for it.

If we can... lets just try and forget the past… I know this really cannot be done and should not be, but just for this example lets say there is no past racism. I will use…I… just so as to not put words in anyone's mouth.

I am worried about burglaries in my apartment complex. I decide to do something about it. I set up a citizens watch and begin patrols. There is a history of past burglaries and they were verified that the crimes were committed by dark skinned people. Now when on patrol I see a figure who is obviously dark skinned who seems to be out of place. To me it is the correct reaction to be more suspicious of this man because he has dark skin. Is it racism or logical thinking? To me it is logical… It could also be considered profiling but to me the right logical thought under the circumstances of past history of the crimes in the area.

I may even, when calling the police, in anger call this person names… but I would not necessarily be calling the race names but the criminal names.

As I stated above I also feel for police in the same situations. The police commissioner of New York City made some good points on profiling and took heat for them but he was trying to explain the difference in racial profiling and common sense in crime prevention. He said in his area 80 percent of violent crime was committed by African Americans and 15 percent by whites. They track profiling in his department and it turns out a black man was 3 percent more likely to be pulled over in his jurisdiction than a white. In his view that means that blacks are not profiled as much as the crimes in his city dictate and should be profiled more…Is this racism? I don’t believe so.

What should be looked at is the reason African Americans commit 80 percent of violent crime. Here is where true racism comes in… I will not get into the these reasons here but it is not because blacks are more violent but because of the circumstances they find themselves in partly at least because of past and present racism.

I do understand that as a almost white man, lots of Cherokee mixed in, I look at racial views a different way than a person of color. I can only hope the day comes when this will not be true.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

This isn't a racial case.In never was.never should have been seen as such.

Racism…damn that word is used so much that when I hear it I usually have a more negative reaction to the person directing it than to the person it is directed at. I don’t think I am alone and it is a shame that by its overuse true racism is often denied or overlooked.

What should be looked at is the reason African Americans commit 80 percent of violent crime. Here is where true racism comes in… I will not get into the these reasons here but it is not because blacks are more violent but because of the circumstances they find themselves in partly at least because of past and present racism.

I do understand that as a almost white man, lots of Cherokee mixed in, I look at racial views a different way than a person of color. I can only hope the day comes when this will not be true.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

You seem unfamiliar with the legal terminology as well as the precepts.
American criminal statues on things like murder, robbery, rape etc. were based on the laws that had been around long before the country was founded. And the idea that a person has the right to decide in the moment if they are in danger is an extension of that path.

Just because the media keeps repeating that Florida has made some new law that makes murder legal... doesn't make it so.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

It's pathetic that a states justice system and laws have gotten so perverted that they have literally upended one of the most basic tenets of American jurisprudence...

It would seem to me that the most basic tenet of American jurisprudence is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

Maybe you need to brush up on English. "one of the" does not equal "the"

Maybe you need to brush up on your English comprehension. I said exactly what I meant, and I meant it exactly the way I said it. So now that I've given you a clue, see if you can puzzle out what it means.

K.