For the nth time.
Oh, just the “screaming” part? Not the “let go, let go” part?
You have continuously called Zimmerman everything but a child of God and Martin has gotten a pass except when you threw the race card down. Martin is not immune from his actions because he’s black and the trial will be about his actions in regards to the shooting.
You can’t explain his presence at the location the fight started yet you’ve flailed his fear of Zimmerman as a reason for striking him.
Cite a single instance of derogatory remarks toward Martin or blacks from anybody in this thread.
Here we go again.
My post was in response to your post:
“I have the distinct feeling you haven’t reviewed all the evidence before coming to this thread. Pretty much everybody came to Martin’s defense until the evidence trickled out.”
This is what I was laughing at.
Please read carefully–I may think you’re full of crap, but at least i take the time to read your posts.
You mean the use of the “n word”?
You mean people questioning DeeDee’s intelligence?
You mean making fun of people’s speech patterns?
You mean calling Martin a thug and “no limit nigg* with a hair trigga”?
You mean portraying Martin as violent and aggressive?
You mean the talk of “black culture” and “gangsta culture” (whatever the fuck they mean)?
You mean the talk of black crime and the acceptance of Zimmerman’s profiling?
You mean people speculating that Martin was offended by Zimmerman because he was black?
Or how about the response that black poster got when he revealed his race?
I asked for a cite of a derogatory remark. Let’s start with something I said. I stated that being challenged over your presence in your own neighborhood is insulting. I also suggested it would be more insulting if you were black. This is not a derogatory remark.
I said Dee Dee’s testimony was all over the place. It’s poorly recounted and disjointed. This is not a derogatory remark.
Maybe I should have indexed each posting…
Ok then, let’s start with your comment.
Why even bring up that it would be more insulting if you were black? Explain? and why would you attribute that to Martin?
Seems odd.
So who is the one thinking about race here?
I never even brought up race until some posters started showing their stripes.
The history of racism, white drinking fountains and being excluded from hotels and restaurants. Is this derogatory or is it acknowledgement of the historic crap that black people had to put up with?
I’ve been challenged in my neighborhood within eyesight of my own house. It was insulting. IMO, it would be more so from the perspective of a culture that was historically challenged over such things.
So Martin was an angry black man that night?
That’s the implication.
I don’t see the evidence that Martin was carrying an historical burden with him that night.
All indication was that Martin was fleeing from the crazy looking creepy guy as relayed by DeeDee.
You are black, then? You don’t have to answer.
I’m not surprised at all. You have repeatedly shown yourself to be misinformed and unable to grasp fairly simple legal concepts. No surprise that you fail to see the negative consequences of SYG laws.
You are correct that SYG proponents and experts are saying it doesn’t apply in this case. However you show your lack of comprehension if you think that means they support your point of view. They don’t. The ones I have heard or read speaking out that this is not a SYG case are saying it because they feel the evidence presented and Zimmerman’s account suggest “simple” self defense without any need to invoke a SYG defense.
Of course if you are kind enough to point me to SYG proponent who is on record stating SYG doesn’t apply because Martin was defending himself, I’ll gladly retract my statement once I get over the shock.
Are you aware that a couple of other fairly regular participants in this thread are black?
Since you haven’t ascribe their treatment here to racism, I have to wonder if (was it sugaree?) wasn’t treated that way due more to being a jerk than being black.
And yes I too would like to see you link to a few specific examples. Your powers of induction seem to sometimes miss context entirely.
Any such proponent would just show his stupidity and utter ignorance of the law, because the law does not consider whether the victim was defending him/herself relevant to the question of self-defense on the part of the accused.
Martin went out of his way to meet up with Zimmerman. According to Zimmerman he approaches from the same direction as his house which is where Martin said he was next to. You can speculate on his motive but his actions are one of confrontation. His beating of Zimmerman certainly appeared to be done in anger.
And he was not a man. He was a 17 year old which is not an age known for making good decisions.
then we disagree on this. But I would think hundreds of years of oppression have left a cultural mark. If you don’t that’s fine. It’s still insulting to be challenged like he was.
No, all indications are that he backtracked on Zimmerman. You have never addressed why he went back to the location he originally ran from.
Interesting…
I am strictly talking about my views of Zimmerman’s culpability. Again, I have stated that i feel that Martin was defending himself. And this was the question that I asked earlier: who was more likely to be engaged in self-defense, Zimmerman or Martin? My answer is Martin. So, by implication, Martin would be the only one to benefit from SYG. But again, I haven’t used SYG because I have not researched it well enough. I just say self-defense.
Zimmerman can claim whatever he wants to–he can claim the sky was green for all I know.
Doesn’t mean he should be able to take advantage of that defense in court or he will for that matter.
Again, even the founders of the law spoke out about this on national TV–they said it doesn’t apply to Zimmerman.
Also, i am well aware that they say it’s a simple self-defense case rather than a SYG–well aware.
I have no dog in your hunt.
You support it but haven’t researched it well enough to use it? I think that speaks volumes about your entire approach here.
You are well aware eh? Then you should know how meaningless that first statement is in light of the second.
And just who are theses “founders”? Hell, what are “founders of the law”? Are these lobbyists? Bill authors? Committee chairs? What?
True. Because we have already been told you support SYG legislation and that you think this is simply a racial discrimination case.
I should have clarified…the Florida legislator who created it: Dennis Baxley.
The “they” were the others you referred to, not Baxley.
meaning in the context of this case.
I just used the generic “self-defense” to describe it as in Martin was engaged in “self-defense”.
I agree with the law, in principal, yes.