or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

killing Trayvon - Page 372

post #5566 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Lasbar, can you provide just one single shred of credible evidence Zimmerman's "proven racial prejudice towards black guys?" Just one solid incident?

If not will you STFU?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lasbar View Post

Being labelled an idiot by you guys is like a badge of honour..

Is that the best you've got?
post #5567 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by lasbar View Post

Being labelled an idiot by you guys is like a badge of honour..

If that is the case then you are one of the most honoured people I have ever come across.
post #5568 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

White guilt is what makes all the UMC honkies on my Facebook feed feel bad for having grown up without any obvious discrimination in their life, despite never having actually perpetuated any discrimination upon anyone.

White privilege says that we're supposed to feel bad for going up that way.

OK, got it. I'm still not going to comply or feel bad in any way shape or form. I wonder if the assholes who invented this shit understand the concept of cause and effect. While we're on the subject what group has the most difficult time getting on any of the endless government handout programs? The answer would indicate discriminatory practices in my book but hey WTF! What do I know? As Norcal would say, fuck white guilt.
post #5569 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane's View Post

OK, got it. I'm still not going to comply or feel bad in any way shape or form. I wonder if the assholes who invented this shit understand the concept of cause and effect. While we're on the subject what group has the most difficult time getting on any of the endless government handout programs? The answer would indicate discriminatory practices in my book but hey WTF! What do I know? As Norcal would say, fuck white guilt.

I'd honestly like to know the answer to that question. I was under the impression that most "government handout" programs (ssi, student loans/grants, medicare, medicaid, SSI, farm subsidies, WIC, TANF, etc) have no race-based qualification criteria.
post #5570 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by lasbar View Post

You're twisting everything to fit your own vision of that incident.

You're making Zimmerman some sort of Greek tragedy hero ,a martyr and that's ridiculous and when people disagree with you,you're starting throwing some half baked assessment of people not sharing your view of the world...

I'm guessing you missed all the posts from Munch, HB, Piob etc where they actually called Zimmerman "an asshole" and said he is "morally wrong."
post #5571 of 6250
So I accidentally pulled into the parking lot of the wrong apartment complex today and when I realized where I was I had to pull in and turn around. Some guy who looked just like Zimmerman was staring me down the whole time.
post #5572 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post

So I accidentally pulled into the parking lot of the wrong apartment complex today and when I realized where I was I had to pull in and turn around. Some guy who looked just like Zimmerman was staring me down the whole time.

So he didn't chase and murder you? Probably only because you're white.
post #5573 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post

I'd honestly like to know the answer to that question. I was under the impression that most "government handout" programs (ssi, student loans/grants, medicare, medicaid, SSI, farm subsidies, WIC, TANF, etc) have no race-based qualification criteria.

There are a handful of them, but they don't award any "significant" amount of money. The vast majority of public assistance is race-neutral.
post #5574 of 6250
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/26/justice/george-zimmerman-court-costs/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Zimmerman's team asking for 200-300k in legal expense reimbursement from the state of Florida.
post #5575 of 6250
I can't get over the fact that the same language is continually used in these articles without ever mentioning the fact that it's either been debunked, or just generally BS in the first place:

"The case sparked a heated nationwide discussion of race"
-FBI investigation found that Zimmerman had nothing in his past that would indicate he was a racist, several facts indicate the opposite - this might be worth mentioning

"as well as debate over Florida's stand your ground law"
-Zimmeran didn't "stand his ground," he was pinned down on his back when he fired his weapon

"Zimmerman identifies himself as Hispanic"
-lol
post #5576 of 6250
I thought it was trying to be balanced, and I think it did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

"The case sparked a heated nationwide discussion of race"
-FBI investigation found that Zimmerman had nothing in his past that would indicate he was a racist, several facts indicate the opposite - this might be worth mentioning
It definitely did spark a heated nation wide discussion on race regardless whether Zimmerman was a racist. I don't think he was a racist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suited View Post

"as well as debate over Florida's stand your ground law"
-Zimmeran didn't "stand his ground," he was pinned down on his back when he fired his weapon

Agree with you, but there was definitely a debate, I don't think this debate is applicable to this case, but it did start a debate
Also per CNN
"Zimmerman's defense never cited "stand your ground" laws in its case, but jurors were instructed to consider them during deliberations in the high-profile trial."
post #5577 of 6250
If you mean the words "stand your ground" appeared in one of the instructions, then yes. The jury was instructed that "[Zimmerman] had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force." The no-duty-to-retreat rule was the law in Florida before the "stand your ground" law was even passed.

A comparable instruction would be given in 31 states, according to this post on the VC: http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/17/duty-to-retreat/

And I should add also that since Zimmerman could not have retreated from underneath Martin, the whole thing is moot.
post #5578 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by clee1982 View Post

I thought it was trying to be balanced, and I think it did.
It definitely did spark a heated nation wide discussion on race regardless whether Zimmerman was a racist. I don't think he was a racist.
Agree with you, but there was definitely a debate, I don't think this debate is applicable to this case, but it did start a debate
Also per CNN
"Zimmerman's defense never cited "stand your ground" laws in its case, but jurors were instructed to consider them during deliberations in the high-profile trial."

The phrase "stand his ground" did appear in the jury instructions. This phrase did not in any way invoke the Stand Your Ground Law at 776.013 of the Florida Statutes. The phrase appeared in one of 8 paragraphs related to the standard jury instruction of justifiable use of deadly force.

"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any
place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his
ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was
necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent
the commission of a forcible felony"

Please tell me in what way this paragraph related to a theory of the crime advanced by the prosecution or a theory of defense as advanced by Zimmerman's counsel.
post #5579 of 6250
Straw man was wearing a hoodie, apparently. I'm pretty sure clee's main point was that whether or not those issues were properly (or at all) raised during the trial, they became subjects of debate outside the courtroom -- albeit in some cases only because of a failure to understand what was and was not actually at issue in the Zimmerman trial.
post #5580 of 6250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

If you mean the words "stand your ground" appeared in one of the instructions, then yes. The jury was instructed that "[Zimmerman] had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force." The no-duty-to-retreat rule was the law in Florida before the "stand your ground" law was even passed.

A comparable instruction would be given in 31 states, according to this post on the VC: http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/17/duty-to-retreat/

And I should add also that since Zimmerman could not have retreated from underneath Martin, the whole thing is moot.

there are various ways to change position and get the upper position in that instance allowing someone to retreat for anyonem that owuld be common knowledge to a person that has a basic concept of SD
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › killing Trayvon