Zimmerman trial

[Brock Beauchamp]

Thats just silly. More people are killed by tripping on the sidewalk. I would never carry a gun but the idea that criminals can know with nearly 100% confidence I am no threat to them is pretty scary. Zimmerman defended himself and in doing so it was a tragic result. Most people killed by guns do something pretty stupid leading up to it. Oh well.

 

More people die from tripping on a sidewalk than accidental and misguided shootings?

 

You're joking, right?

 

Also, it is FAR from conclusive that Zimmerman was defending himself. Failure to convict does not equal exoneration.

[The Wise One]

Thats just silly. More people are killed by tripping on the sidewalk. I would never carry a gun but the idea that criminals can know with nearly 100% confidence I am no threat to them is pretty scary. Zimmerman defended himself and in doing so it was a tragic result. Most people killed by guns do something pretty stupid leading up to it. Oh well.

Brock may think you are kidding, I doubt it. 32 thousand gun deaths in 2011. Yeah right, 16000 people wre doing somethig pretty stupid. Lastyear thev4000 pedistrians were probably doing something stupid in your book when they were hit.

[TheLeviathan]

Most people killed by guns do something pretty stupid leading up to it. Oh well.

 

That's pretty disgusting. There is no "oh well" to this - we have an innocent with their life lost. At night and being followed for an unknown reason are really strong reasons for someone's flight/fight instinct to kick in. The poor kid was probably scared out of his mind - or at least nervous. What he did wasn't stupid, it was perfectly reasonable under these conditions. Hell, it's precisely why Zimmerman was told to not pursuit.

 

To the larger case - I'm more and more disturbed by this prosecution. Their opening statements claimed Zimmerman was on top and it was Martin screaming - by the end they had acknowledged Martin was on top and that he had a right to defend himself. How does that happen?

 

I chewed on the interviews/press conferences and there is just something I don't like about Angela Corey. A quick check of her background shows that she has been involved in some really extreme cases of overcharging - charging a 12 year old as an adult, putting a 77 year old man who fired warning shots into the ground to scare away people threatening to assault him for 20 years (a charge a Florida judge called a crime in and of itself), and the case of a black woman who fired a gun into a ceiling to scare away her abusive husband.

 

All under her watch. Combine that with a flimsy affadavit, repeated failures to disclose discovery, firing one of her employees for testifying in court that these things happened, and a flimsy case....and I see the work of a politician. This seems like it was all a publicity stunt on her part to continue to boost her name recognition. I know this is conspiracy theory-ish, but read up on this woman's past. I'm no longer as shocked as I was before about how this case came to end up like this.

 

Afterall, how can anyone in their right mind think you can get a murder conviction when your case looks like the model the underpants gnomes use:

 

1. First, he racially profiled

2. Then.......

3. Next....murder!

 

Just stupid. No justice for a slain kid because someone wanted to win political points rather than pursue a charge they might have actually succeeded at.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Interesting, Levi. I didn't know she was behind the ridiculous overcharging of the woman who fired rounds into her ceiling to deter her husband from beating the crap out of her.

 

This woman is starting to sound like a menace. I wish more judges had the moxie to publicly berate these kinds of lawyers and shame them out of the system (or, at the very least, raise public awareness of them). They absolutely have the right to do it and generally, face no repercussion for doing so.

 

After dating a lawyer for several years, I'm starting to realize the awesome power held by judges. It's both frightening and reassuring, depending on the judge.

[TheLeviathan]

Apparently Derschowitz has been calling for her to be disbarred. They have quite the feud going.

 

In the 77 year olds case a judge did wield some executive power to erase the "crime" that was the sentence and she just pressed on for a judge that caved.

 

I Really think her role in this is getting underplayed in the rush to not look at the details of this awful, corrupt prosecution. and let me be clear....seeking a charge was needed, doing so unethically only made this injustice a guarantee.

[SweetOne69]

No, the moral of the story is whether we should allow average schmucks to carry around guns in public for no particular reason.

 

And I'm generally pro-gun. Letting poorly trained people with no law enforcement or security experience carry around firearms because they feel afraid is not going to lead to desirable outcomes.

 

Actually Brock the "Average Schmuck" has more firearm experience then the trained law enforcement or security personnel. Many law enforcement personnel only ever shoot their weapons when the have to re-qualify, whereas the average schmuck who decides to carry a firearm practice on a regular basis.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Actually Brock the "Average Schmuck" has more firearm experience then the trained law enforcement or security personnel. Many law enforcement personnel only ever shoot their weapons when the have to re-qualify, whereas the average schmuck who decides to carry a firearm practice on a regular basis.

 

I worked in a gun shop for nearly two years. In the case of the police departments I dealt with on a regular basis, they were required to shoot their firearms on a fairly regular basis and there was a constant flow of police officers through our range.

 

On top of that, the average schmuck has no training in how to handle a crisis situation and has very little idea of when they are within the bounds of the law to shoot at someone else. There is a reason why a good percentage of police officers dislike conceal and/or carry laws. It makes their job more difficult when they have to worry about "Weekend Dirty Harrys" wandering the streets without a lick of training or know-how in dealing with a crisis situation.

 

Police officers are not infallible but when a cop approaches you, at least you're confident that at some point, he/she had training in crisis management and had to pass a somewhat rigorous shooting proficiency test. If a Weekend Dirty Harry approaches you with a gun, you have no such confidence in that being the case. After working in that gun shop for a couple of years, I saw all types come through the door and some of them were downright frightening. Some of the conceal/carry folks were ex-military. I have no problems with those people carrying firearms (most of the time). It was the other folks who scared the hell out of me. The people who wanted a conceal/carry permit because they were scared of something... in some cases, everything. Or maybe they had a chip on their shoulder and were itching for a fight. Those were the folks that can cause real damage and get people hurt. Those are the people who shouldn't be carrying guns in public and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that a person have a reason for carrying a gun before letting them walk around with one on their hip.

 

I'm not against carry laws. All I want to see is a bit of screening into "why do you feel it necessary to walk around with a gun all day?"

[TheLeviathan]

I don't expect the right-wing to wake up to their stupidity in this case (racial injustice just doesn't seem to be a concept they can understand) but I am heartened that some are waking up to the real problem here.

 

Some left-leaning sites actually seem to be digging into more than the surface finally. The more I read about it today the more I think a prosecutor with an interest in making a name for herself duped millions of people into thinking this case was more than it really was. (Some were even predicting that before the trial even started based on the affidavit) That becomes really aggravating when you consider all the people that damages.

[Shane Wahl]

I wasn't surprised by the verdict, but have been surprised by some reactions to it. How anyone honestly could believe that Zimmerman didn't cause this killing and thus deserves some kind of punishment is completely beyond me. If Trayvon Martin were white, Zimmerman would be in prison RIGHT NOW. If you don't believe that, you need to re-evaluate how you think about things in America.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I worked in a gun shop for nearly two years. In the case of the police departments I dealt with on a regular basis, they were required to shoot their firearms on a fairly regular basis and there was a constant flow of police officers through our range.

 

On top of that, the average schmuck has no training in how to handle a crisis situation and has very little idea of when they are within the bounds of the law to shoot at someone else. There is a reason why a good percentage of police officers dislike conceal and/or carry laws. It makes their job more difficult when they have to worry about "Weekend Dirty Harrys" wandering the streets without a lick of training or know-how in dealing with a crisis situation.

 

Police officers are not infallible but when a cop approaches you, at least you're confident that at some point, he/she had training in crisis management and had to pass a somewhat rigorous shooting proficiency test. If a Weekend Dirty Harry approaches you with a gun, you have no such confidence in that being the case. After working in that gun shop for a couple of years, I saw all types come through the door and some of them were downright frightening. Some of the conceal/carry folks were ex-military. I have no problems with those people carrying firearms (most of the time). It was the other folks who scared the hell out of me. The people who wanted a conceal/carry permit because they were scared of something... in some cases, everything. Or maybe they had a chip on their shoulder and were itching for a fight. Those were the folks that can cause real damage and get people hurt. Those are the people who shouldn't be carrying guns in public and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that a person have a reason for carrying a gun before letting them walk around with one on their hip.

 

I'm not against carry laws. All I want to see is a bit of screening into "why do you feel it necessary to walk around with a gun all day?"

 

I was with you up until your conclusion. There's a constitutional issue here, as the right to bare arms should not be infringed. I do think there's something to be said that the respect for firearms was common place back in the 1700s due to the need to do things like hunt, but it isn't as though people didn't die back then from this type of thing either.

 

I have a permit, though I don't own a concealable gun yet as the one I have doesn't conceal well, and I want to carry for no other reason than that you never know when you might be stuck in a theater with some idiot shooting at anyone. It may help, it may not, but I'd rather not trust my life (or my family's life) to fate or wait 5 minutes for police when I only have about 10 seconds to do something. That's a pretty valid reason that anyone can use.

[Badsmerf]

I wasn't surprised by the verdict, but have been surprised by some reactions to it. How anyone honestly could believe that Zimmerman didn't cause this killing and thus deserves some kind of punishment is completely beyond me. If Trayvon Martin were white, Zimmerman would be in prison RIGHT NOW. If you don't believe that, you need to re-evaluate how you think about things in America.

Wow. I wish I could be eloquent right now, but I'm hung over and just trying my best to spell words correctly right now. Zimmerman would be in jail if the prosecution weren't idiots. This isn't about race, this is about definition of the law. Self defense is self defense, there is a reason we have it. This case is an illustration of how self defense can be manipulated. Don't try telling me this is about ****ing race. To Zimmerman it might have been, but to the definition of the law, it is not.

[PseudoSABR]

This case is an illustration of how self defense can be manipulated.

I agree with this. But race is certainly involved from the profiling Martin by Zimmerman to the initial non-arrest of Zimmerman by the cops. The outcome of the trial, however, had nothing to do with race, as you suggest.

[TheLeviathan]

I agree with this. But race is certainly involved from the profiling Martin by Zimmerman to the initial non-arrest of Zimmerman by the cops. The outcome of the trial, however, had nothing to do with race, as you suggest.

 

"Certainly involved" - I think that's a stretch. I believe it played a role, but when and how much is utter and complete speculation. Frankly, there is as much reason to believe "hooded young person" was the profile he was looking for as it is "young black male". And you have nothing but your own biases and beliefs to fuel your decision either way. It annoys me that we talk so much about this as a certainty. Truth is, everyone of all creeds and colors, profiles for good and bad. It's just what we do. What Zimmerman was profiling is speculation. I know that offends the ears of liberals in general on this issue, but that's the truth. You can argue the subtext of "punks" (as if that's now suddenly code for race? Did every old person with a kid on their lawn mean to be racist all these years now? How conveniently these terms get used) or I could devil's advocate the idea that he never volunteered race, something I would expect a race-motivated person to do without prompting. Could I be wrong? Absolutely, the difference between me and you is that I'm not professing certainty.

 

Also - what were the cops supposed to do exactly? Arrest him for show just to appease people even though they had all the evidence, knew there was no case, and were actually pushing for a more appropriate charge of manslaughter while their local prosecution felt (again, based on law and evidence) that there was no case? Why are these guys the bad guys when they were just doing exactly what they should have done?

[PseudoSABR]

Are you really splicing "playing a role" and "certainly involved"--they seem a matter of emphasis to me. If race played a role, it was certainly involved then...

 

Look, do I know for a fact that Zimmerman profiled Martin because of his race, or that the cops handled the death of a young black man differently than that of another death? Of course I don't have proof of that. But it is my belief, my opinion. It's not spurious speculation (as you frame it), it's an informed inference based on the facts of the case and my understanding of the culture at large.

 

I imagine the prosecution's case would have been stronger had the cops been more cynical of Zimmerman's story and treated him as a suspect murderer. Again, that's my opinion.

 

Honestly, latent racism is unprovable, but we shouldn't deny it's existence.

[TheLeviathan]

Are you really splicing "playing a role" and "certainly involved"--they seem a matter of emphasis to me. If race played a role, it was certainly involved then...

 

In my opinion it did. I'm not claiming certainty though, I could be wrong. You can't claim you believe something and that makes it "certainly involved". Whether you want to call it spurious or not, it's speculation.

 

I imagine the prosecution's case would have been stronger had the cops been more cynical of Zimmerman's story and treated him as a suspect murderer. Again, that's my opinion.

 

I imagine they would have been more cynical of his story if there was evidence that they should be. Which, even the prosecution that was trying to prop this up, couldn't do. As has been the case from the beginning of this, you're more informed by ideology than facts.

 

Honestly, latent racism is unprovable, but we shouldn't deny it's existence.

 

It's also counter-productive to say it is "certainly" involved when we are only speculating. No one denied it's existence, this is just a piss-poor example to trumpet for it.

[PseudoSABR]

If i would have said "surely" instead of "certainly" would that be okay? It's a figure of speech really, which speaks to the confidence I have in my opinion. What's counter productive is your bullying about semantics. Anyone reading this forum realizes that I realize that I can't be completely certain of damn near anything.

No one denied it's existence, this is just a piss-poor example to trumpet for it.

I'm not trumpeting anything. However, I think you're totally wrong. I think Martin's death, the Zimmerman trial, the media coverage, and the reaction to the verdict permeate with latent racism. Even if you disagree, it's hardly a piss-poor example.

[TheLeviathan]

Anyone reading this forum realizes that I realize that I can't be completely certain of damn near anything.

 

What I read is exactly what is being espoused on one side of the argument and it is precisely what is meant. Anyone with the audacity (as Smerf showed) to question the certitude of the involvement of race is treated as though they are ignoring the obvious and undeniable. Most of the time it's a subtle jab at the other person as well.

 

The only racism in this case exists because of a mass of trumped up evidence, half truths, and media over-reaction. There are far better cases of latent racism, many of which the very same prosecution is guilty of. This is a poor example because it's such a strained, fabricated effort to do so.

[PseudoSABR]

Anyone with the audacity (as Smerf showed) to question the certitude of the involvement of race is treated as though they are ignoring the obvious and undeniable. Most of the time it's a subtle jab at the other person as well.

Huh? Are you implying that my reply to smerf was a personal jab?

 

The only racism in this case exists because of a mass of trumped up evidence, half truths, and media over-reaction.

You can't give me heck for certitude and then express certitude about the reverse opinion. Come on.

 

I'm not sure what's gained by minimizing the race component. Do you really think Zimmerman and the cops (and even Martin himself) would have behaved in exactly the same manner if Martin had not been Black? I guess you're entitled to that opinion but it seems awfully forced to me.

 

The inability to discern whether or not the cops or Zimmerman behaved differently because Martin was Black doesn't minimize the impact on racial politics and culture.

 

Questlove from The Roots puts it into perspective here.

 

And of course, Obama's impromptu speech does as well

[video=youtube;2PTb30JPAQQ]

[TheLeviathan]

Huh? Are you implying that my reply to smerf was a personal jab?

 

Nope, just way overstating the certainty.

 

You can't give me heck for certitude and then express certitude about the reverse opinion. Come on.

 

We're talking two different issues. I can say with absolute certainty (because it can be proven/disproven) that there has been false information at root in the perception of racism. I don't deny there is a perception of racism, I deny it's well founded in this case.

 

The inability to discern whether or not the cops or Zimmerman behaved differently because Martin was Black doesn't minimize the impact on racial politics and culture.

 

Well, it does because there was ample evidence to show that the cops behaved inappropriately given the evidence. I guess I'd pick one of the many, many, many examples in which they didn't to a black man rather than this.

 

I don't understand what is to be gained by making an issue of laws an issue of race when there are so many genuine examples of race that would be better served.

[mikecgrimes]

Are you really splicing "playing a role" and "certainly involved"--they seem a matter of emphasis to me. If race played a role, it was certainly involved then...

 

Look, do I know for a fact that Zimmerman profiled Martin because of his race, or that the cops handled the death of a young black man differently than that of another death?

 

If you think race matters more then what he was wearing you're a fool. I think people want to ignore the possibility that the facts of the case didn't require Zimmerman to lie to investigators.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I was with you up until your conclusion. There's a constitutional issue here, as the right to bare arms should not be infringed. I do think there's something to be said that the respect for firearms was common place back in the 1700s due to the need to do things like hunt, but it isn't as though people didn't die back then from this type of thing either.

 

I have a permit, though I don't own a concealable gun yet as the one I have doesn't conceal well, and I want to carry for no other reason than that you never know when you might be stuck in a theater with some idiot shooting at anyone. It may help, it may not, but I'd rather not trust my life (or my family's life) to fate or wait 5 minutes for police when I only have about 10 seconds to do something. That's a pretty valid reason that anyone can use.

 

For the first 200 years of this nation's history, nobody really complained about conceal and carry permits being very restrictive. Only in the past 30 years have we inexplicably decided that people should be allowed to carry firearms around in public pretty much anywhere they please.

 

This isn't a Constitutional situation. I'm not saying we should restrict who can buy that gun, only that we restrict whether that person can carry it into a packed movie theatre after they passed a test that involved little more than "this is the end that goes bang". The second amendment covers the right to own a firearm, not to do as you please with it at the expense of those around you. The courts of this nation didn't have any problems with states saying that people can't carry firearms in public (and, seeing as many states still have restrictive laws on the books regarding such matters, they still don't). I'm not advocating that the Federal government start clamping down on states for playing fast and loose with carry laws, I'm only suggesting that it's in everybody's best interest if states self-regulate and use a little common sense instead of trumpeting "you'll pry my gun from my cold dead hands" every time somebody even mentions that maybe we shouldn't let fringe nutjobs walk around with a loaded Colt 1911 all day long.

[PseudoSABR]

If you think race matters more then what he was wearing you're a fool. I think people want to ignore the possibility that the facts of the case didn't require Zimmerman to lie to investigators.

Oh the ole hoodie condemnation!! How thoughtful of you, Geraldo Rivera. Good thing white people never wear hoodies in the rain. Zimmerman did lie over and over. Maybe that was out of fear of injustice, but it's pretty clear he lied when talking to investigators, but you probably know that with how much homework you've done on the issue, being so unfoolish.

[PseudoSABR]

Well, it does because there was ample evidence to show that the cops behaved inappropriately given the evidence. I guess I'd pick one of the many, many, many examples in which they didn't to a black man rather than this.

Sure there's thousands of better examples, but none have the exposure or the culture resonance to spur a meaningful debate. It's a bit maddening that debate with you is so often about the terms of the debate rather than debate itself. (Don't use this example, you can't be so certain, etc.)

 

It's wishful thinking to suggest the cultural debate should rally around the best and most precise instances of social injustice. Even with poor examples, we can reveal meaningful social truths (as I tried to point out above); in my opinion any which way a debate about social injustice can happen at public level is a good one, and one that we'd be foolish to pass up.

[TheLeviathan]

Sure there's thousands of better examples, but none have the exposure or the culture resonance to spur a meaningful debate. It's a bit maddening that debate with you is so often about the terms of the debate rather than debate itself. (Don't use this example, you can't be so certain, etc.)

 

It's wishful thinking to suggest the cultural debate should rally around the best and most precise instances of social injustice. Even with poor examples, we can reveal meaningful social truths (as I tried to point out above); in my opinion any which way a debate about social injustice can happen at public level is a good one, and one that we'd be foolish to pass up.

 

The terms are always important. The very nature of our political discord is rooted in that problem. Both sides set their own terms and then wonder why the debate never gets anywhere. The discourse will never reach meaningful conclusions.

 

I doubt you accept the terms from an anti-abortion person that the practice is murder before you talk constitutionality. The issue is here that you like your terms so much but can't see how they get in the way of the issue. For example, I think there is a lot of racial injustice in the system, but having it in this context is irrelevant. So it matters a ton.

[PseudoSABR]

The terms are always important. The very nature of our political discord is rooted in that problem. Both sides set their own terms and then wonder why the debate never gets anywhere. The discourse will never reach meaningful conclusions.

 

I doubt you accept the terms from an anti-abortion person that the practice is murder before you talk constitutionality. The issue is here that you like your terms so much but can't see how they get in the way of the issue. For example, I think there is a lot of racial injustice in the system, but having it in this context is irrelevant. So it matters a ton.

Again you're being idealistic. Debating the terms of the debate can be as endless and fruitless as the debate itself.

 

While I do agree with you in the abstract, in this instance, I'm not sure how helpful you've been in engendering a fruitful discussion. The distinctions/terms you are making seem awfully petty in light of your murder/abortion analogy.

 

My larger point is that, without incidents like Zimmerman-Martin, people just don't have this conversation, and you're totally dismissing that point. While their might be better examples of racial and social injustice, this case provides a common touchstone for us to have an actual conversation.

[TheLeviathan]

Again you're being idealistic. Debating the terms of the debate can be as endless and fruitless as the debate itself.

 

Well, it's that or you don't have a discussion. Do you really think this left-driven debate on this issue is getting anywhere? It's not, in fact it's emboldening the other side of the aisle in states that have these laws and it's missing the point entirely.

 

You are getting high and mighty about this because these are your terms, so you want them respected and honored in the debate. You think they are a "common touchtone", but they are really just your touchtones. You won't get commonality if you don't have it in the terms of the discussion. If the roles were reversed, you'd easily dismiss them as well. But instead you come after a reasonable guy like Smerf who disagrees with you because you have to make sure your terms are the field for debate. It just alienates those that disagree. That's precisely what we are seeing nationally.

 

This case only got national attention on the back of a bunch of distortions and exaggerations of the case initially. Hell, you held on those distortions well into the actual case, utterly ignoring the actual evidence. Let's find one of the many other cases in which young black men were treated unfairly. I'm sure we can find hundreds of them the media didn't exploit falsely for ratings to have a real discussion. The problem is, that's too much work. Easier to just inflame a case that most people have about 10-20% grip on what actually happened.

[PseudoSABR]

Do you really think this left-driven debate on this issue is getting anywhere?

Dude, I'd have a lot more respect for your point if you showed the same investment in policing conservative assumptions/terms (which are littered throughout this thread and the forum in general), which you rarely do if at all. I mean you're acting like your approaching the conversation from objective point of view. You're not.

 

This case only got national attention on the back of a bunch of distortions and exaggerations of the case initially. Hell, you held on those distortions well into the actual case, utterly ignoring the actual evidence.

No, it got national intention because of public outcry--the sensationalism came later. And, no, I didn't ignore the facts of the case I drew different conclusions from those facts. I don't want to get into arguing about the case again.

 

And how the heck to did I "come after" Smerf--who was pretty aggressive in his response to Shane for pete's sake. The first sentence of my post responding to Smerf was "I agree with this."

[TheLeviathan]

Dude, I'd have a lot more respect for your point if you showed the same investment in policing conservative assumptions/terms (which are littered throughout this thread and the forum in general),

 

Um, 9:03am on 7/15 in this very thread. How about the gay marriage thread with the dude who thought he could use "logic" to defeat it? How about anytime hornhead shows up to defend privatizing education? I can't help that those posters haven't been around as much lately. If you want to pose as one for me to criticize, go for it, but this accusation is utterly baseless.

 

You just don't like your comfy liberalism having some light shown on it. Lefties, on this issue, think they have some kind of moral high ground because they have fabricated the terms of this debate around a case that is minimally about race. Most of what you base your terms on were totally fabricated by the media to hype this case into the national spotlight - from showing 12 year old Trayvon, to minimizing the confrontation, to altering the phone call, to turning "punks" into a racial term. (People still think he somehow said "coon" - which is utterly false) I'm sorry, but this isn't a clear case of racial injustice no matter how much you want it to be and the country won't have a meaningful debate on this until that is realized.

 

In fact, I'd argue Obama and even Holder have realized this fact in recent days and backed off their rhetoric to focus more on the heavily flawed self-defense laws. (Laws, if you'll remember back on BYTO, I was calling the real source of the problem from Day 1. Not race.)

[PseudoSABR]

Um, 9:03am on 7/15 in this very thread. How about the gay marriage thread with the dude who thought he could use "logic" to defeat it? How about anytime hornhead shows up to defend privatizing education? I can't help that those posters haven't been around as much lately. If you want to pose as one for me to criticize, go for it, but this accusation is utterly baseless.

Like I said rare. I can't imagine anyone whose watched you debate with others over the years would disagree. It's fine dude, you're conservative, but you're reasonable, so it's interesting to debate with you. (And really calling out the crazies from either side, does nothing to diminish one's own bias).

 

You just don't like your comfy liberalism having some light shown on it. Lefties, on this issue, think they have some kind of moral high ground because they have fabricated the terms of this debate around a case that is minimally about race.

Dude, you're coming at me! You trying to call me out for being rude and dismissive of other points of view, and you're doing exactly that. You consistently use the word Lefty as a pejorative and rudely try to frame my thinking as some liberal heathen hell bent on finding racism in everyone. I think my tone and my reasoning has been pretty diplomatic, even if you don't agree with them. Honestly, you haven't showed me the same courtesy.

 

And really, do you think I'm so dull-witted to let the media shape my point view so thoroughly, I can see through the media sensationalism and still believe this is an incident of racial injustice--and that race played a role, as you said. (Certainty, aside, which as I said, was more a figure of speech about the the confidence in my opinion).

 

focus more on the heavily flawed self-defense laws. (Laws, if you'll remember back on BYTO, I was calling the real source of the problem from Day 1. Not race.)

Like Smerf said, which I agreed with! That doesn't mean that race wasn't involved in what happened that night and the following days. And to say the 'real' source of the problem is exactly the kind of rhetoric that should bother you. There is no one 'real' problem; it's absurd to rank the problems in terms of realness. I realize that your use of real is a colloquial as my use of certainly; but the irony here is palatable.

 

It's fine that you disagree about whether or not race was involved that night (and I'm not even sure that you do), but to suggest I am trying to shape the terms (by using the term 'certainly' as opposed to 'real) so the debate favors me is totally false and does me a disservice.

 

And if I remember correctly you thought Zimmerman was going to be found guilty of manslaughter--now that he wasn't you don't see some injustice in that? I just don't really understand why you're coming at me so hard.

[TheLeviathan]

Like I said rare. I guess what they say is that one's ideology is invisible. (And really calling out the crazies from either side, does nothing to diminish one's own bias).

 

Sticking with that baseless claim huh? Wow. I'm just going to leave it right there, I have nothing to say past that.