Trayvon Martin case to go to grand jury, Fla. state attorney announces

[Noop]

Originally Posted by molson

You'd be willing to throw people in prison for following others on the street? That's pretty hardcore. I mean, our prisons are already pretty crowded. "What are you in for?" "Following some guy."

Or make following someone prima facie for not being able to assert self-defense. Obviously you will need other factors, but it should be something taken into consideration.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Noop

Or make following someone prima facie for not being able to assert self-defense. Obviously you will need other factors, but it should be something taken into consideration.

It would be a worthy educational exercise in a civics or law school class. Draft a self-defense statute that you feel abrogates whatever concerns you have about this case, but also doesn't criminalize a whole new category of activity we don't necessary want to criminalize. It's too easy to say that Zimmerman's an asshole who we just want not to be free anymore, or, even worse, that we have to convict him of SOMETHING in order to validate Martin or give his life some meaning (which is a terrible trap that many victim families, black and white, fall into - the criminal justice system and its outcomes has ZERO relevance to any victim's worth as a person or status as a real victim, shit goes down, crimes go unsolved, murderers go free, Zimmerman walking free doesn't criminalize Martin's behavior). We should always look to improve laws, and maybe we can here, so, I think that's the only rational focus for the angry people - propose changes to self-defense laws.

Though, we should say at this point too - the widely predicted riots did not happen. It seems like the verdict compelled debate instead of violence. Great.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by TroyF

The only thing I regret is not making it clear that I do not think Zimmerman is an exceptional human being when I wrote about Martin and "thug life" First off, I am not sure how many people saw all of th rexts and photos on TM's phone. It sowed a kid who wa already involved in illegal fire arms, drugs and violence. That is a horrible thing for anyone to be involved in, white, black or purple.

Like I said earlier, it's remarkable how you gloss over the fact that Zimmerman had been arrested for assaulting a police officer, a restraining order taken out by an ex, and a close relative state she was sexually assaulted by him for a decade since she was 6.

I don't have a huge issue with the verdict or anything, but it's funny watching you call someone who has been accused of beating women and of being a pedophile as "not exceptional". For someone interested in the character of people involved, you sure gloss over one side.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

You'd be willing to throw people in prison for following others on the street? That's pretty hardcore. I mean, our prisons are already pretty crowded. "What are you in for?" "Following some guy."

I think if the negligient actions of someone leads to the death of another person, you should go to prison.

I don't think yelling out Fire should be a crime. But if you yell it out at a theater and people get trampled to death, you should be held responsible. If you are following someone around a neighborhood at night and it leads to a confrontation where you shoot the unarmed person, perhaps you should be held responsible for that too.

The idea that you can be thrown in prison for doing something negligent that leads to the death of someone is not a foreign concept.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think if the negligient actions of someone leads to the death of another person, you should go to prison.

I don't think yelling out Fire should be a crime. But if you yell it out at a theater and people get trampled to death, you should be held responsible. If you are following someone around a neighborhood at night and it leads to a confrontation where you shoot the unarmed person, perhaps you should be held responsible for that too.

The idea that you can be thrown in prison for doing something negligent that leads to the death of someone is not a foreign concept.

What was the act that actually qualifies as criminal negligence under Florida law, and not just your moral judgment? Following someone? "Negligence", as a legal term, is more of an omission than an action. Like forgetting to check the plane engine before you take off, resulting in death. It's a failure in one's responsibilities. It's not a catch-all term to criminalize the behavior of people you don't like. Unless you're OK with police and prosecutors characterizing any behavior they don't like as "negligence" on a case-by-case basis, subject to their own individual moral judgments.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

What was the act that actually qualifies as criminal negligence under Florida law, and not just your moral judgment? Following someone? "Negligence", as a legal term, is more of an omission than an action. Like forgetting to check the plane engine before you take off, resulting in death. It's a failure in one's responsibilities. It's not a catch-all term to criminalize the behavior of people you don't like. Unless you're OK with police and prosecutors targeting any behavior they don't like as "negligence".

RainMaker wasn't saying there WAS a negligent action, just that he thinks if your actions lead to the death of another person you should be held liable (given that "negligence" has a precise legal definition perhaps that's not a word we should be using). Which is a good idea IMO.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Noop

Or make following someone prima facie for not being able to assert self-defense. Obviously you will need other factors, but it should be something taken into consideration.

Society has a right, and I'd argue an obligation, to protect itself.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Unless you're OK with police and prosecutors characterizing any behavior they don't like as "negligence" on a case-by-case basis, subject to their own individual moral judgments.

That's actually their job.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

RainMaker wasn't saying there WAS a negligent action, just that he thinks if your actions lead to the death of another person you should be held liable (given that "negligence" has a precise legal definition perhaps that's not a word we should be using). Which is a good idea IMO.

I guess I still wonder - why isn't the only problem with the force proportionality requirement? Didn't Zimmerman AT LEAST have the right to defend himself with his fists? Or was he legally required to just lie there and take it? To me the only real issue here is that he pulled out a gun in the middle of a fist fight. I would say that was not a proportional force response. In my state, this would be a much more difficult sell because the statute only allows a person to use the force "necessary" to prevent the harm.

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's actually their job.

No it's not. Their job is to determine whether an individual's actions fall under conduct proscribed by the legislature, and to prove such conduct to a jury. If a legislature legalizes marijuana, the state doesn't get to just continue prosecuting it on moral grounds.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I guess I still wonder - why isn't the only problem with the force proportionality requirement? Didn't Zimmerman AT LEAST have the right to defend himself with his fists? Or was he legally required to just lie there and take it? To me the only real issue here is that he pulled out a gun in the middle of a fist fight. I would say that was not a proportional force response. In my state, this would be a much more difficult sell because the statute only allows a person to use the force "necessary" to prevent the harm.

Everyone has a right to defend themselves. But I do think if you instigate a confrontation, you can't whip out your gun and kill them the minute you start losing the fight.

The state obviously couldn't prove that is what happened. And we'll probably never really know how everything started. Most of us are formulating our own opinions on what transpired.

Originally Posted by molson

No it's not. Their job is to determine whether an individual's actions fall under conduct proscribed by the legislature, and to prove such conduct to a jury. If a legislature legalizes marijuana, the state doesn't get to just continue prosecuting it on moral grounds.

There isn't a book that lists every single possible scenario for homicide. It is absolutely the job of law enforcement and the district attorney to make determinations as to whether the actions of someone led to the death of another person. Whether those actions fit within the guidelines set forth in the law.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by molson

You'd be willing to throw people in prison for following others on the street? That's pretty hardcore. I mean, our prisons are already pretty crowded. "What are you in for?" "Following some guy."

Right, that's exactly what I said. For somebody who is supposed to be smart you sure as hell like to play obtuse when it suits your side of the argument.

There was clear intent on Zimmerman's part from the conversation with the dispatcher to intercept Martin, even when discouraged. We could easily pass laws to discourage that kind of vigilantism. I just think it's insanity to have people with zero training running around trying to play the cop, especially when firearms are involved.

I generally agree with the decision in the case based on the laws that are on the books. But the whole thing was just completely fucking unnecessary and it started with Zimmerman deciding he was Batman and he was going to chase a kid down based on a stupid hunch.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Like I said earlier, it's remarkable how you gloss over the fact that Zimmerman had been arrested for assaulting a police officer, a restraining order taken out by an ex, and a close relative state she was sexually assaulted by him for a decade since she was 6.

I don't have a huge issue with the verdict or anything, but it's funny watching you call someone who has been accused of beating women and of being a pedophile as "not exceptional". For someone interested in the character of people involved, you sure gloss over one side.

Ok. I never tried to gloss over it. But lets go ahead and address it, ok?

1) Zimmerman was arrested for assault on a police officer. The assault was pushing a police office who was questioning his friend. Zimmerman entered alcohol rehab and took a plea.

2) Zimmerman did have a restraining order on him. He also put one on his ex fiancee at the same time.

3) The most damning charge by far is that of molestation. The abuse would have started when Zimmerman was 8 years old. (She claims t started at six, she is two years younger than George). She came forward because George could not hurt her anymore now that he was charged with killing TM. Since her accusation, no other family members or others have come forward. She also claims George was a racist.


Martin had pictures and texts on his phone of pot plants, smoking weed, illegal guns, and fighting (including videos)

When I wrote about Martin, it was only to say the lifestyle should not be excused or looked up to. It should not be "cool" for a young person to act the way Martin was. I also wrote, very clearly, that the information should not have been allowed in the trial (and i was not allowed)

As for Zimmerman, the first charge is a big who gives a crap. We all likely have friends who were charged with something that stupid in their younger days. As to the second, we have a he said, she said. I have no friends and will not have friends who hit their wives. If Zimmerman did it, I would have no use for him.

The last charge? I do not claim to know, but the most explosive charges need the most explosive proof. Obviously, if true, Zimmerman should be behind bars. . . for child molestation, not for murdering TM. Before I start calling Zimmerman a child molester, I would like some more proof.

So, there, now I have addressed Zimmerman the person.

Neither Zimmerman the person or TM the person change the facts of the case. The opinion of TM came up because I believe the kid wa headed down a dark path. A pathI do not feel should be encouraged.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

RainMaker wasn't saying there WAS a negligent action, just that he thinks if your actions lead to the death of another person you should be held liable (given that "negligence" has a precise legal definition perhaps that's not a word we should be using). Which is a good idea IMO.

Yeah, I was more talking about his comical spin on it. Pretending that people want others thrown in jail for following others. Would be like saying people who want DUI offenders thrown ïn jail as people who "just want to throw people in jail for driving their car".

[molson]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Right, that's exactly what I said. For somebody who is supposed to be smart you sure as hell like to play obtuse when it suits your side of the argument.

There was clear intent on Zimmerman's part from the conversation with the dispatcher to intercept Martin, even when discouraged. We could easily pass laws to discourage that kind of vigilantism. I just think it's insanity to have people with zero training running around trying to play the cop, especially when firearms are involved.

I generally agree with the decision in the case based on the laws that are on the books. But the whole thing was just completely fucking unnecessary and it started with Zimmerman deciding he was Batman and he was going to chase a kid down based on a stupid hunch.

Originally Posted by Rainmaker

Yeah, I was more talking about his comical spin on it. Pretending that people want others thrown in jail for following others. Would be like saying people who want DUI offenders thrown ïn jail as people who "just want to throw people in jail for driving their car".

Originally Posted by bhlloy

"I don't think that sounds like a ridiculous law to say an armed citizen with no law enforcement training can't follow and stop somebody they deem to be acting suspiciously. We have large police forces for a reason."

That's what I'm responding to, perhaps I misread it. But it sounds like you want to make it a crime to follow and stop people someone deems to be acting suspiciously, if they're armed, and if they have no law enforcement training. The "stop" part I can maybe see an issue with, but there's no evidence that that happened in this case. There's also no evidence that Zimmerman even continued following Martin after he was advised not to. That's just one speculative narrative.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

There isn't a book that lists every single possible scenario for homicide. It is absolutely the job of law enforcement and the district attorney to make determinations as to whether the actions of someone led to the death of another person. Whether those actions fit within the guidelines set forth in the law.

Law enforcement in this case felt that there should not have even been a charge. They felt Zimmernan's story stood up and the police chief first resigned (which was not accepted) and was then fired for not charging Zimmeman. Most of the talking head attorneys on tv stated they thought charges should ever have come. Zimmerman's own defense team has some pretty horrible things to say about the prosecutors.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Ok. I never tried to gloss over it. But lets go ahead and address it, ok?

1) Zimmerman was arrested for assault on a police officer. The assault was pushing a police office who was questioning his friend. Zimmerman entered alcohol rehab and took a plea.

2) Zimmerman did have a restraining order on him. He also put one on his ex fiancee at the same time.

3) The most damning charge by far is that of molestation. The abuse would have started when Zimmerman was 8 years old. (She claims t started at six, she is two years younger than George). She came forward because George could not hurt her anymore now that he was charged with killing TM. Since her accusation, no other family members or others have come forward. She also claims George was a racist.


Martin had pictures and texts on his phone of pot plants, smoking weed, illegal guns, and fighting (including videos)

When I wrote about Martin, it was only to say the lifestyle should not be excused or looked up to. It should not be "cool" for a young person to act the way Martin was. I also wrote, very clearly, that the information should not have been allowed in the trial (and i was not allowed)

As for Zimmerman, the first charge is a big who gives a crap. We all likely have friends who were charged with something that stupid in their younger days. As to the second, we have a he said, she said. I have no friends and will not have friends who hit their wives. If Zimmerman did it, I would have no use for him.

The last charge? I do not claim to know, but the most explosive charges need the most explosive proof. Obviously, if true, Zimmerman should be behind bars. . . for child molestation, not for murdering TM. Before I start calling Zimmerman a child molester, I would like some more proof.

So, there, now I have addressed Zimmerman the person.

Neither Zimmerman the person or TM the person change the facts of the case. The opinion of TM came up because I believe the kid wa headed down a dark path. A pathI do not feel should be encouraged.

You don't have to defend it. I just found it funny how you glossed over it when character is so important to you on this topic.

Now we all apply different moral standards when judging people. But I have to admit I don't know anyone arrested for assaulting a cop and I don't really consider it something everyone does when they're young. I've never had a restraining order out against me and I like you wouldn't associated with people like that. And I don't think many of us have been accused of finger banging our underage cousin.

This of course could all be giant lies and Zimmerman has been the victim of a decade long smear campaign by various people in his life. With that said I think it makes him one of the unluckiest person on the planet to constantly come across people making false accusations against him, or he's a grade-A douchebag with some repulsive morals.

Originally Posted by TroyF

As for Zimmerman, the first charge is a big who gives a crap. We all likely have friends who were charged with something that stupid in their younger days.

I did have to pull this gem out though. You have to admit it's kind of a funny quote in light of your criticism of Martin's 17-year old lifestyle.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Grim Cycle: Black Men Killing Black Men - WSJ.com

It's an old statement, couldnt find anything newer

That is one of the things that has bothered me lately from the media. Reading a lot of editorials about how black kids are now unsafe from white people. Statistics clearly show that not to be the case.

[TroyF]

RainMaker,

My point on Martin was that he was headed down a dark path. Drugs, guns, fighting. . . I'm sorry, those are a little more serious than pushing a cop hile drunk at a college party. My opinion, not anything concrete. I mean, I will let the ret of the gallery decide, I dont think I ever stated TM got what he deserved or that we shouldnt be sad about his death.

Conspiracy against Zimmerman? Are you trying to be difficult? Where did I say that? Where did I try to defend Zimmeman? Because I said I would need some proof that an 8 year old molested his cousin or that dual restraining order is not proof of anything? Please, get a flippin grip, ok?

As far as the charge on th police officer, yeah, i have had friends get hit withstuff like that. Provided it wasnt something they continued to do, I dont think it speaks to thei character.

[RainMaker]

No, you're right. Smoking pot and getting in fights in high school is more serious than finger banging your underage cousin and beating your wife.

And how are guns a dark path? Didn't Zimmerman own and carry a gun? If you're going to demonize guns, do it for all parties involved.

[Glengoyne]

Rainmaker trending towards Raider's Army marginalization.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No, you're right. Smoking pot and getting in fights in high school is more serious than finger banging your underage cousin and beating your wife.

And how are guns a dark path? Didn't Zimmerman own and carry a gun? If you're going to demonize guns, do it for all parties involved.

For the love of God, are you just trolling now?

1) I am not deamonizing guns. Zimmerman had a CCP and had a legal firearm. TM was 17 and was purchasing illegal guns. If you cannot see the difference in that, it is you wuth the problem, not me.

2) I am sorry, but George Zimmerman has not been convicted of anything with his cousin. Nothing. I do not care how many times you say it, it does not make it true.

3) Nor does it make a difference in this case. The characters of the two ar not on trial, the facts were.

4) Again, I made the characterization of TM to a bigge narrative, not in context with this case. I am done explaining it.

If you truly think I believe Zimmerman did nothng wrong, that TM was just a punk who deserved it, or that child molestation and wife beating are positive traits based off of what I have said here, either I misrepresented myself incredibly poorly or you have a reading comprehension disorder.

Again, I will let the gallery decide which is which. As nothing constructive can br gained from having this conversation further, I will exit stage left. Feel free to PM me if you have anything you would like to accuse me of or opinions you want toput in my name.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by TroyF

1) I am not deamonizing guns. Zimmerman had a CCP and had a legal firearm. TM was 17 and was purchasing illegal guns. If you cannot see the difference in that, it is you wuth the problem, not me.

2) I am sorry, but George Zimmerman has not been convicted of anything with his cousin. Nothing. I do not care how many times you say it, it does not make it true.

3) Nor does it make a difference in this case. The characters of the two ar not on trial, the facts were.

4) Again, I made the characterization of TM to a bigge narrative, not in context with this case. I am done explaining it.

If you truly think I believe Zimmerman did nothng wrong, that TM was just a punk who deserved it, or that child molestation and wife beating are positive traits based off of what I have said here, either I misrepresented myself incredibly poorly or you have a reading comprehension disorder.

Again, I will let the gallery decide which is which. As nothing constructive can br gained from having this conversation further, I will exit stage left. Feel free to PM me if you have anything you would like to accuse me of or opinions you want toput in my name.

I just hate hypocrisy and almost every single thing you write has it in there. I mean you'll contradict yourself from sentence to sentence.

You start here by saying Martin was purchasing illegal guns. He was never convicted of doing so, which is your defense for Zimmerman in #2. You literally went from judging Martin for something he wasn't convicted of to saying you can't judge someone who hasn't been convicted of a crime. This happens a sentence apart.

Now I don't care whether it matters or not. I just think it should be consistent. If all bets are off and we're making insinuations on their past personal life, they should all be fair game. You can't say that Martin's non-convictions are fair game but Zimmerman's aren't. You can't say that what Zimmerman did in the past doesn't count because he was young and young people do dumb stuff, then turn around and say what a young Martin does counts.

I'm not arguing the merits of the case with you. I'm saying that you are using grossly different standards for judging the parties involved.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Grim Cycle: Black Men Killing Black Men - WSJ.com

It's an old statement, couldnt find anything newer

Good to know that hispanic and asian people don't kill anyone.

Originally Posted by molson

Though, we should say at this point too - the widely predicted riots did not happen. It seems like the verdict compelled debate instead of violence. Great.

Back when I was a kid, people would riot when they were outraged at a verdict. Now they just post on their facebook feed. I'm not sure which one is worse.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Good to know that hispanic and asian people don't kill anyone.Back when I was a kid, people would riot when they were outraged at a verdict. Now they just post on their facebook feed. I'm not sure which one is worse.

Believe it or not, hispanic and latino crimes have always been dumped into "white"
The FBI started putting those stats into a different bucket this year.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Society has a right, and I'd argue an obligation, to protect itself.

Where in my statement did I imply anything to the contrary?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

I guess I still wonder - why isn't the only problem with the force proportionality requirement? Didn't Zimmerman AT LEAST have the right to defend himself with his fists? Or was he legally required to just lie there and take it? To me the only real issue here is that he pulled out a gun in the middle of a fist fight. I would say that was not a proportional force response. In my state, this would be a much more difficult sell because the statute only allows a person to use the force "necessary" to prevent the harm.

True. But if he then beats the guy to death with his fists, is he still liable? Because at that point you could (I think) argue that he's gone beyond "protecting himself" and become the agressor. It might be difficult, but I think it's reasonable to expect that people would be able to stop short of actually killing someone else in that kind of situation.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

There was clear intent on Zimmerman's part from the conversation with the dispatcher to intercept Martin, even when discouraged. We could easily pass laws to discourage that kind of vigilantism. I just think it's insanity to have people with zero training running around trying to play the cop, especially when firearms are involved.

I generally agree with the decision in the case based on the laws that are on the books. But the whole thing was just completely fucking unnecessary and it started with Zimmerman deciding he was Batman and he was going to chase a kid down based on a stupid hunch.

This.

[Young Drachma]

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

The "17 year old kid" walked over a mile in the rain to get some Skittles and Iced Tea (which are part of the ingredients to Purple Drank/Lean/Sizzulrp)

This is whitest thing in FOFC history

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs3

This is whitest thing in FOFC history

Two things

1) I am pretty sure that we've done better than this.
2) I always had RA figured for a Hispanic Jew

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Zimmerman’s NBC Defamation Lawsuit To Resume “ASAP,� According To Lawyer - Yahoo! TV

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by molson

So nobody's taken on this challenge yet, huh? The situation sucks. But I think people realize this is a difficult question. I think we can go back to the start, and deep down, what people really want, is for white people (or "white Hispanics," per the NY Times) not to ever be suspicious of black people. That's the root of this that makes people angry. That's the law they want to write, but, that's not a law that can be written or enforced, and deep down, everybody knows this. So at worst, Martin was just a victim of this type of evil which can't ever be regulated with laws. Which is what makes it so frustrating to people. Which is understandable, but I also can't help but think we're a long way from the early days of this thread where you were considered a racist if you pointed out challenges in the state's case.

Can we even entertain the conversation that there had been a half dozen b&e's in the past few months and the suspects were identified as AA in every case by witnesses?

If the stereotype fits, is it profiling? Or is it law of averages?
Some of the bars we unmask in a fof draft we see as logical conclusions... Put people of differing colors in the equation draw the same conclusion and now it's worthy of a hate crime. Shrug..I grew up in an all black neighborhood, f my bike got stolen, it was by a black kid and that ddnt make me racist it made me a realist.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Can we even entertain the conversation that there had been a half dozen b&e's in the past few months and the suspects were identified as AA in every case by witnesses?

Nope, reality isn't allowed in the discussion.

I grew up in an all black neighborhood, f my bike got stolen, it was by a black kid and that ddnt make me racist it made me a realist.

You racist.

[JonInMiddleGA]

At least now we know what some folks figure was wrong with the jury.

‘Star Witness’ Rachel Jeantel Speaks Out Against Jury in First Interview Since Zimmerman Verdict: ‘They’re White’, ‘Old School’ | Video | TheBlaze.com

The best quote perhaps is the last one

“Weed don’t make him go crazy, it just makes him go hungry,”

[Noop]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Nope, reality isn't allowed in the discussion.

Reality is not allowed indeed.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Are there too many unemployed people in LA or something? Seems like they were just looking for something to do rather than any real need for a 'protest'.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

vs.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Are there too many unemployed people in LA or something? Seems like they were just looking for something to do rather than any real need for a 'protest'.

Boortz summed it up quite neatly with a tweet last night.

Trayon isn't the reason for the behavior, it's the excuse.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Boortz summed it up quite neatly with a tweet last night.

Trayon isn't the reason for the behavior, it's the excuse.

Truth. If they really cared for Trayvon they would work to overcome the stereotypes (many of which are admittedly well deserved) and turn the ghetto/hood/block/ into the best communities in the city instead of the worst.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by panerd

vs.

The guy to the left taking a picture of the car is laughing. This really pisses me off.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

Nothing at all offensive about this. Wonder how you would react if someone posted the opposite.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs3

This is whitest thing in FOFC history

This was my diet from 15 to 27...hell I still hit the vending machine at 37 for some skittles and some rosenbergers iced-t

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Nothing at all offensive about this. Wonder how you would react if someone posted the opposite.

It depends if it's posted by a white guy or a black guy....or a Hispanic white guy....oh I give up.

Here's a chilling statistic while we sort all that out.

In the 513 days between Trayvon dying and the jury's verdict; over 11,000 African-Americans have been murdered. A vast majority of which didn't get a single tear from anybody but their mom's.

[Jukeman]

Originally Posted by Mike D

It depends if it's posted by a white guy or a black guy....or a Hispanic white guy....oh I give up.

Here's a chilling statistic while we sort all that out.

In the 513 days between Trayvon dying and the jury's verdict; over 11,000 African-Americans have been murdered. A vast majority of which didn't get a single tear from anybody but their mom's.

and how do you know this? Because the news didn't broadcast it?

[Crapshoot]

Man, there are some folks here who seem like they'd be more comfortable in 60's Alabama.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Jukeman

and how do you know this? Because the news didn't broadcast it?

Yes.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Man, there are some folks here who seem like they'd be more comfortable in 60's Alabama.

Pretty sure Zimmerman wouldn't have liked it there either but that fact gets in the way of your generalization.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Nothing at all offensive about this. Wonder how you would react if someone posted the opposite.

Personally, I thought it was hilarious.

And the problem with your getting all huffy about it is that one group is still a majority in this country (blah blah projections Hispanic population majority by 20XX blah blah), while the other is still very much a minority in terms of overall power, wealth, status, and numbers.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Personally, I thought it was hilarious.

And the problem with your getting all huffy about it is that one group is still a majority in this country (blah blah projections Hispanic population majority by 20XX blah blah), while the other is still very much a minority in terms of overall power, wealth, status, and numbers.

Who gives a shit? If somebody is offended, somebody is offended. That's how equal rights works. There are no exceptions without fucking up the true intent.