Why is Joshua Chellew less important than Trayvon Martin?

reply to post by JuniorDisco

this is the most falsified BS ever submitted in this thread.

Black people are around three times less likely to get the benefit of the doubt when they employ a self defence argument

got any link to backup that BS ?

FYI, the black population has invoked SYG defense in shootings of all kinds.

www.ajc.com...
The Daily Caller revieweda database, compiled by the Tampa Bay Times, of fatal Florida cases in which SYG was invoked. The DC's findings:

"One hundred thirty-three people in the state of Florida have used a 'Stand Your Ground' defense. Of these claims, 73 were considered 'justified' (55 percent), while 39 resulted in criminal convictions and 21 cases are still pending.

"Forty-four African Americans in the state of Florida have claimed a 'Stand Your Ground' defense. Of these claims, 24 were considered 'justified' (55 percent), while 11 resulted in convictions and nine cases are still pending.

"Of the 76 white people who have used the defense, 40 were considered 'justified' (less than 53 percent), while 25 were convicted and 11 cases are still pending.

"Ten Hispanics have used the defense, seven of them successfully, [color=amber]70 percent, according to the database, which included George Zimmerman as a 'Stand Your Ground' defendant."

The incorrect inclusion of Zimmerman aside, the numbers are very interesting. One-third of all SYG defendants were black; African Americans make up less than 17 percent of Florida's population. When black defendants invoked the law, they were successful as often as whites [more successful]. Discounting cases that are still pending, their success rate was 69 percent of the times SYG was invoked, compared to 65 percent overall and 62 percent for whites.

emphasis mine

since you keep vascilating between SYG and self-defense, i'm not sure of which you are speaking this time so i posted the 'gun affiliated' defenses of SYG.
if you meant general self-defense claims, then stats for those could be posted as well.

Originally posted by Honor93

since you keep vascilating between SYG and self-defense, i'm not sure of which you are speaking this time so i posted the 'gun affiliated' defenses of SYG.
if you meant general self-defense claims, then stats for those could be posted as well.

I don't "keep vascilating" [sic]. I was specific and precise - I am only talking about self defence as a whole.

In non-Stand Your Ground states, whites are 250 percent more likely to be found justified in killing a black person than a white person who kills another white person; in Stand Your Ground states, that number jumps to 354 percent. -- Source: PBS

For a black person who kills a white person it's actually an even greater disparity. There's something like a 400% difference in SYG states and non-SYG aren't much better. So not BS at all. If you kill somebody and invoke self defence it helps to be white.

Originally posted by Honor93
Trayvon initiated physical contact or "started the fight" as you said.
that has been proven beyond any shadow of doubt.

Nonsense. There's no physical evidence, but a rough push or a grab to the shoulder, even a jostling would leave no physical evidence. There's no DNA evidence that Martin hit Zimmerman, remember?

And given the holes in Zimmerman's story up to the altercation, I'm inclined not to believe his story after that point either.

yeah so, why must you rewrite the same sentiment rather simply 'agree' ???

Because I don't agree with you. You said that if you advocate Martin's right not to be shot you must endorse his alleged assault of Zimmerman. That's total garbage, as my analogy shows.

i said and i still say that anyone who supports the contention that "trayvon wasn't doing anything wrong" DOES support assault upon intial contact and that's the truth.

That's a lie. You said

"the 2 sides can be summarized quite simply.
one believes that self-defense in an absolute right in every situation.
the other believes assaulting a complete stranger for whatever imagined reason is appropriate behavior"

You meant that anyone who criticises Zimmerman is endorsing assault. Which is crazy. You never mentioned the text you put in quote marks above, and you appear to be attempting to alter what you wrote.

sure we do.
a physical threat with what? a mini flashlight.

Or a gun. Which is what he eventually killed him with. So I guess Martin was kind of right to be fearful.

Trayvon had -0- defensive wounds, hence Z did not physically assault TM in any manner.

Once again, you can't know that. If I grabbed you and put you in a headlock, then let you go, do you think there would be physical evidence hours later?

he was trespassing and that could be one of the reasons why Z called NIN in the first place.

He was not trespassing. You have invented this. The chief of police said that there was no indication that he had committed a crime before Zimmerman stopped him.

i don't dispute that the investigation was handled poorly. i told you previously the Z/M case had everything from tainted evidence to potential jury tampering ... if you were following along, you'd already know this.

Again, this is a lie. You said that I had failed to understand as opposed to them carrying out a poor investigation. You may have meant something different but this is what you wrote. And I can't read your mind so I have to do my best at decoding your fragmented prose.

the question is ... why is the Chellew MURDER less important (media attention and all) than the other case ?

Because the suspects were immediately apprehended and there's no sign of injustice in the way the investigation has been carried out.

because murder isn't the same as self-defense.
nor is it processed the same.
and, it is a shame that you simply don't understand that.

This is unquestionably the stupidest thing I've read in this thread. Without a proper investigation how do you know what is murder and what is self defence? Do you just decide beforehand?

I guess you - and the Florida cops and the rest of America - do. And you make your minds up especially quickly when black people are involved.

reply to post by JuniorDisco

well, since you said all of the following:

It isn't racist to say that white people get an easier time of it under the law than black people in Florida - it's a statement of fact, supportable by evidence.

- what evidence ?
please share.

people got worked up because Zimmerman wasn't charged and the police investigation seemed cursory to the point of negligence

Martin's case they could barely be bothered to investigate. Which kind of does suggest that white people get a better deal out of the legal system.

As I say, the system doesn't let black people go the way it did with Zimmerman.

then i would have to disagree.
ppl are still worked-up over the misperception that Trayvon wasn't doing anything wrong.

the police arrested, detained, questioned and released Zimmerman, all of which is standard protocol in such a self-defense issue.

Since all the (black) perpetrators are in prison already with no bail in the Chellew case, it actually supports rather than diminishes the notion that Zimmerman got favourable treatment because of his colour and that of the victim.

hint, Chellew didn't have an opportunity to provide 'self-defense' hence there is no comparison.

and, you actually stated this ...

It is a matter of record that they failed to properly control the scene or perform the necessary measures.

really ??
i would suggest you link that 'record', specifically

tell ya what ... when you can explain this media bias, then maybe we'll be singing the same tune. until then, i'm over the slant on either side.
source
criminals will do crime no matter their skin tone.
and 'assault' is still a crime.

isn't it interesting that the criminals above were captured only AFTER a sizeable reward was offered ??

here's another summary from a 'liberal' source

and, let's not forget that Holder had this to say while addressing the NAACP ...

[url=http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/stand-your-ground-vs-self-defense/question-3820143/?link=ibaf&q=blacks+invoking+self-defense]source[/ur l]
Additionally, the majority of victims in Florida “Stand Your Ground” cases have been white.

so, how you can make the suppositions that you have is beyond any reasonable discourse.
when or if you'd care to discuss the reality of these situations, i'd be happy to oblige.
until then, enjoy your delusion.

Originally posted by Honor93

what evidence ?
please share.

I already did.

ppl are still worked-up over the misperception that Trayvon wasn't doing anything wrong.

This is the contention of the Sanford police chief and he said it under oath at the trial. Are you saying he was lying?

hint, Chellew didn't have an opportunity to provide 'self-defense' hence there is no comparison.

Well quite. This whole thread is an attempt to draw a comparison that isn't there.

tell ya what ... when you can explain this media bias, then maybe we'll be singing the same tune. until then, i'm over the slant on either side.
source
criminals will do crime no matter their skin tone.
and 'assault' is still a crime.

What bias? The case was covered. The guy is going to jail. It's over as a story until the sentencing. And I know this may come as a surprise to you but news stories are not decided for prominence based only on the severity of the crime.

I can't believe I have to say it again: the reason the Martin case attracted such coverage is because Zimmerman was released. Until you guys find a case where a black guy was let go in such a perfunctory manner after killing a white person all your 'comparisons' are useless. Because they ignore the exact reason why this story grew so big.

person kills person, is immediately released -- Big story
person kills person, goes to jail -- not big story

Can you see the difference?

reply to post by JuniorDisco

There's no DNA evidence that Martin hit Zimmerman, remember?

why would there be, it was raining, remember?

you're entitled to your opinion.
i believe he was sucker punched and that's how the physical altercation began.

neither Martin or anyone has any such right.

Martin's right not to be shot

yes, that was my previous post and it says the same thing, are you deft ?

i meant what it says.
either you agree with the absolute right of self-defense or you believe initial aggression is appropriate.

phrase it however you want, it says the same thing, over and over and over again.

Or a gun. Which is what he eventually killed him with. So I guess Martin was kind of right to be fearful.

um, no or he wouldn't have had to 'scuffle' with the boy first.
if he had, Zimmerman would not have been on his back, on the ground.

the autopsy revealed such, those who wish to know, do.

If I grabbed you and put you in a headlock, then let you go, do you think there would be physical evidence hours later?

yes, it's called bruising and it would be apparent on some level.

the chief said so ???
link or BS
hint: Zimmerman never 'stopped' him until the fatal shot.

since i wasn't part of the investigation or evaluating the investigation, who am i or you for that matter to say one way or the other ????

you are still failing to understand but that isn't the point of this thread.

well, according to a jury and all the testimony presented, IF the Sanford PD was negligent in their investigation, there are procedures to address it.
posting about it on a conspiracy site isn't one of them

reply to post by JuniorDisco

I already did.

you haven't provided a single link to 'evidence' in this entire thread.

link the testimony please or drop it.

i didn't author the thread but your incessant comparison of murder vs self-defense is ridiculous.

The case was covered

so, 5 days coverage compared to 16 months is acceptable to you and UNbiased ??
yeah, sure, OK

no surprise there but let's not forget the victim was WHITE, remember ? the suspectS are black, remember ???
it doesn't fit the ongoing agenda.

this story didn't grow at all until the big MOUTHS with BIG money showed up on STAGE and then the flames grew.

it had nothing to do with Z being released.
it was all about that white guy who murdered a black child, remember?

i didn't buy it then and i'm certainly not buying it now.
try a new angle, eh ??

no, person defends self -- released post investigation
community demands more.

group of blacks kill white man, gangs get the blame.
community turns a blind eye.

that is the reality.

Originally posted by Honor93

why would there be, it was raining, remember?

You said that the lack of physical evidence meant Z didn't aggress M. But lack of evidence in the other direction apparently doesn't count for anything. Interesting.

you're entitled to your opinion.
i believe he was sucker punched and that's how the physical altercation began.

You can't know that for sure though. You're just speculating about who started it.

yes, that was my previous post and it says the same thing, are you deft ?

i meant what it says.
either you agree with the absolute right of self-defense or you believe initial aggression is appropriate.

I am not 'deft' and this remains nonsense. It is not an either or as I've repeatedly demonstrated.

phrase it however you want, it says the same thing, over and over and over again.

the autopsy revealed such, those who wish to know, do.

You think the autopsy definitely proved that Martin attacked Zimmerman. Garbage again.

yes, it's called bruising and it would be apparent on some level.

Not necessarily. How about if I shoved you in the chest? You think you would definitely bruise? Or if I jostled you? You're convinced that MUST leave evidence but a kid can beat up a guy so he's frightened for his life but it can leave no DNA? Interesting.

the chief said so ???
link or BS

"Was there any evidence that Trayvon Martin was committing a crime that evening, sir?" asked de la Rionda.

"No sir," said Serino.

This took place in the trial. Note that Serino was the chief investigator, not the chief of police.

hint: Zimmerman never 'stopped' him until the fatal shot.

You have no idea whether that is true or not.

since i wasn't part of the investigation or evaluating the investigation, who am i or you for that matter to say one way or the other ????

I can't speak for you, but I'm confident of my abilities. You actually said in a previous post that you thought the investigation was bungled, now you've changed your mind?

well, according to a jury and all the testimony presented, IF the Sanford PD was negligent in their investigation, there are procedures to address it.
posting about it on a conspiracy site isn't one of them

So now you think they may have been negligent? I can't keep up.

Originally posted by Honor93

you haven't provided a single link to 'evidence' in this entire thread.

link the testimony please or drop it.

It's freely available as a sourced report from PBS. You can look it up yourself.

The case was covered so, 5 days coverage compared to 16 months is acceptable to you and UNbiased ??
yeah, sure, OK

What should the media report? The perps are in custody. You want them just to write articles about nothing because the crime is outrageous? "Baby killers still in jail. Trial now three weeks away." Next day - "Baby killers still in jail. Trial two weeks and six days away". You realise they wouldn't sell many ads that way, right?

The Zimmerman story's ongoing newsworthiness was nothing to do with an agenda. It was in the media because the sense of outrage grew and new developments kept occurring. In that sense it differs from the case you quote,just as it differs in key points from the Chellew case. Key points that make it more newsworthy, and that have nothing to do with colour.

For someone who doesn't care about colour you sure assume it's a motivating factor a lot.

no surprise there but let's not forget the victim was WHITE, remember ? the suspectS are black, remember ???

it doesn't fit the ongoing agenda.

What agenda?

it had nothing to do with Z being released.

Are you seriously saying that the story would have played out the same way if Zimmerman had immediately been arrested and jailed? Are you insane?

no, person defends self -- released post investigation
community demands more.

group of blacks kill white man, gangs get the blame.
community turns a blind eye.

that is the reality.

What do you mean "community turns a blind eye"? The perps are in jail! What should the "community" do above that?

Maybe one of these instances will work better for people who ignore racially black on white crime motivated.

However, a disturbing trend has emerged in Jacksonville, Florida. It is not the kind of trend that the media will ever discuss openly.

First two white brothers were shot and killed in a busy parking lot for a Jacksonville Golden Corral. The perpetrator was black. The Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office [JSO] immediately declared that there was no racial motive and that the killings were not related to the Zimmerman verdict. The JSO actually took to twitter and Facebook and say that the murders had no racial motive.

However the gunman was also charged with shooting another victim in the face on July 7th. That victim is also a white male, and the incident appears like it could very easily be racial. It involves a group of black males arriving uninvited at a private party. They were asked to leave after getting “rowdy.” One of the uninvited guests shot a victim in the face in retaliation.

We also reported on the execution style killing of Shelby Farah by a black male in Jacksonville. We have been monitoring another murder. Amber Bass, a white female, was killed at random in her driveway in Jacksonville. Police do not have a suspect yet. It has been brought to our attention that at least two other white people have been killed by black males in Jacksonville during this month.

Michael Siegrist a 34 year old white male was shot and killed at a bus stop in Jacksonville, Florida. This was only a tiny blip on the local news.


On July 20th, Shelby Farah was killed execution style by a black male while she worked at a Metro PCS store.

This took place before the Zimmerman verdict, but another black on white killing took place. Two black thugs were fleeing from a crime scene when they hit and killed Terry Sikes, a white male, with their car. The pair of thugs had just robbed a 71 year old man. Then they tried to rob a 58 year old man. That man refused to give them money. The thugs chased him down with their car and hit him twice. As of July 9th, the victim was still in serious condition. The media have never said who he is.


There is another unsolved murder. Amber Bass was killed, seemingly at random, in her driveway. The murder took place on July 19th. Her home is located in an US census tract that is 54% black. Her individual census block group is 41% black. Since blacks commit murder at nine times the white rates, it is extremely likely that the perpetrator was black regardless of the murder’s proximity to the Zimmerman verdict.

topconservativenews.com...

Quick google search found these.www.newnation.org...patrick.net...www.wnd.com... -up-black-on-white-racist-murder/

reply to post by JuniorDisco

You said that the lack of physical evidence meant Z didn't aggress M. But lack of evidence in the other direction apparently doesn't count for anything. Interesting.

you're confused and i didn't say any such thing.

the autopsy did not reveal any defensive wounds on TM.
(not 'i said' but the autopsy says, get it ?)

no defensive wounds = no offense to defend.

the potential for trace DNA evidence can easily be eliminated by mother nature and likely was.
cannot be obtained and doesn't exist aren't quite the same in this instance.

actually, speculation is what you asked for so what else did you expect ?
there is no evidence to support any other contention.

it is and apparently, you still support aggressive acts or you wouldn't be trying so very hard to excuse it.

it did for me.
if it doesn't for you, then maybe you need to learn how to read one ?

yes and yes, been there, done that.
water and its cleansing ability is amazing, isn't it ??

Serino ??
fyi, he isn't and wasn't the police Chief.
care to try again, junior ??

oh, good for you, caught one of your own errors, well done

in the proper context of the question posed to Deputy Serino, they were discussing the NIN call and at that time, there was no crime being committed, yet.

still, you no linky the 'testimony' ... why ?
don't want anyone to read it for themselves or what ?

well of course we do but that matters not to you, does it ?

nope, i never said the investigation was 'bungled', where did you get that idea ??

i did say there was tainted evidence and a potential regarding other issues however, that is not the same as 'bungling' the investigation to the point of a false outcome.

never said they were but if others believe so (such as yourself), this isn't the place to 'do' anything about it or are you simply satifisfied with sounding off ??

reply to post by JuniorDisco

It's freely available as a sourced report from PBS. You can look it up yourself.

if you want me to consider it, link it.
i saw and heard the local, live broadcast.

your pbs broadcast isn't likely to include ALL of the details.
(for heavens sake, it's PBS, when do they ever include ALL of the facts?)

excuse you but the "perps" haven't even been tried yet ... considering it happened over a year ago, where's the news ???

and let's not forget the lawyer's argument that his client is ... "more of a witness than a defendant"
www.huffingtonpost.com...

sooooo, where's the coverage ??

the Zimmerman story has everything to do with an 'agenda' and it's a shame you don't care to see it.

yes, you do.
and when it is, it is.

and let's not forget, the 'baby killers' case is moving along at a rapid pace, the Zimmerman case, not so much.

btw, the only reason Elkins is confined is because of a fear he'll flee, otherwise, he'd be bonded out like any other.

why would Z be jailed ?? he was arrested and released.
what's your point here ?

Originally posted by Honor93

you're confused and i didn't say any such thing.

the autopsy did not reveal any defensive wounds on TM.
(not 'i said' but the autopsy says, get it ?)

no defensive wounds = no offense to defend.

So you didn't say it, but then you just go on to say it again?

You are claiming that the lack of physical evidence means that the fight can't have been instigated by Zimmerman. This is nonsense. He could have shoved Martin, or jostled him. Are you saying that would definitely have left physical evidence?

the potential for trace DNA evidence can easily be eliminated by mother nature and likely was.
cannot be obtained and doesn't exist aren't quite the same in this instance.

It's interesting that for you a lack of evidence with regard to Zimmerman means he definitely didn't do something, but as soon as there's a lack of evidence for something you want to think Martin did, the vital clues have somehow disappeared.

Serino ??
fyi, he isn't and wasn't the police Chief.
care to try again, junior ??

oh, good for you, caught one of your own errors, well done

I wrote this earlier. He was in fact in charge of the investigation.

So why do you disagree with the officer who led the investigation? Why is he lying, according to you?

in the proper context of the question posed to Deputy Serino, they were discussing the NIN call and at that time, there was no crime being committed, yet.

But you said there was. You claimed Martin was trespassing, which is a crime. Serino disagrees with you. Why do you say he's a liar?

nope, i never said the investigation was 'bungled', where did you get that idea ??

From this:

i don't dispute that the investigation was handled poorly. i told you previously the Z/M case had everything from tainted evidence to potential jury tampering ... if you were following along, you'd already know this.

never said they were but if others believe so (such as yourself), this isn't the place to 'do' anything about it or are you simply satifisfied with sounding off ??

Pretty much. I don't live in your strange country so it doesn't really affect me to be honest.

Originally posted by Honor93


excuse you but the "perps" haven't even been tried yet ... considering it happened over a year ago, where's the news ???
sooooo, where's the coverage ??

Okay, what do you think they should be reporting that they haven't already?

reply to post by Grimpachi


So basically some of the dweebs have gone through the crime register desperate to find a black guy who has shot someone because of Martin. When they haven't they've just decided that all those examples of blacks shooting whites must be racist in nature because, um, they say so. It's pretty weak stuff.

Nobody is saying that black people don't sometimes shoot white people for reasons of race, although definite examples are vanishingly rare. Perhaps because you'd have to be pretty stupid to risk prison or death in order to kill somebody just because you didn't like the way they looked. But what is certainly true is that this notion that there is a tidal wave of black on white racism that goes unreported is nonsense. Even the examples your source cites are totally inconclusive and seem to have occurred during robberies or fights. The racial element seems very elusive.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


Then how about this

Below are some more hate crimes that have been ignored because they happened the “wrong way” (i.e., they were black-on-white instead of white-on-black).

Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Upset about a racial name-calling that occurred earlier that night, several black men savagely beat a random white man who had had nothing to do with the incident. He slipped away from his attackers, but they forced him to swim into a lake to escape. He drowned. The three men were sentenced to less than a year in jail.3

Massachusetts. Four black men decided to murder the next white person they saw. That unlucky soul was a college student from Boston, whom the men stabbed to death.4

Indiana. A black man was arrested for killing seven white people with a shotgun. He explained that he murdered his victims due to his “deep-rooted hatred” of white people.5

Miami, Florida. The leader of a black supremacist sect (i.e., the “Yaweh ben Yaweh cult”) was convicted of the murders of several white people. He ordered his followers to kill any and all “white devils.” They killed at least seven white people, bringing back body parts to their leader.6

North Carolina. Seven black men kidnapped a white woman, raped her, put her in a tub of bleach, shot her five times, and dumped her body. The murderers said they did this for racial reasons.7

North Carolina. Four black teenagers lured a white, ten-year-old girl into an empty house. “There, they sodomized her, strangled her with a cable wire, and beat her to death with a board. In the past few weeks, the trials in the Tiffany Long case have received extensive coverage in the North Carolina press. But with two of the three defendants already sentenced to lifelong prison terms, and the third now standing trial, the national media have all but ignored the story. Only the Associated Press has reported on the trials, in a single, cursory piece. The AP, of course, failed to mention the race of the people involved — an oversight it seldom if ever committed in the case of Amadou Diallo.”8

Boulder, Colorado. After discovering that one of their members had never had intercourse with a white woman, an Asian gang went looking for one. When they found a white University of Colorado student, the six men gang raped her in their minivan for two hours. At their trial, “Detectives described the woman’s night of terror, including repeated threats to kill her.“The woman leaped out of the minivan after one of the men raped her. Naked, she sprinted across Lefthand Canyon Road before Steve Yang tackled her, authorities said.“‘They were all screaming at her, calling her names and hitting her,’ Detective Jane Harmer testified.“Yang put her in a headlock and dragged her back into the van, where she was raped repeatedly, Harmer said.“‘It was a free-for-all,’ Harmer testified.“One man threatened to ‘cut and burn her,’ and another put a gun barrel to the back of her head when they released her, Harmer said.”9

Kansas City, Missouri. An Ethiopian immigrant shot two white coworkers — killing one and critically injuring the other — at his workplace, then turned the gun on himself. At his residence, police found a three-page, signed note he had written in which he railed at “black blood sucker supreme white people” for oppressing him and black people in general.10

New York City. In a Midtown office building, a white woman was assaulted, raped, and anally raped by a black man who called her racist names during the attack. Police refused to label it a hate crime.11

Alexandria, Virginia. A black man walking through a neighborhood went over to a white eight-year-old boy playing in his great-grandparents’ front yard and slit the child’s throat, killing him. A witness says that the attacker shouted racial epithets during the attack, and the main suspect in the case owns anti-white hate literature and had written a note about killing white children. He had been previously arrested for attacking an unarmed white stranger with a hammer. (During the attack, he called his victim “Whitey.”)12 violenceagainstwhites.wordpress.com...

The kicker is I have never heard of any of those stories. You would think the last one would have been all over the news. Read the link and you will see the lengths they went to so no one knew it was racial.

I agree with you on one aspect. A person would have to be pretty dumb to kill another person based off of the pigment of their skin however the world and our country seems to have a limitless supply of idiots.

I'm not surprised you haven't heard of them since most of them happened over twenty years ago. It's pretty stupid to suggest that the reason a 2013 reader isn't familiar with them is because the media is coverings something up that happened in 1990.

And here's another kicker - several are clearly not motivated solely by race. And in the ones that are the source material cited usually clearly mentions it. And that source material is in several cases a major newspaper. So basically what you have is someone digging up ancient crimes, that were covered as racial events, and then claiming there is a media conspiracy because he can't find a mention of them on CNN's website today. You'd have to be pretty lame to fall for that.

I mean, is the media covering up the winner of Superbowl XXIV? Because I haven't seen that mentioned in the news recently either.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by Honor93


excuse you but the "perps" haven't even been tried yet ... considering it happened over a year ago, where's the news ???
sooooo, where's the coverage ??

Okay, what do you think they should be reporting that they haven't already?

The defence attorney said some stuff yesterday so they reported it. I guess the conspiracy to censor this story isn't working too well.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
I'm aware of the situation regarding what was and wasn't proven. The stuff you claimed - that Zimmerman was the victim of unprovoked aggression and that he would have died had he not killed Martin - remains speculation. You should learn the difference between the state not proving something and it definitely not happening.

The things I state are supported by the e4vidence, whereas the things you state are total supposition, and mostly in direct conflict with the evidence. Perhaps you should do some learning, before offering such counsel.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
Explain to me how you can know that Martin would have killed Zimmerman. This is not just impossible in the context of the information available at the trial, it is literally logically impossible.

I can look at his history, and his propensity to violence. I can look at many other cases of attacks, and the results. I can look at the already-sustained injuries to Mr. Zimmerman, and I can apply common sense. Try it.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
You're welcome to your opinion. But I don't share it, because I don't think black people get the benefit of the doubt as easily as whites in the US. You can call that "dropping a card", but ironically the thread you're posting in seems to back up my point.

No, this thread is showing a grave injustice, that some only care about racial attacks if the person injured or killed is black. Did you, perhaps, hear about the three black students that violently assaulted a younger student, who was white, on a school bus? Have you looked at any of dozens of videos showing similar attacks, by blacks, against whites and others? Do that, then we can talk.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
The reason people were angered by the Martin shooting had to do with the perception that because Martin is black the investigation assumed his guilt and exonerated Zimmerman in the briefest and most perfunctory way. It had little to do with white on black violence, so all these equivalencies you try to draw ("why don't they get annoyed when blacks shoot each other? "why don't black racial crimes receive coverage?") are largely irrelevant.

There wasn't anything "perfunctory", or even brief, about the investigation. The evidence on scene, and the witness reports, all lead to an inescapable conclusion of self defense, and under the LAW, that meant a release. Even so, Mr. Zimmerman was willingly question that night for HOURS, without even asking for an attorney. The case brought to trial was manufactured, and they didn't even have enough evidence to try it, much less gain a conviction. The entire thing was about racial politics. it had EVERYTHING to do with claimed "white on black" violence, when what it actually was was black on white violence, as in, young Martin doing something about that "creepy *bleep* cracker" that was watching him. No, black on black crimes are NOT irrelevant at all, and BLACKS in many places agree. See what some are saying about this issue.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
Look at the statistics. Black people are around three times less likely to get the benefit of the doubt when they employ a self defence argument. Your system that you are pretending works so well is inherently prejudiced.

Proof? Show the cases, with the evidence. Making unsupported claims isn't helping your argument. Cases, mind you, not blogs, or claims, etc.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
So you can't find one, I guess. As I say, the system doesn't let black people go the way it did with Zimmerman. That's why your search for cases of "actual self defence" with black people on whites is less likely to be successful because the system is less liable to describe blacks as, er, defending themselves.

WHO can't find a case? I asked you to show cases, and you offer, oh, nothing. Still waiting.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
It may be that you think this is because black people are inherently less likely to actually be defending themselves. It's either that or the authorities are biased against them. Which would you go for?

Unless and until you can show such cases, there isn't anything to discuss. The facts speak for themselves. Read that report on the "color of crime".

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes


The things I state are supported by the e4vidence, whereas the things you state are total supposition

Untrue. You stated as fact two things as fact, both of which are unknowable. The first because the only evidence surrounding it is tainted by the fact that it comes from the killer, and the second because it is pure speculation.

This is a trick of the demagogue-led right generally: to gradually harden a position based on leaps of faith and scraps of factoids into hard "fact". It won't work.

I can look at his history, and his propensity to violence. I can look at many other cases of attacks, and the results. I can look at the already-sustained injuries to Mr. Zimmerman, and I can apply common sense. Try it.

This is logically nonsense. You still can't know it. You are still making a supposition based on some stuff a 17 year old wrote on Facebook and your bias. You may assume it, but that's a world of difference.

And anyway the evidence is against you. According to you, Martin had 45 seconds to "ground and pound" Zimmerman. And yet he still didn't manage to kill him. Or even knock him unconscious. If he couldn't do it in that time he was never going to get it done.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

No, this thread is showing a grave injustice, that some only care about racial attacks if the person injured or killed is black. Did you, perhaps, hear about the three black students that violently assaulted a younger student, who was white, on a school bus? Have you looked at any of dozens of videos showing similar attacks, by blacks, against whites and others? Do that, then we can talk.

As I said, show me a case where a black man is immediately released after shooting a white teenager. Then we can talk. Because then you would have an equivalence. Simply posting that sometimes black people attack white people and that - horror of horrors - the entire "black community" doesn't turn up at your door or take out an ad in the NYT to apologise doesn't prove anything.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

There wasn't anything "perfunctory", or even brief, about the investigation. The evidence on scene, and the witness reports, all lead to an inescapable conclusion of self defense

Except they didn't even have the witness reports when they set him free. Which kind of gives the lie to your claim.

No, black on black crimes are NOT irrelevant at all, and BLACKS in many places agree.

How are they relevant to what you are claiming?

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
Look at the statistics. Black people are around three times less likely to get the benefit of the doubt when they employ a self defence argument. Your system that you are pretending works so well is inherently prejudiced.

Proof? Show the cases, with the evidence. Making unsupported claims isn't helping your argument. Cases, mind you, not blogs, or claims, etc.

Here you go:

www.dailymail.co.uk... -defence-law-wake-Zimmerman-verdict.html

Sure helps to be white if you're going to shoot somebody.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco


WHO can't find a case? I asked you to show cases, and you offer, oh, nothing. Still waiting.

Strangely (or perhaps not that strangely) you can't find a case in which a black person has walked away with no charge after shooting a white kid dead. This would be an exact equivalent and if the protagonists were reated similarly it would at least go some way to prove this silly thread's thesis.

Instead you have people posting crimes where black people do something bad, and going "see!" - even though the subjects were overwhelmingly immediately tried and jailed. Or more idiotically posting crimes decades old and asking why they aren't in the news.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Unless and until you can show such cases, there isn't anything to discuss.

The report is above. I await your comment.