Black teen shot and killed by neighborhood watch in Orlando gated community

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

For those wondering how this would play out if the roles (races) were reversed, well, this is damn close:



Roderick Scott case

No national media attention to that one. Obama didn't say anything. Nada, nyet, nothin'.

Thanks for posting this. Makes quite a few posters in this thread look pretty silly.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Thanks for posting this. Makes quite a few posters in this thread look pretty silly.

Except the cases aren't really similar at all. However, in both instances the shooter has to bear some responsibility for a young man's death. Neither should have gone chasing people.

How about this one?

http://atlantablackstar.com/2012/09/...-self-defense/

And this guy was convicted even though he should have been protected by the castle doctrine, which I think is a reasonable law, unlike "stand your ground".

Just so you know another judge agrees with me and released him after 7 years.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/04...nd-john-mcneil

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I see troll number 2 has returned. You both can go through the thread and find the numerous times I quoted Duff (and yourself). It is more than obvious who the trolls are.

Want to engage in debate? Respond to questions.

Oh that's rich. You conveniently disappear as soon as a question is posed to you, which isn't surprising given that your ability to craft a response to anything is certainly in doubt.

You want answers? Ask away smart guy.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Didn't you post almost the same thing several pages back? A civilian cannot shoot anyone dead because they are afraid of them, but they are allowed to shoot them if it saves their own life.

Zimmerman called the police and appeared to handle the situation pretty well, until he basically got attacked by the teen. The teen committed the crime, not the 'weekend warrior'.

I would prefer to live in a country where the citizens can defend themselves.

And by the way, you may want to read up on the case because based on your post you know nothing about it.

Complete fabrication. please present the evidence that supports this conclusion.

I'll wait.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by valo403

Complete fabrication. please present the evidence that supports this conclusion.

I'll wait.

lol, good luck with that, he's ignored my requests for evidence for that statement. maybe he was there and witnessed it, but he's not saying.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

And women.

Women have been treated as second class citizens for hundreds of years in this country, and have been treated and are still treated as inferior by the majority.

What I see from these message boards is the usual on any message board in America- some people trying to be ultra liberal- overusing the race card. Some people who are actually looking at this situation and discussing it with intelligence and having a healthy debate, and then some people who obviously think that blacks are inferior to whites.

My point is this- this case is not about race. ZIMMERMAN IS NOT WHITE. Sheesh, if you live in this country, you know that Hispanics are profiled and judged all the time- like blacks, NAs, women, etc. Zimmerman was probably trigger happy and Martin was probably walking around with a chip on his shoulder which ended up in a tragic situation which could have been avoided- the problem here is once again, a gun. If Zimmerman didn't have a gun I doubt he'd be so gung-ho on following Martin in the first place. If he didn't have a gun, maybe no one would have been killed, or maybe the police would have gotten there in time to help Zimmerman from getting the crap beat out of him. I really hate that people are making this about race.

The race card is getting really old. Again, the friggen testimony as well as FACTS show that race did not factor in this situation and people, the media AND the President are making it be something it's not- a spectacle to talk about how racist this country is. For every single person who talks about a travesty that happens to a black male, I can mention 3 that have happened to a person because she was a woman. Put the race card face down on the table and talk about the real issues, it's boring.

You're seriously equating the mistreatment of women to the mistreatment of African American men in the context of the justice system? That's laughable. Have you read a thing on the subject?

[Brannigans Law]

Originally Posted by valo403

Complete fabrication. please present the evidence that supports this conclusion.

I'll wait.

A jury of his peers acquitted him and a juror who went on Piers Morgan afterwards said after listening to all the evidence they believed that to be the case.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I call people out when they say Zimmerman was a racist despite there being no evidence. I also call people out when suggesting something that is simply not true (for example, Zimmerman did not call police, police did not perform an investigation).

There is lots of reasonable speculation in this thread on both sides, nothing wrong with that.

Outright lies and fabrications are completely different.

You're hilarious. Again, let's see the support for the 100% fabricated claim that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by FlamingLonghorn

Except the cases aren't really similar at all. However, in both instances the shooter has to bear some responsibility for a young man's death. Neither should have gone chasing people.

How about this one?

http://atlantablackstar.com/2012/09/...-self-defense/

And this guy was convicted even though he should have been protected by the castle doctrine, which I think is a reasonable law, unlike "stand your ground".

Just so you know another judge agrees with me and released him after 7 years.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/04...nd-john-mcneil

Outside of the jury, who would disagree with you?

Terrible story, especially knowing his wife died just prior to his release, but likely a lot of the blame falls on his attorney. There's a reason some of them cost a ton more than others, and it looks like McNeil's was absolutely terrible if he didn't tell the jurors that they could acquit him on grounds of self-defense.

But what's your point? Race can play a role? Sure, I wont disagree entirely with that. But what does that have to do with Zimmerman specifically? Just because there's a chance others are being treated unfairly doesn't mean Zimmerman should be as well to "make up for it." It should go the other way, like Zimmerman everyone else deserves a fair trial.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

For those wondering how this would play out if the roles (races) were reversed, well, this is damn close:



Roderick Scott case

No national media attention to that one. Obama didn't say anything. Nada, nyet, nothin'.

Pretending that any other case, especially a self defense case, is comparable is just plain stupid. These cases are highly fact dependant, so unless you're going to go through and give me a break down piece by piece of how this case was a mirror image it's existence means very little.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Brannigans Law

A jury of his peers acquitted him and a juror who went on Piers Morgan afterwards said after listening to all the evidence they believed that to be the case.

Doesn't make it a fact. Sorry.

I said this previously, but can we please stop pretending that an acquittal turns defense testimony into fact? An acquittal means that the sum of the evidence presented was not sufficient to clear the hurdle of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. That's it.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by valo403

Doesn't make it a fact. Sorry.

I said this previously, but can we please stop pretending that an acquittal turns defense testimony into fact?

Just as long as that goes both ways valo. I noticed you haven't exactly been against the "facts" posted that support your theory.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Outside of the jury, who would disagree with you?

Terrible story, especially knowing his wife died just prior to his release, but likely a lot of the blame falls on his attorney. There's a reason some of them cost a ton more than others, and it looks like McNeil's was absolutely terrible if he didn't tell the jurors that they could acquit him on grounds of self-defense.

But what's your point? Race can play a role? Sure, I wont disagree entirely with that. But what does that have to do with Zimmerman specifically? Just because there's a chance others are being treated unfairly doesn't mean Zimmerman should be as well to "make up for it." It should go the other way, like Zimmerman everyone else deserves a fair trial.

I wasn't comparing this case to Zimmerman, instead I was refuting the case that Ark2 posted showing that our justice system isn't racist by posting a single case out of NY.

I don't know if you can blame his defense entirely (McNeil case) as one of the reasons cited for his release was that improper instructions were given to the jury which would have been by the judge who presided over it.

And as I have stated, I don't believe the evidence was there to convict Zimmerman, however I do believe the stand your ground laws should be repealed and like BigBrodieFan, I believe gun laws need to be addressed so that someone like Zimmerman doesn't have the balls to get out of his car and follow someone around their neighborhood.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by FlamingLonghorn

I wasn't comparing this case to Zimmerman, instead I was refuting the case that Ark2 posted showing that our justice system isn't racist by posting a single case out of NY.

I don't know if you can blame his defense entirely (McNeil case) as one of the reasons cited for his release was that improper instructions were given to the jury which would have been by the judge who presided over it.

Yes, and "everyone" agrees that it was simply a bad trial. It unfortunately happens. Now any proof that it had to do with race? (Not saying it was or wasn't, but there's a jump there that should have some proof to back it up).

[valo403]

If anyone is interested in actually reading a study, as opposed to just grabbing a single headline and pretending they know everything, here you go:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...r-ground-laws/

Whites who kill blacks in Stand Your Ground states are far more likely to be found justified in their killings. 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.

The study notes that the figures do not prove bias, and I can't really argue with that (it's also never been my point that any particular law is bias, but that the justice system as a whole has been shown to result in bias). What it does show is a disparate impact, and it's certainly worth questioning why it exists.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Just as long as that goes both ways valo. I noticed you haven't exactly been against the "facts" posted that support your theory.

Such as? Please enlighten me.

[Brannigans Law]

Originally Posted by valo403

Doesn't make it a fact. Sorry.

I said this previously, but can we please stop pretending that an acquittal turns defense testimony into fact? An acquittal means that the sum of the evidence presented was not sufficient to clear the hurdle of 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. That's it.

Who said it made anything fact? But it is the best evidence we have. Like it or not.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Brannigans Law

Who said it made anything fact? But it is the best evidence we have. Like it or not.

The person I was addressing has presented it as fact over and over again.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Yes, and "everyone" agrees that it was simply a bad trial. It unfortunately happens. Now any proof that it had to do with race? (Not saying it was or wasn't, but there's a jump there that should have some proof to back it up).

Well it's nearly impossible to have "proof" that a decision was racist. However, the DA didn't decide to prosecute until a year later. The Georgia Supreme court upheld the conviction in which only one judge dissented (the black one). The jury was given improper instructions. The judge didn't allow the victims violent criminal history to be admitted. Could it have been for other reasons? Possibly, but looking at valo's actual stats it seems awful fishy. The fact is those of us who think the justice system is racially bias have an awful lots of stats to back it up. Those of you who don't like to post one case proving it to not be. All Ark2 did was prove that a court in NY is probably not racist and I don't think anyone is claiming every judge in the US is racist. In fact I would think the NY justice system would probably be one of the more progressive. All in all neither of our cases mean diddly squat. Anecdotal evidence proves nothing. The stats that have been posted by valo and mean are huge studies, I will await the studies that counter them.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by FlamingLonghorn

I wasn't comparing this case to Zimmerman, instead I was refuting the case that Ark2 posted showing that our justice system isn't racist by posting a single case out of NY.

Then you were refuting a point that I never made. The people that should feel silly are the people in this thread that unequivocally and baselessly stated that if Zimmerman were black and Martin were white, that Zimmerman would have been charged with murder. That statement has been made numerous times here and, as the Roderick Scott Case has shown, is not reasonable. If you want to argue that there is racial prejudice in the American legal system, knock yourself out, but don't put words in my mouth.