I seriously think conservatives donate to those two guys just to have a black boogeyman to trot out every few months.
Weren't you denying that the beating ever happened, just a couple of days ago? You had no evidence, but you insisted it didn't happen.
Now that you can't deny it any more, you move to justifying it. Whatever it takes. You ARE the thing you claim to hate the most. Nothing you'd like more than a good old fashioned lynchin'.
I seriously think conservatives donate to those two guys just to have a black boogeyman to trot out every few months.
What Everyone Needs To Know About The Smear Campaign Against Trayvon Martin (1995-2012)
um on Mar 26, 2012 at 6:59 pm
Trayvon Martin, as he appeared on his actual Facebook page
Over the last 48 hours, there has been a sustained effort to smear Trayvon Martin, the 17-year old African-American who was shot dead by George Zimmerman a month ago. Martin’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, said, “They killed my son, now they’re trying to kill his reputation.”
Thus far these attacks have fallen into two categories: false and irrelevant. Much of this leaked information seems intended to play into stereotypes about young African-American males. Here’s what everyone should know:
1. Prominent conservative websites published fake photos of Martin. Twitchy, a new website run by prominent conservative blogger Mic e Malkin, promoted a photo — purportedly from Martin’s Facebook page — that shows Martin in saggy pants and flipping the bird. The photo, which spread quickly on conservative websites and Twitter, is intended to paint Martin as a thug. As Twitchy later acknowledged, it is not a photo of Trayvon Martin. [Examiner]
2. The Sanford Police selectively leaked irrelevant, negative information about Martin. The authorities told the Orlando Sentinel this morning that Trayvon was suspended from school for ten days “after being found with an empty marijuana baggie.” There is no evidence that Martin was under the influence of drugs at the time of his death, nor would prior possession of marijuana be a reason for killing him. It’s unclear what the relevance of the leak was, other than to smear Martin. [Orlando Sentinel]
3. On Fox News, Geraldo said that Martin was dressed “like a wannabe gangster.” Bill O’Reilly agreed with him. The sole evidence is that Martin was wearing a hoodie. Geraldo added that “everyone that ever stuck up a convenience store” was wearing a hoodie. [ThinkProgress; The Blaze]
4. Without any evidence, prominent right-wing bloggers suggested that Martin was a drug dealer. Right-wing blogger Dan Riehl advances the theory, also advanced in a widely linked peice on a site called Wagist. There does not appear to be any evidence to support this claim whatsoever. [Riehl World View]
5. Without any evidence, a right-wing columnist alleged that Martin assaulted a bus driver. Unlike Zimmerman, Trayvon has no do ented history of violence. This allegation continues to be advanced by a blogger on the Examiner even after the real reason was leaked to the police and confirmed by the family. [Miami Herald; Examiner]
6. Zimmerman’s friend says Martin was to blame because he was disrespectful to Zimmerman. Zimmerman’s friend Joe Oliver said that Martin would not have been shot to death if Trayvon had just said “I’m staying with my parents.” Of course, Zimmerman was not a police officer, and Trayvon had no duty to tell him who he was or where he was going. [NBC News]
The final part of the effort to smear Trayvon Martin is to link him and his supporters to irresponsible fringe groups like the New Black Panthers and marignal provocateurs like Louis Farrakhan. Threats by these groups are serious and should be investigated, but they have nothing to do with Martin or his supporters. The leader of the effort to associate Martin with these groups is Matt Drudge. You can see how he is framing the story today here.
Ultimately, whether Martin was a perfect person is irrelevant to whether Zimmerman’s conduct that night was justified. Clearly, there are two different versions of the events that transpired on February 26, the night Trayvon was killed. There are conflicting statements by witnesses and conflicting evidence as to who was the aggressor. Zimmerman has the right to tell his side of the story. But his opportunity to do this will come in a court of law after he is charged and arrested. In the meantime, Zimmerman’s supporters should stop trying to smear the reputation of a dead, 17-year-old boy.
=========
Like raped women, Martin "asked for it" by being black, wearing a hoodie, and walking around.
from my understanding the FL law is similar to the one in TX. Where you use the amount of force that a reasonable person would use to get away, exception if it is at a persons house and then the castle clause comes into place.
Is stalking with a gun legal in Florida?
I saw the initial reports of Z being bloodied and beat up, so I didn't deny anything.
_I'm_ not justifiying anything.
It's the Stand Your Ground FL law that justifies beating the out of/killing some if you feel threatened.
yo law, mayne
hmmm, posted a pic to go along with my comment but it felt immediately wrong so taking it down.
That's why you should read something other than Alternet and Huffington. You read a lot of words, but you don't know .
The law says you can use deadly force if you believe you are in imminent danger of death or severe injury. Do you have evidence that Zimmerman threatened Trayvon with death or physical injury? If you have some evidence, then I'm with you. If you don't have evidence, then you're just lining up for the lynch mob.
I'm not saying Zimmerman is innocent - never have. I'm saying I don't know, and you don't know. I say look at the evidence, and THEN decide. You say decide what must have happened without seeing the evidence. Now... which approach is just, and which is ignorance?
And what do you use to determine guilt, without actually having evidence? The fact that one person was black and one was white. No matter how often you scream about justice, Boutons, YOU are the racist.
If Zimmerman stalked and killed that kid, I say fry him. , stand him up and let his relatives be the firing squad. But I don't jump to conclusions of guilt without getting answers to the relevant questions. If you ever get in trouble, you better hope you have 12 people like me on the jury.
"Zimmerman threatened Trayvon with death or physical injury"
The Stand Your Ground laws don't say you need some form of official, verbal threat, you just need to feel you are threatened.
A 140 pounder, a black who could have been harassed by whites earlier, being driven after, stalked, confronted by a 240 pounder, would seem to be enough of imagined/felt threat to Stand Your Ground in FL.
Was he a Drug Dealer/Gang banger?
http://patdollard.com/2012/03/was-tr...ng-gangbanger/
I think a better question would be "should you bring skittles to a gun fight?" God bless and I did include you in my prayer a few days ago.
echo in here?
The Florida Law says that deadly force may be justified if:
He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony
If someone asks you why you are in the neighborhood, it's not reasonable to assume that they intend to kill or beat you. If someone is wearing a hoodie, it's not reasonable to assume that they intend to kill or beat you.
If someone much larger than yourself threatens to beat or kill you, or actually attacks you, you may be in the neighborhood of justification. If someone much larger than you attacks you, and succeeds in beating the crap out of you, it probably qualifies as "great bodily harm".
One more thing the law says: If you actually provoke another person until they use force against you, you are not en led to the "stand your ground" defense. BUT... if the person keeps beating you, and you try every way you can to retreat, and indicate to your attacker that you wish to withdraw, you are justified in using deadly force.
In other words, even if another person may be justified in taking a swing at you, he isn't en led to pound you into a pulp once you are down. If you try and get away, and he just keeps beating you, you are justified in doing whatever you have to do, to save yourself. It's not really so outrageous, when you understand what the law was written for.
I don't know if any of those things happened. But until we know the facts, you can't conclude that Zimmerman is guilty of murder. Well... you could conclude that, but it would be an ignorant thing to do.
And, since you seem unwilling or incapable of getting to the root of the problem - standing your ground is not the same thing as initiating an attack. If Trayvon had been harassed by whites earlier (as you so entertainingly made up), it would not equate to Zimmerman attacking him.
If Zimmerman gave Trayvon some reason to believe that he was about to be attacked - that's a different story. Again - do you have ANY evidence that happened? The law doesn't say an imagined threat. It says that someone has to reasonably believe that they are in danger of being killed or seriously injured. You can't just make up like "imagined/felt threat".
Was it reasonable for Trayvon to believe he was going to be killed or beaten? That's why we have juries, who look at evidence. We don't decide guilt based on the crap you read on Huffington.
And, once again, if you ever get into trouble you better hope you have 12 people like me on the jury, and not 12 people like you.
screw you and the jury...I'm busting shots first..that fat got lucky he ran up on an unarmed kid...he'd be pumped full of nasty had he run up on Kool...
Absolute proof that Darwin was correct.
I rest my case.
Yes. As a female in Florida, I have a right to feel threatened by serious injury by ANY strange man who follows me at night, gets out of his car, and approaches me. I am still in danger until I beat the crap out of him.
I stated that it was "a lot". Excessive? One can only figure that based on the kind of neighborhood he lived in. Hence my question.
Why don't you post the law instead of giving us your own interpretation so we can judge for ourselves?
What if the inquiry occurs after this someone gets out of their car and has pursued you down the street?
It could be a problem.
Look, I never said Zimmerman was innocent. I said I don't know what happened. If I had to judge by looking at photos, I'd say the guy looks like some wanna-be cop, who might do something like he's being accused of. Unfortunately, that's exactly what a bunch of people have done. Kind of ironic that it's exactly what they claim Zimmerman did, isn't it?
Now let me ask you a question. Do you really believe that the fat-ass 5'2", 240 lb. wanna-be cop pursued the young, 6'3", football star down the street and actually caught him? Can't you see that as a potential hole in the story we're being told?
I'll tell you my opinion. There's no way in Zimmerman ran down Trayvon, if Trayvon was trying to run away from him. Something else happened, besides what we're hearing in the news. I don't pretend to know how it went down, but when I was 17, there's no way that little lard-ass would have been able to run me down - especially if I was seriously scared for whatever reason. And nobody claims that Zimmerman shot him from behind, or from a distance.
So tell me. Should you already have your mind made up, and start tying the noose? Or should you be looking for explanations?
Why don't you learn to read for yourself, you lazy ? If you read it, and think I misinterpreted it, then come back and tell me why.
But, since you don't want to be bothered doing that, maybe I should tell you that this portion of what I said:
...reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony
was a cut-and-paste from the Florida Penal Code. Now you've got what you wanted, so feel free to offer your own interpretation.
You didn't even indicate that it was cut and paste. Why didn't you just highlight the link, copy and paste it anyway? The fact that you couldn't (or wouldn't?) do a 5 second action makes it su ious. Just saying.
The fact that you couldn't (or wouldn't) take my word for it, or look it up for yourself makes me su ious. If you really believe in something strongly, why not take a few seconds to learn some of the facts? Are you afraid that the truth of the law might make it difficult to keep believing the way you do?
Just saying.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
