HE WALKS

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Here is a story of a black man who shot an unarmed white teenager: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/ny...ial.html?_r=3&. You're going to read this story and think, "Oh, that's different." You're going to rationalize how in this case there was an onus on the black man to exercise restraint.

That is because you are a racist.

so a black, racist man comes out of his home, brandishing a gun and shoves it in the face of a white teenager, ultimately shooting him point blank is the same as a fat mexican getting beaten on a sidewalk and unholstering his sidearm to protect himself?

black apologist much?

[Rhambuk]

Originally Posted by Kraftwerk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You really think that is the only difference between those two stories? Like, genuinely you believe that 100% to be truth?

ha no its a little different shooting a drunk kid in the face thats looking for a fight than "defending yourself"

I use quotes because, no one knows what happened we simply have to take zimmermans word for it.

[Kassel]

Alawen, Imo they are different. One has head smashing the other does not. in my eyes the key is head smashing and reasonable assertions of incoming death. Kids standing out side your house screaming IMO is not create a reasonable assertions of incoming death.

[Alawen]

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

so a black, racist man comes out of his home, brandishing a gun and shoves it in the face of a white teenager, ultimately shooting him point blank is the same as a fat mexican getting beaten on a sidewalk and unholstering his sidearm to protect himself?

black apologist much?

Racist.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I presented a contrasting instance. You, as usual, immediately resorted to ad hominem commentary. You have a small mind and I don't really care what you say. I would put you on ignore, but instead I am just going to ignore you, racist.

i genuinely thought you were trolling. you're too smart to actually believe those cases are equivalent from a legal standpoint, especially to the extent that you would accuse anyone who disagrees of racism

if you'd like to understand why these cases are very different from a legal perspective, please let me know. if you'd like to continue believing the jury in new york, the jury in florida, and the appellate court in new york are all racist to the extent they can not return a just verdict in parallel cases, i suppose that's your prerogative. but it isn't me that's being small-minded

[Samoht]

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Racist.

yes, yes you are.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Kassel [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Alawen, Imo they are different. One has head smashing the other does not. in my eyes the key is head smashing and reasonable assertions of incoming death. Kids standing out side your house screaming IMO is not create a reasonable assertions of incoming death.

the differences are twofold.

the first major difference is the obligation to retreat. to begin, florida is a SYG state -- meaning zimmerman had no obligation to retreat, regardless of scenario. however, even despite this fact, zimmerman claims he was pinned to the ground, thus nullifying any potential requirement to retreat, regardless of state. he could not have retreated. new york is NOT a stand your ground state. white was not pinned to the ground. his ability to retreat was in no way hampered. thus, white could and should have attempted to retreat from the situation before exercising lethal force. this is really the beginning and end of the case, as this point overwhelms any self defense claim.

the second major difference is that zimmerman suffered physical harm to the extent that a reasonable person could have feared serious bodily harm or death if not for the use of lethal force. white suffered no such harm, and it would be difficult -- but not impossible -- to prove that white reasonably feared imminent, serious bodily harm or death on the basis of the threats the boys were making, prior to any actual violent action being taken. this half of the case is enough to kill self defense for the prosecution, but it could also be won by the defense. it is less concrete than the zimmerman case

and i would be remiss if i didn't mention that a huge difference in these cases was the element of reasonable doubt. this case had witnesses. the court knew, within reason, exactly what happened. the zimmerman case had none of that. it is very possible that if we had 3 witnesses with perfect views of the zimmerman-martin brawl, the outcome in this case could have been different. but we didn't. we don't even know beyond a reasonable doubt who was on top or who was screaming for help, let alone who initiated violence. the case is riddled with reasonable doubt, while the white case left zero room for doubt

[Kagatob]

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Here is a story of a black man who shot an unarmed white teenager: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/ny...ial.html?_r=3&. You're going to read this story and think, "Oh, that's different." You're going to rationalize how in this case there was an onus on the black man to exercise restraint.

That is because you are a racist.

You are correct that there are people here who are blinded by race and racism in this thread. I suggest you take a look at all of these threads and take inventory of which posts bring up race and which posts are simply responding to such race-infused posts.

I realize you are incapable of learning anything due to your mule-like stubbornness so I'll spell it out for you. You, HBB and your ilk with your white-guilt thumping and your constantly calling out racial injustice where there is none and blaming the white man at every opportunity are the real racists here and you are only perpetuating the problem.

You compare these two cases, I honestly thought you were trolling. Let's say the teenagers had broken into Mr. White's house and then he shot them, this would be grounds for self-defense.

Instead of trying to calm the unarmed teenagers, or simply locking his doors and waiting for the police, Mr. White grabbed an unlicensed pistol and stormed out of his house to confront the teenagers

Let's say they attacked him first on his property rather then backing down after having a gun pulled on them and he fired for fear of his life.

Mr. White fanned the gun menacingly at each teenager and that Daniel did not lunge, but rather defiantly slapped the gun away, with Mr. White retraining it on him, then shooting him point-blank in the face.

Let's say Mr. White had properly registered his gun and had the license to carry/own/operate it.

The man, John H. White, 54, was guilty of the second-degree manslaughter charge that prosecutors had sought, and of criminal possession of a weapon.

Mr. White admitted in court that he had not hunted in years and that the Beretta was unlicensed.

None of those things happened.

Originally Posted by Rhambuk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The only difference is this murderer was convicted, where the murderer were all talking about here was set free. nothing to do with convict black murderers and let white murderers roam free here.

True justice served in the article above, a true joke what happened yesterday.

The first part of this post is again racially charged, the second part of the post is accurate, the third part is backwards as what happened yesterday was the end of a joke that had gone on for far too long.

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Racist.

Originally Posted by Samoht [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

yes, yes you are.

I still don't think he gets it.

[Alawen]

Please, drop more slurs to prove that other people are racist, racist.

[Vaildez]

This case should never have gone to trial in the first place.. This is what happens when the media goes race baiting to bring in big ratings.