The Glade 4.0

Think there's any chance the dude on the right would have been able to successfully claim self-defense?



Old news, obviously, but first time I've seen the race-flipped photo, and I found it compelling enough to post despite the lttp factor.

C o n t e x t

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Seems to me it's you being the one wrapped around the axle over race, RD. Self defense seems rightfully to call for folks to be color-blind.

It's time to stop hatin'.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

If the white kid jumped on him after the black guy called the cops? Yeah.

The difference is, everyone would be talking about how racist the kid was for attacking an innocent black man, instead of calling the survivor a racist.

Now, let me ask you this - do you think the same folks that are so up in arms about Trayvon would be screaming about the kid above being shot?

If i had a son he might look like that kid...

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

If I had a brotha he might look like the other guy.

Race obsessed libtards still going strong.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

In point of fact, there was a near-identical case in New York right around the same time as the Zimmerman case, where it WAS a black man defending himself against a white teenager. He was acquitted - in a heavily anti-gun state, no less.

Roderick Scott found not guilty

The above source carefully avoids mentioning that the teenager who was shot was white. Actually, that's better than the vast majority of the media that has studiously avoided the story entirely. We can't have it ruining the racial tension that keeps news selling so well, can we?

Actually mentions that the dead teen was white

Institutional racism is dead. This sort of "race reversal, 0% chance of accquital" is utter bullshit. It is complete nonsense.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

If George had been black and Trayvon white, it never would have made it to trial, nor charges even pressed, if everything else was the same.

I don't have a horse in the race, but this question bugs me. And no, not just because answering a counterfactual is pointless. It bugs me because of this:

"If Trayvon Martin were white and George Zimmerman were black, Zimmerman would have been wrongly convicted." P->Q
"Trayvon Martin was black and George Zimmerman is white." ~P
"Therefore, Zimmerman was wrongly acquitted." ~Q

This isn't how logic works (for more than one reason).

I know you didn't strictly say this, but every time I've heard "if the races had been reversed..." by anyone, anywhere, from any political stripe, this is where it wound up before the fat lady sang.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

He actually said the opposite of what you said... he suggested that had the races been reversed, it never would have made it to trial. His implication is that it's a clear case of self defense, and the only reason it ever came to trial at all was that the 'race card' was played. I believe there's some substance to this. It wasn't until pressure from black activist groups and the fed came to bear that they even considered pressing charges on Zimmerman. That pressure would not have been there if the races were reversed.

Of course, one could argue that actual racism in the system would mean that they'd automatically try to charge Zimmerman had the races been reversed. I can't comment on that, we don't have this type of racial tension or stereotyping here.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I don't think you understood RDs point, Tally

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Actually, it's worse. For some reason I thought Stathol was replying to Coren, who posted right before him.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

This is pretty much it. The evidence was overwhelmingly in favor of self-defense, and the Sanford Police and prosecution weren't going to prosecute it, until a couple of opportunistic attorneys hired a PR firm to launch a misinformation campaign to spark outrage. I still remember when Natalie Jackson, one of the Martin family attorneys, claimed there were two gun shots...a warning shot, followed by a boy begging for his life, then the killing shot.

Anyone who actually followed the trial and paid attention to the evidence could see that it painted a very different story than what the media was showing early on.

As far as the race angle implied in the original post goes, one of the Florida newspapers did some research into it, and found that blacks actually benefited more often from the self defense laws than whites did.

That's not the premise I'm proposing at all, Stathol, because it presumes that a conviction would have been wrongful. My view is that it was a close call as to whether or not Zimmerman's actions were culpable, so a conviction wouldn't necessarily have been wrong. So, the point of the race-flipped photo is that when you have an ambiguous situation that could go either way, a black defendant accused of killing a white teenager would be much less likely to be perceived as a good samaritan / innocent victim defending himself, and his uncorroborated story that the supposedly thuggish teenager doubled-back and attacked him without provocation would be less likely to be believed.

In short, all I'm saying is that a black guy accused of shooting an unarmed white teenager is much, much less likely to get the benefit of the doubt than a white guy shooting an unarmed black teenager. If anyone actually doubts that contention, then they're just willfully ignorant.

Except under the law as it stands in Florida, it wasn't in any way a close call...it was as clear cut a case of self defense as one can get.

There are several significant differences between the Scott case and the Zimmerman case. For instance, Scott was confronting three teenagers, increasing the level of threat/danger; the teenagers in the Scott case were actually engaged in a crime at the time; Scott interrupted the crime in progress rather than following the teens around; and, most importantly for the argument at hand, Scott was immediately arrested and charged with murder, whereas that only happened with Zimmerman after a bunch of political and media pressure.

Only if you believe Zimmerman's story. As I said at the time, I agree there wasn't even close to enough evidence for murder, but maybe for manslaughter. And the self-defense answer to that charge would turn on whether or not you believe Zimmerman's testimony. I don't.

Or if you believe the overwhelming evidence that matches George's story, such as the exchange of words happening right where George said it did, or the forensics that show George was on his back with Trayvon leaning over on top of him at the moment the shot was fired.

Racists can't do that, you know. It's impossible for evidence to overcome their bias. They just don't believe it, no matter how compelling, no matter that they can't support their opinions with evidence to the contrary. They see the world through their heart and that provides a very dark lens indeed.

You are right about one thing though, RD. That picture, with the races reversed? Some could be swayed by that. Thing is, those folks use skin color as evidence.

I gotta tell you, that's why your first post is insulting. The fact that you found it compelling is one thing, using it in an attempt to compel others is where you jumped the tracks. Changing the color of their skin doesn't even come close to make me change my mind, and I find it insulting you even tried.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Scott was also a MUCH larger and stronger man than Zimmerman



irrelevant; post-facto knowledge that Martin was doing nothing wrong cannot be sued against Zimmerman



Somewhat relevant, in that Scott actually observed a verifiable crime, but the implication that Zimmerman somehow justified Martin's assault by following him around has been repeatedly dealt with.



Completely unimportant at all. Not only was Zimmerman eventually arrrested, but the behavior of the police is utterly irrelevant to the innocence or guilt of either man.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That's not how reasonable doubt works. You've been doubting his testimony based on nothing more than your intuitive assumption that he MUST have been lying since the beginning. As Coren pointed out, the physical evidence backs up Zimmerman's story.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The evidence quite clearly shows that George was pinned to the ground, on his back, taking head injuries while screaming for help prior to shooting. That is plenty of "threat/danger" to warrant the use of force in self defense per Florida law.



Trayvon's apparent aggravated assault on George seems to be a crime to me. That doesn't matter for self defense though.



George was within his legal rights to follow, and the evidence shows he ceased following when advised to. (Note, the spot where George was advised to not follow, and the spot where the fight started = the same spot).



That's because there was, and still is, no evidence whatsoever that George committed murder.

Why are we beating this dead horse. The jury is in and that needs to be good enough. If that isnt going to change RD and the other race baiters minds, nothing will. Trust me, I know. The anniversary of our own local incident is next week, I'm sure there will be a candlelight vigil at the house and the usual suspects will moan and complain about how there is no justice for black people, despite getting their day in court, the truth prevailing, and anyone with a brain realizing that race couldn't possibly have anything to do about it.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Zimmerman was "targeted" because he was very obviously a violent, racist person in general who also embodied a lot of negative conservative stereotypes (owns lots of guns, anti-government views, etc.) This made it very easy for the public to believe that he really wanted to go out and kill himself a nigger and that the theft situation just made for a perfect excuse. Of course, the media didn't hesitate to garner huge ratings/profits by feeding that belief.

That doesn't mean the shooting wasn't justified self-defense, I would have acquitted him too. But if you really believe that he would have followed Martin around had Martin been white, then I've got a bridge to sell you. The fact that he's innocent of this crime doesn't change the fact that he's still an odious, violent racist. Just look at his behavior after the trial. How many times has he been arrested now for attacking his girlfriend and threatening her/the police with weapons?