Trayvon's avengers

[rosey]

Since the young Trayvon Martin was shot by George Zimmerman, African Americans have been getting revenge for his death... on Caucasians. Why are they beating up white people? Zimmerman is Hispanic.
They beat up this guy,

http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/apr/23/2 ... r-3659891/

A couple days ago some boys beat up a 19 year old white kid, "For Trayon."

And some more African American boys beat up real bad a 80 year old white man.

WHY?

[bluethread]

But no, the Belgians chose to "stand their ground" and suffered because of that choice.

As an aside, if I recall correctly, the topography eventually worked against the germans as the Antwerp delta proved indefensible. Am I correct?

The Belgian army was hopelessly outnumbered from the beginning, but did manage to hold out for several weeks in the heavily fortified city of Antwerp, and served to divert German forces from the main war in France.

The point of my analogy was that honor demanded that Belgium resist German demands for free military access to their territory. Likewise, "stand your ground" laws here may require some tweaking to prevent abuse, but any self defense law that requires a person to run away rather than resist is intolerable.

Ah, I recall. In the Battle of the Bulge, the blitzkrieg of the Germans caused them to outrun their supply lines as the resistance attacked the infrastructure. This allowed the Allies to come up the delta and push the Germans back.

Sorry, for the diversion, but I guess it serves as an example of how resistance beats appeasement.

[Danmark]

Since the young Trayvon Martin was shot by George Zimmerman, African Americans have been getting revenge for his death... on Caucasians. Why are they beating up white people? Zimmerman is Hispanic.
They beat up this guy,

http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2012/apr/23/2 ... r-3659891/

A couple days ago some boys beat up a 19 year old white kid, "For Trayon."

And some more African American boys beat up real bad a 80 year old white man.

WHY?

Part of the problem is an attitude that is implicit in this OP: seeing too many events in terms of race. An additional problem is the media, and too many individuals, interpreting individual trials as referendums on social issues. They are not. Trials are, or should be, limited to the facts and law presented in each case. A 3d problem is the media that hypes everything up by casting things in terms of some 'theme' they think resonates in order to sell papers or minutes. An example is their continual showing of photos of a 17 year old as if he were 14; and talking about Zimmerman as if he were 'white.'

And a 4th problem is the misunderstanding of a verdict in a criminal case. "Not Guilty" does not mean innocent. It simply means the State did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt to the jurors it tried the case to. Those in the media, like many in this forum, simply respond to what they hear in the media according to their preconceptions and their personal politics. For example, of those who have written on this subtopic, how many of you watched every day of the trial AND read all of the jury instructions before voicing your opinion on the verdict?

[JohnPaul]

[Replying to post 291 by bluethread]
bluethread wrote:

Ah, I recall. In the Battle of the Bulge, the blitzkrieg of the Germans caused them to outrun their supply lines as the resistance attacked the infrastructure. This allowed the Allies to come up the delta and push the Germans back.

Same area, but a different war. The German invasion of Belgium I was referring to occurred thirty years earlier in 1914, soon after the beginning of World War One. Belgium was neutral at that time, but the Germans demanded that Belgium allow the German army to pass through Belgium on its way to attack France. Belgium refused, so the Germans diverted a part of their army to invade Belgium. Belgium's small army stood alone and was soon overwhelmed by far superior German force.

P.S. I don't recommend that last part to an individual homeowner defending his home under the "stand your ground" law. Better to first be better armed than the invaders.

[Danmark]

P.S. I don't recommend that last part to an individual homeowner defending his home under the "stand your ground" law. Better to first be better armed than the invaders.

Of course this last bit has absolutely nothing to do with the 'stand your ground' law re: the Zimmerman case. Many, if not most States in the West have a 'no duty to retreat' provision in the law. Defending one's home is not in the least applicable to the facts in the Zimmerman case where the two parties were in a common, public area. Neither was defending his home.

[keithprosser3]

Trials are, or should be, limited to the facts and law presented in each case.

And trials should happen. This all blew up because there wasn't going to be a trial.

If people don't think justice is being done by the system they will take justice into their own hands. And if justice is indeed not being done, don't they have a right to?

[Dantalion]

[Replying to post 291 by bluethread]
bluethread wrote:

Ah, I recall. In the Battle of the Bulge, the blitzkrieg of the Germans caused them to outrun their supply lines as the resistance attacked the infrastructure. This allowed the Allies to come up the delta and push the Germans back.

Same area, but a different war. The German invasion of Belgium I was referring to occurred thirty years earlier in 1914, soon after the beginning of World War One. Belgium was neutral at that time, but the Germans demanded that Belgium allow the German army to pass through Belgium on its way to attack France. Belgium refused, so the Germans diverted a part of their army to invade Belgium. Belgium's small army stood alone and was soon overwhelmed by far superior German force.

P.S. I don't recommend that last part to an individual homeowner defending his home under the "stand your ground" law. Better to first be better armed than the invaders.

Correct. I'll be back later to post more, but now I've got incredibly dull family obligations, cheers.

[JohnPaul]

P.S. I don't recommend that last part to an individual homeowner defending his home under the "stand your ground" law. Better to first be better armed than the invaders.

Of course this last bit has absolutely nothing to do with the 'stand your ground' law re: the Zimmerman case. Many, if not most States in the West have a 'no duty to retreat' provision in the law. Defending one's home is not in the least applicable to the facts in the Zimmerman case where the two parties were in a common, public area. Neither was defending his home.

I had already said that the "stand your ground" law did not apply in the Zimmerman case. My comments about the German invasion of Belgium were in response to Dantalion's earlier comment that he had doubts about the "stand your ground" law itself. I was pointing out that his country, Belgium, had stood its ground against the German invasion.

It was my understanding that Florida's "stand your ground" law, and that of some other states, was an effort to correct the LACK of a "no duty to retreat" provision in the ordinary self defense laws.

[JohnPaul]

Trials are, or should be, limited to the facts and law presented in each case.

And trials should happen. This all blew up because there wasn't going to be a trial.

If people don't think justice is being done by the system they will take justice into their own hands. And if justice is indeed not being done, don't they have a right to?

Why should there be a trial when there is no evidence to indicate that a crime has been committed? All the evidence at the scene when the police arrived, and the testimony of witnesses, clearly indicated that Zimmerman had shot in self defense, which is NOT A CRIME. Must there be a trial every time someone dies, whether in an auto accident or of natural causes, if there is no apparent evidence that any wrong-doing was involved?

[Danmark]

Trials are, or should be, limited to the facts and law presented in each case.

And trials should happen. This all blew up because there wasn't going to be a trial.

If people don't think justice is being done by the system they will take justice into their own hands. And if justice is indeed not being done, don't they have a right to?

Why should there be a trial when there is no evidence to indicate that a crime has been committed? All the evidence at the scene when the police arrived, and the testimony of witnesses, clearly indicated that Zimmerman had shot in self defense, which is NOT A CRIME. Must there be a trial every time someone dies, whether in an auto accident or of natural causes, if there is no apparent evidence that any wrong-doing was involved?

"ALL" the evidence "clearly" shows Zimmerman shot in self defense? John Paul, do you really want to stand by such a broad, sweeping statement? Did you personally review all of the evidence? All of the police reports? Did you observe ALL of the testimony presented at trial? Did you review a complete trial transcript?

Most people have not. Most have not even reviewed the jury instructions presented in the case. I have. In all 50 States, the reasonableness of self defense, and particularly the reasonableness of use of deadly force is always a question of fact, just as it was in this case. The reasonableness of Zimmerman's decision to fire a gun at an unarmed man presented a clear question of fact. Was Zimmerman reasonable in his belief that Martin was armed? The jury had to consider whether Zimmerman was reasonable in his belief that he was about to be killed or to suffer great bodily harm. At least one juror thought the State presented sufficient evidence to suggest Zimmerman 'got away with murder,' but that juror felt the State did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

It is unhelpful to look at this case from either the left or the right, or from one race's point of view. Do those who have taken Martin's side seriously think it should be easier to convict a person charged with a crime? Do those who have taken Zimmerman's side seriously think it should be harder to convict a person charged with a crime?

[JohnPaul]

Trials are, or should be, limited to the facts and law presented in each case.

And trials should happen. This all blew up because there wasn't going to be a trial.

If people don't think justice is being done by the system they will take justice into their own hands. And if justice is indeed not being done, don't they have a right to?

Why should there be a trial when there is no evidence to indicate that a crime has been committed? All the evidence at the scene when the police arrived, and the testimony of witnesses, clearly indicated that Zimmerman had shot in self defense, which is NOT A CRIME. Must there be a trial every time someone dies, whether in an auto accident or of natural causes, if there is no apparent evidence that any wrong-doing was involved?

"ALL" the evidence "clearly" shows Zimmerman shot in self defense? John Paul, do you really want to stand by such a broad, sweeping statement? Did you personally review all of the evidence? All of the police reports? Did you observe ALL of the testimony presented at trial? Did you review a complete trial transcript?

Most people have not. Most have not even reviewed the jury instructions presented in the case. I have. In all 50 States, the reasonableness of self defense, and particularly the reasonableness of use of deadly force is always a question of fact, just as it was in this case. The reasonableness of Zimmerman's decision to fire a gun at an unarmed man presented a clear question of fact. Was Zimmerman reasonable in his belief that Martin was armed? The jury had to consider whether Zimmerman was reasonable in his belief that he was about to be killed or to suffer great bodily harm. At least one juror thought the State presented sufficient evidence to suggest Zimmerman 'got away with murder,' but that juror felt the State did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

It is unhelpful to look at this case from either the left or the right, or from one race's point of view. Do those who have taken Martin's side seriously think it should be easier to convict a person charged with a crime? Do those who have taken Zimmerman's side seriously think it should be harder to convict a person charged with a crime?

Yes, I really want to stand by my claim, although I will modify it slightly to say that all the evidence available to the police at the scene showed beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman had shot in self defense and no crime had been committed. Zimmerman should not have been charged with a crime until someone could show evidence that a crime had actually been committed, and the prosecution in this case obviously had no such evidence. This trial was a show put on to appease the blacks and their liberal lackeys who wanted a political circus, and the pathetic Florida politicians gave it to them. Thank god the jury was intelligent enough to see through the farce. Even the one hold-out juror who said that Zimmerman got away with murder believed that only because her religion did not recognize self defense as justification for killing. Her belief had nothing to do with the facts or the law.