Post Reply
Page 23 of 27  •  Prev 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 ... 27 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Zimmerman: I was attacked first
3 years ago  ::  Apr 11, 2012 - 1:03PM #221
river8101
Posts: 5,561

Marcion:  What an outlandish statement. How do you know what evetyone believes or doesn't believe.


I went to college in the south, and I am white.  I left after a year and a half because of the terrible racism I saw before the Civil Rights Act, which didn't help much. Martin Luther King was shot, and so were many other black people.  Most never stood trial.


There is too much hysteria on both sides for me to take a position one way or the other. I will wait for the facts.


You had  the facts.  You just don't want to accept them.  Zimmerman ran away because he didn't want to be prosecuted.   Whites tormented, even killed blacks when I was down there in the early 60's.  I remember when any white person killed a black person, or burn down their houses which were never more than shacks, brag about it, and never went on trial.  Usually no one was arrested.  Newspapers carried the stories, and none of the southern residents objected.


I do believe that opportunists like Sharpton and Jackson will pollute the truth.


I don't care for either one of them, but I remember the horror of living in the south.  I don't believe they polluted the truth,

“Faith is deciding to allow yourself to believe something your intellect would otherwise cause you to reject.”
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 11, 2012 - 10:03PM #222
Ed.W
Posts: 9,442

River and her fiction.



James Earl Ray (March 10, 1928 – April 23, 1998) was an American criminal with a Danish background, convicted of the assassination of civil rights and anti-war activist Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Ray was convicted on March 10, 1969, after entering a guilty plea to forgo a jury trial. Had he been found guilty by jury trial, he would have been eligible for the death penalty.[1] He was sentenced to 99 years in prison. He later recanted his confession and tried unsuccessfully to gain a new trial. He died in prison of hepatitis C.



Byron De La Beckwith, Jr. (November 9, 1920 – January 21, 2001) was an American white supremacist and Klansman from Greenwood, Mississippi who was convicted in the 1994 state trial of assassinating the civil rights leader Medgar Evers on June 12, 1963. Two previous trials in 1964 on this charge had resulted in hung juries.

‘Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.’ --Lao Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 12, 2012 - 4:46PM #223
Mostyn32
Posts: 2,941

Ed, those two hung juries in the Beckwith trials were all male, all white juries. It wasn't until Mississippi was dragged into the twentieth century in the late 1970s and had to enfranchise blacks and give them the vote that it was possible to empanel a jury that included both blacks and whites. For the third Beckwith trial, which ended in a conviction, the jury was made up of eight blacks and four whites.


To intimate that prejudice and bigotry doesn't play a part in murder cases involving black defendants, is stretching the truth. All the Civil Rights Legislation in the world isn't going to erase hundreds of years of prejudice and bigotry. You might want to check out stats. I found these on a site called 'Capital Punishment in Context'. Read 'em and weep!


Nationally, nearly 80% of murder victims in cases resulting in an execution have been white, even though nationally only 50% of murder victims generally are white. A 1990 examination of death penalty sentencing conducted by the United States General Accounting Office noted that, "In 82% of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e., those who murdered whites were found more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks." Individual state studies have found similar disparities. In fact, race of victim disparities have been found in most death penalty states.


Race of the Defendant


Nationally, the racial composition of those on death row is 45% white, 42% black, and 10% Latino/ Latina. Of states with more than 10 people on death row, Texas (70%) and Pennsylvania (69%) have the largest percentage of minorities on death row. Year 2000 census data revealed that the racial composition of the United States was 75.1% white, 12.3% black and 12.5% Latino/Latina. While these statistics might suggest that minorities are overrepresented on death row, the same statistical studies that have found evidence of race of victim effects in capital sentencing have not conclusively found evidence of similar race of defendant effects. In fact, while some studies show that the race of the defendant is correlated with death sentences, no researcher has made definitive findings that the death sentence is being imposed on defendants on account of their race, per se, independently of other variables (such as type of crime) which are correlated with defendants' race.


Race of the Jurors


In capital cases, one juror can represent the difference between life and death. A belief that members of one race, gender, or religion might generally be less inclined to impose a death sentence can lead the prosecutor to allow as few of such jurors as possible. For example, a Dallas Morning News review of trials in that jurisdiction found systematic exclusion of blacks from juries. In a two-year study of over 100 felony cases in Dallas County, the prosecutors dismissed blacks from jury service twice as often as whites. Even when the newspaper compared similar jurors who had expressed opinions about the criminal justice system (a reason that prosecutors had given for the elimination of jurors, claiming that race was not a factor), black jurors were excused at a much higher rate than whites. Of jurors who said that either they or someone close to them had had a bad experience with the police or the courts, prosecutors struck 100% of the blacks, but only 39% of the whites.


  

"God is no captious sophister, eager to trip us up whenever we say amiss, but a courteous tutor, ready to amend what, in our weakness or our ignorance, we say ill, and to make the most of what we say aright."  from 'A Learned Discourse on Justification', a sermon by Richard Hooker (1554-1600).
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 12, 2012 - 5:40PM #224
voice-crying
Posts: 7,222

Mar 26, 2012 -- 5:38PM, Ken wrote:


He deserved to be attacked.




Who is "He?"


Cowards carrying guns don't [attack] they shoot to kill!!!

"Death and life [are] in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof."Proverbs 18:21
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 15, 2012 - 8:17AM #225
rsielin
Posts: 4,540

If Zimmerman was legally "standing his ground", couldn't Martin also have been "standing his ground," albeit without a gun, in the face of an obviously stalking unidentified stranger? I teach my daughters to scream, kick the groin, scratch eyes out, pound their head into the concrete, if unavoidable contact is made by a stranger. Isn't this an example of the same?


As guns become more prevalent, we are going to be subject to more "friendly fire" incidences as this may have been.  Police and military go through extensive situational training to avoid such incidents. Why give the public more liberty to fire sans training than what our professional police have with training? It can only result more tragic friendly fire deaths. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 15, 2012 - 8:23AM #226
rsielin
Posts: 4,540

Apr 1, 2012 -- 8:17PM, farragut wrote:

" All I am saying is that guns won't prevent it.  On the contrary, one more gun, no matter in whose hands,  makes it a little more probable  that someone will get killed. Guns for protection is an illusion"


I challenge that. A friend of mine, a former baptist preacher, as a matter of fact, found himself stopped at a red light in westside of Louisville, surrounded by a group of 8 - 12 sturdy young men looking at him with hungry expressions. He pulled out his 357, opened the window, and said to the menacing young man, " Are you sure you are ready for this?"


In two shakes of a lamb's tail the gang disappeared and Jim went on with his work.


Take from this what you will.


Glad for you friend.  But it was just as likely that within that group there was another gun held by someone standing in the shadows but with a strong impulse to fire first. 


Take from this what you will. 


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 15, 2012 - 9:37AM #227
teilhard
Posts: 51,432

***patiently***


But, see ... Trayvon Martin was BLACK ... and wearing a "Hoodie" ... So what Right would HE have had to "Self Defense" ... ??? Wasn't he required to just submit meekly ... ??? Obey ... ???


Apr 15, 2012 -- 8:17AM, rsielin wrote:


If Zimmerman was legally "standing his ground", couldn't Martin also have been "standing his ground," albeit without a gun, in the face of an obviously stalking unidentified stranger? I teach my daughters to scream, kick the groin, scratch eyes out, pound their head into the concrete, if unavoidable contact is made by a stranger. Isn't this an example of the same?


As guns become more prevalent, we are going to be subject to more "friendly fire" incidences as this may have been.  Police and military go through extensive situational training to avoid such incidents. Why give the public more liberty to fire sans training than what our professional police have with training? It can only result more tragic friendly fire deaths. 





Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 22, 2012 - 9:35PM #228
Slipnish
Posts: 3,869

Jeez, for a bunch of folks who stand on their heads and demand evidence on other boards, it's nice to see it isn't needed for something as trivial as a criminal case.....

I don't believe it. Prove it to me and I still won't believe it.

~Any Creationist~
(But honestly Douglas Adams)

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 22, 2012 - 10:15PM #229
teilhard
Posts: 51,432

That's right ... It must be PROVEN "beyond a Reasonable Doubt" that The "Night Stalker" Guy shot an unarmed Kid ...


Apr 22, 2012 -- 9:35PM, Slipnish wrote:


Jeez, for a bunch of folks who stand on their heads and demand evidence on other boards, it's nice to see it isn't needed for something as trivial as a criminal case.....





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 18, 2012 - 1:19PM #230
headhuntersix
Posts: 63

Apr 1, 2012 -- 8:17PM, farragut wrote:

He pulled out his 357, opened the window, and said to the menacing young man, " Are you sure you are ready for this?"



Sounds like something out of "el torino" or "sudden impact."  Your friend has obviously seen far too many Clint Eastwood movies, LOL.  That said, I think brandishing the pistol probably saved someone some real pain.  Had he not had it, I see two possible outcomes.  Either he drives straight over some of the punks, or they haul him out of the car and have their way with him.  Their fear of the firearm averted any actual harm to either side.  That makes me smile more than anything.    And it makes me sad for laws against brandishing in self defense.  I mean, how crazy is that.  When someone's threatening you, you get to shoot him dead.  Peachy.  If, on the other hand, you point your gun at him without pulling the trigger, you're suddenly the criminal.  That's as dumb as dumb gets.  Not that I feel bad for the real criminal, but let's say you hold a burgular at gunpoint till a cop can get there.  Theoretically, you both get arrested, you for "brandishing a firearm," right?  I mean, in some states, you can do so inside your house, in some inside your yard, hell, in some you can point it out the window of your car.  But pretty much everywhere, if the guy in the quoted story had been on foot, scaring the gangbangers off with his gun would be a crime.  Yet, IMHO, he has a moral obligation to defuse the situation without deadly force, if at all possible.  Dumb, dumb, dumb legal system.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 23 of 27  •  Prev 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 ... 27 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook