Couldn't agree more.

[opendebate]

I seriously believe you do agree with me but don't necessarily want to admit it.
I can tell you are someone who respects the established doctrine of "Politically Correct" group think. But deep down you say that race has nothing to do with this, however you attempt to defend those who do believe it is a racial case in nature because you don't want to be seen as betraying the politically correct line of thinking.
This is why when pushed for a reason why this case could possibly be racial, all you can come up with is the classic standby that people use in every... single... situation. "History".
The problem I have with that is that History is History. It happened in the past, it will never change........ and can't, in my opinion, automatically be applied to just about anything to create a racial debate about a case/incident where absolutely nothing was racial about it until particular racist individuals decided it was.

Don't get me wrong... I don't think you are a bad person or anything.... I just think you are trying too hard to defend idiots on the progressive side of the table on this one.
Just because you are "progressive" and they are "progressive" doesn't mean you always have to agree. Its okay to disagree with people who share the same political lean as you.
And...... its okay to disagree with the "politically correct" group think.

I agree.
However, turning a non-racial incident into a racial incident does NOTHING to help minimize racism. Instead it drives a deeper wedge right into the middle of race relations in this country. That is what I have been saying about this case.. if you haven't understood my message on the race issue.

I must say i get the impression you may have made assumptions about my thinking based, I assume, on my political leanings. I can't see anything I have posted that would honestly lead you to believe I am lying to myself or that I secretly agree with you. I promise you, I think things through very thoroughly and make choices based on what makes sense to me. I shy very much away from thinking like the herd. I am no intellectual lemming. But, as much effort as I put into forming my opinions I, just like everyone, I am imperfect. A good, healthy, smart challenge either strengthens my opinion or helps it to evolve. I'm not afraid of being wrong.

I think it is hard for some people to not feel,when I reference our history, like a finger is being pointed at them. I am not pointing fingers at any other group. Instead I am pointing out that our history as individuals as well as various groups (family, friends etc) shapes us. I am merely noting that it is impossible to avoid being shaped by our past or the past of our fathers and mothers. For instance, my father was an abusive alcoholic he would beat and sexually abuse my mother regularly and abuse his seven daughters on a regular basis. As I grew into an adult I recognized that when men got aggravated, they frightened me. I also had a profoundly difficult time trusting them. Luckily I met good men who taught me something different. But given my circumstances my fear and lack of trust made perfect sense and if I hadn't been blessed with good men later in my life, if instead those negative lessons about men were reinforced by more abusive men. Then I would be stuck in that thinking and it is my guess that if you met me and wondered why I was so untrusting of men, if I told you my history,....you would understand and give me room. Maybe even may an effort to set a different example. This is my point. I am still responsible for making an effort to be fair and not judge someone else for the actions of my father but to recover from that kind of trap someone had to give me a hand.

As for "politically correct", I think the notion of political correctness is ridiculous and have no fear of challenging a behavior that keeps us from connecting with reality. Both parties have flaws.

Again, we will have to agree to disagree (which is fine) with each other on whether or not this case had racial overtones. I will always believe it was a factor. I was merely trying to point out that people often see things differently, I just happen to believe that the best way for us to live in peace with one another and for everyone to have the best chance of achieving the best life possible for themselves and the people they care about, we need to be compassionate towards one another and make an effort to hear one another.

 

[Caine]

I think it does for most whites as well. But it's still there.

It will ALWAYS be there.

Anyone ignorant enough to think we will somehow get rid of racism.. EVER... is stupid.

Its effect is minimal and overblown.

 

[Moot]

He didn't create the situation.

The "situation" didn't start until Trayvon attacked him.

But...... you'll probably just tell me Trayvon had the right to sucker punch someone for observing him without knowing his intent huh?

No, the situation started when Zimmerman profiled Trayvon, then called the police and then followed Trayvon.

 

[Jack Hays]

The judge cited the "stand your ground" law to the jury and that is what the jury went by when they determined his innocence. Otherwise, he probably would have gotten manslaughter for creating the situation and not leaving the area.

False. There has been no indication "stand your ground" even came up in jury deliberations. The case was quite winnable under regular self defense rules, and that's what the defense argued.

 

[Moot]

It will ALWAYS be there.

Anyone ignorant enough to think we will somehow get rid of racism.. EVER... is stupid.

Its effect is minimal and overblown.

Well, there ya go. But since you admit you ignore it then how do you know it's minimal or overblown?

 

[Goshin]

That's the whole point, most Americans don't really care about political stuff, and when issues are put into a political sphere by people it becomes a ****-fest because that is what it becomes. And message boards, social media, and the like are a symptom of that, because a lot of people who do care about politics can't discuss issues without resorting to hyperbolic shouting matches. Which demeans things, and turns a lot of people off.

This case was in itself a symptom of such a problem, and the fact that a case like this took on a political spin in the first place is sickening.

There never would have been a trial at all, if the Fedgov, media and Sharpton/Jackson crowd hadn't gone political and racial with this in the beginning. Once the box is open, it is open.

 

[Moot]

False. There has been no indication "stand your ground" even came up in jury deliberations. The case was quite winnable under regular self defense rules, and that's what the defense argued.

Quibbling isn't going to change the fact that Florida has a stand your ground law and that is the law the judge read to the jury and the one they used to find him not guilty.

 

[Jack Hays]

There never would have been a trial at all, if the Fedgov, media and Sharpton/Jackson crowd hadn't gone political and racial with this in the beginning. Once the box is open, it is open.

Yup. The case was propagandized just like Duke Lacrosse.

 

[Caine]

No, the situation started when Zimmerman profiled Trayvon, then called the police and then followed Trayvon.

Okay.....

Heaven forbid someone NOT be apathetic about what goes on in their community.


Someone in his community had to do it..... I mean ****... he screamed for his life for a long time and everyone shivered in their widdle boots hiding.....
Not ONE person in either row of townhomes who could hear bothered to lift a ****ing finger to help someone getting beat and screaming for help.

Not ONE.

So yeah, sometimes I'd rather communities have Zimmermans than not, but at the same time, look at the **** Zimmerman got in.

So, I guess we should all learn to not depend on each other as a community.

 

[Jack Hays]

Quibbling isn't going to change the fact that Florida has a stand your ground law and that is the law the judge read to the jury and the one they used to find him not guilty.

False again. The defense explicitly declined "stand your ground" and never argued it. There is zero evidence that "stand your ground" was important to the jury. There is no evidence that the verdict would have been different without "stand your ground.":roll:

 

[Caine]

Well, there ya go. But since you admit you ignore it then how do you know it's minimal or overblown?

I ignore it BECAUSE its effect is minimal and overblown.

Besides... I am a white dude... I have no choice but to ignore it...... White people can't point out racist actions against them....... Because if we do.... We're racists.

 

[Moot]

False again. The defense explicitly declined "stand your ground" and never argued it. There is zero evidence that "stand your ground" was important to the jury. There is no evidence that the verdict would have been different without "stand your ground.":roll:

In closing, let me remind you that it is important that you follow the law spelled out in these instructions in deciding your verdict. There are no other laws that apply to this case. Even if you do not like the laws that must be applied, you must use them. For two centuries we have lived by the Constitution and the law. No juror has the right to violate rules we all share.

George Zimmerman Trial: Final Jury Instructions

 

[Moot]

I ignore it BECAUSE its effect is minimal and overblown.

Besides... I am a white dude... I have no choice but to ignore it...... White people can't point out racist actions against them....... Because if we do.... We're racists.

Nice twist from indifference to victim.

 

[Jack Hays]

In closing, let me remind you that it is important that you follow the law spelled out in these instructions in deciding your verdict. There are no other laws that apply to this case. Even if you do not like the laws that must be applied, you must use them. For two centuries we have lived by the Constitution and the law. No juror has the right to violate rules we all share.

George Zimmerman Trial: Final Jury Instructions

That's an instruction given to virtually every criminal jury. "Stand your ground" was not part of the jury's deliberations.eace

 

[Moot]

That's an instruction given to virtually every criminal jury. "Stand your ground" was not part of the jury's deliberations.eace

"...If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.....
George Zimmerman Trial: Final Jury Instructions

 

[Jack Hays]

"...If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.....
George Zimmerman Trial: Final Jury Instructions

Yup. But the defense didn't argue that.

 

[Mason66]

Is it possible that there is more to it than that?

Well then please tell me what it is about?

 

[Mason66]

Those who assume the not guilty verdict was ONLY because of a lack of a black juror have automatically assumed said hypothetical black juror is ignorant and would vote based not upon the law but upon racial hatred.

Yes that is true and that is extremely sad for them.