Doctor Fate wrote:The reason for the protests was to make a living. Sharpton, et al, don't have work without it. If it was really about ending violence against young black men, they'd be camped out in Chicago.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:The reason for the protests was to make a living. Sharpton, et al, don't have work without it. If it was really about ending violence against young black men, they'd be camped out in Chicago.

The first protests were initiated locally and alongside the family of Martin, who were upset that Zimmerman was released and not charged, especially when two weeks later (12 March) it was announced that there was not enough evidence. The case did not really go national until after then (and that's when Sharpton and others jumped on the bandwagon) - in Sharpton's case a full 10 days later on 22 March. By 'original' protests, I meant the first ones.

And I think we can sympathise with the family of a shooting victim being upset and angry if they don't believe that the shooter has been held to account properly. They certainly felt that race had something to do with the investigations, and while they may well have been incorrect in that feeling, it.seems to me to be callous to dismiss it.

freeman3 wrote:DF, you keep saying there is no evidence--I'm not sure what you're talking about.

As I stated above, a man (weighing 200 pounds) shot an unarmed 17 year old weighing only 158 pounds.

The man had minor injuries and had been following the minor.

I don't think the fact that Zimmerman was getting beat up entitled him to use a gun (he could have fought back, he could have threatened Trayvon with the gun, he could have pushed Trayvin off of him);the jury did.

Juries need to make these kinds if calls, not prosecutors (as long as there is enough evidence for the charge)

And by way it appears that the verdict was closer than it might appear, with the one juror initially voting for 2nd degree murder and two for manslaughter. If one more juror had initially felt that way, the verdict likely would have gone the other way. That's close.

danivon wrote:I love how you claim to have sympathy for the family and then in the same post smear their son.

Doctor Fate wrote:There is more evidence that Trayvon disliked white people than there is that Zimmerman disliked black people.

It is distasteful to go around blaming victims.

While Tom was calling him a thug, he was basing that largely on evidence that was ruled inadmissable, as well it should be (as evidence about a woman's prior sexual history is not necessarily admissable when there is a charge that someone has raped her).

Geraldo Rivera blamed his choice of clothing. And now you allege that there's clear evidence he hated white people.

Just as it is tawdry to race-bait, victim-blaming is also low behaviour. A bit of quiet, a bit less jumping to conclusions, and perhaps we can all move on from an event which is tragic all round.

They simply allow you to defend yourself if being attacked, if you are being attacked and you have an option to flee or to defend, they allow defense. Yes, if you have a gun you are more likely to stand your ground and not run away but how is running away when you can defend the right answer?

You can stand your ground if you’re white, and you can use a gun to do it. But if you stand your ground with your fists and you’re black, you’re dead.
In the state of Florida, the season on African-Americans now runs year round. Come one, come all. And bring a handgun. The legislators are fine with this blood on their hands. The governor, too. One man accosted another and when it became a fist fight, one man — and one man only — had a firearm. The rest is racial rationalization and dishonorable commentary.
If I were a person of color in Florida, I would pick up a brick and start walking toward that courthouse in Sanford. Those that do not, those that hold the pain and betrayal inside and somehow manage to resist violence — these citizens are testament to a stoic tolerance that is more than the rest of us deserve. I confess, their patience and patriotism is well beyond my own.
Behold, the lewd, pornographic embrace of two great American pathologies: Race and guns, both of which have conspired not only to take the life of a teenager, but to make that killing entirely permissible. I can’t look an African-American parent in the eye for thinking about what they must tell their sons about what can happen to them on the streets of their country. Tonight, anyone who truly understands what justice is and what it requires of a society is ashamed to call himself an American

rickyp wrote:tom

They simply allow you to defend yourself if being attacked, if you are being attacked and you have an option to flee or to defend, they allow defense. Yes, if you have a gun you are more likely to stand your ground and not run away but how is running away when you can defend the right answer?

David Simon had a take on this appeal to self e=defence.

You can stand your ground if you’re white, and you can use a gun to do it. But if you stand your ground with your fists and you’re black, you’re dead.
In the state of Florida, the season on African-Americans now runs year round. Come one, come all. And bring a handgun. The legislators are fine with this blood on their hands. The governor, too. One man accosted another and when it became a fist fight, one man — and one man only — had a firearm. The rest is racial rationalization and dishonorable commentary.
If I were a person of color in Florida, I would pick up a brick and start walking toward that courthouse in Sanford. Those that do not, those that hold the pain and betrayal inside and somehow manage to resist violence — these citizens are testament to a stoic tolerance that is more than the rest of us deserve. I confess, their patience and patriotism is well beyond my own.
Behold, the lewd, pornographic embrace of two great American pathologies: Race and guns, both of which have conspired not only to take the life of a teenager, but to make that killing entirely permissible. I can’t look an African-American parent in the eye for thinking about what they must tell their sons about what can happen to them on the streets of their country. Tonight, anyone who truly understands what justice is and what it requires of a society is ashamed to call himself an American

GMTom wrote:

The stand your ground laws are pro gun and pro property...

Yet another issue I need to differ with.
Stand your ground laws are not pro gun or pro property but rather pro defense.

"Sharpton said demonstrations were planned for Saturday in 100 cities to push for new charges against Zimmerman and the repeal of Florida's "stand your ground" self-defense law.

"We don't need consolation. We need legislation, and we need some federal prosecution," Sharpton said."

and repeal Florida's stand your ground law???
It had nothing to do with this case, why push for repeal when it does nothing but make you look stoopid.

Florida's "stand your ground'' law has allowed drug dealers to avoid murder charges and gang members to walk free. It has stymied prosecutors and confused judges. • It has also served its intended purpose, exonerating dozens of people who were deemed to be legitimately acting in self-defense. Among them: a woman who was choked and beaten by an irate tenant and a man who was threatened in his driveway by a felon.

Seven years since it was passed, Florida's "stand your ground" law is being invoked with unexpected frequency, in ways no one imagined, to free killers and violent attackers whose self-defense claims seem questionable at best.

Cases with similar facts show surprising — sometimes shocking — differences in outcomes. If you claim "stand your ground" as the reason you shot someone, what happens to you can depend less on the merits of the case than on who you are, whom you kill and where your case is decided.

.I don't see these as mutually exclusive. SYG laws can be pro gun, pro-property, and pro defense

That changed in 2005 when Gov. Jeb Bush signed into law Florida Statute 776.013. It says a person "has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground'' if he or she thinks deadly force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily harm or commission of a forcible felony like robbery

'Emboldening'
As "stand your ground" claims have increased, so too has the number of Floridians with guns. Concealed weapons permits now stand at 1.1 million, three times as many as in 2005 when the law was passed.
"I think the (stand your ground) law has an emboldening effect. All of a sudden, you're a tough guy and can be aggressive,'' said George Kirkham, a professor emeritus at Florida State University who has worked as a police officer.
Criminologists say that when people with guns get the message they have a right to stand and fight, rather than retreat, the threshold for using that gun goes down. All too often, Bruce Bartlett, chief assistant state attorney for Pinellas-Pasco counties, sees the result.
"I see cases where I'll think, 'This person didn't really need to kill that person but the law, as it is written, justifies their action,' " Bartlett said about incidents that his office decides not to prosecute due to "stand your ground." "It may be legally within the boundaries. But at the end of the day, was it really necessary?"