This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Racism
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Right- but if you follow them, corner them, and start an altercation, and they get the upper hand on you, it's no longer self-defense because you started the fight. This law lets people start fights, and kill their opponent, and then say that the fight had escalated to the point where they were in fear for their lives. The law needs to take the stance that if you attack someone, then whatever the result of the fight is is your fault, because you started it. Otherwise, it's too easy to kill people. You don't even need to show that they were a threat- just that YOU thought they were a threat.
In this case, the kid hadn't done anything that warranted pursuing. He hadn't shown a weapon, trespassed on someone's property, said anything to Zimmerman. He was on the phone, walking home. If he wanted to be safe, rather than sorry, then at most he should have called the cops. But to chase him down the street was completely unwarranted. Beyond that, his story may have been that he returned to his car when he was told to, but the girl on the phone with the kid said she told Martin to run after he said someone was following him, and then she heard the altercation. Zimmerman's own phone call said that the kid was running out of the complex- his words. And THEN the operator asked if he was following him, and he said yes. I hadn't heard anything about a ding of a car door, so if you have the link I'll take a look, but the transcripts I read said nothing about him returning to his car. That may be his story now, but when the operator asked him to stop he didn't say he was or he wasn't.
What's interesting is that he says that they'll recognize his truck, indicating that he was near his truck when he was pursuing him. He says that he doesn't want to give out his address because he "doesn't know who this kid is"- which would indicate that he was still relatively close to him, and didn't want to say- which would indicate that he hadn't given up pursuit if the kid was running away. He says to have the cop call him when he got there and he'd let him know where he was- which indicated that he planned to still be on the move. Everything about that call, after she told him to stop, sounds to me like he's still giving chase. At no point did he agree to stop, or say he was, or say anything that woul indicate he was doing anything other than continuing to chase.
I don't know who hit who first, but if someone was chasing you through a dark neighborhood, I imagine that'd be scary enough that you'd want to defend yourself. And logically, why would someone's first instinct be to run away, and then suddenly they decide to sneak back up on their pursuer and start a fight? What person do you know that would be scared enough to run, but not scared enough to keep them from stopping running, and returning to fight?
911 Call Transcripts
Post by
MyTie
I'd rather see more about this law and those implications than the Zimmerman story, but I feel that it isn't on topic for this thread.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Ok- sounds fair.
Post by
gamerunknown
Speaking of racism, anyone think Santorum's comment about Obama was a Freudian slip?
Post by
ElhonnaDS
What did he say?
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I have no audio at work- i'll check it out at home. I'll reserve judgement until I actually hear it.
Post by
Nathanyal
Yeah he wasn't calling him that. It sounds like pikey was saying, he started saying 'neg' but changed his train of thought. It sounds like he was going to say government negotiations.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Just listened. It's...hmm...I don't know what word would start with that syllable that would come after government. Government negative doesn't make sense. Government negotiations...not sure that phrase would fit into that context. I don't know what he intended to say. But it does sound a lot more like "nig" than "neg" to my ear. I mean, there are accents where those two sound similar, but I don't think his is one of them. If course, we all mess up and switch thoughts half way through a sentence, and make weird word variations, so I don't think it means he was going say, or even thinking, the n-word. But either way it's going to stick with him.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Of course, lots of regular people are guilty of types of racism/stereotypes: Oh look, something shows people pigging out and getting fat! They must obviously be talking about Americas!(Completely ignore all the *insert cultural icons here* around them).
Post by
KingdomKnight
It's true, a lot of times people shout racism every time they see prejudice. There's a Christ Rock joke that does the same thing, and it basically makes it sound like racism can only be targeted at people of African decent. This is highly incorrect. It's irritating that people misuse the term racism so often, but it's nowhere near as frustrating as the actual prejudice itself. I hate the term 'minority', it's too overused.
As for the case, all I see is a kid dead, and that's all I need to know. I couldn't care less about race or reasoning. The US is too lenient with this crap, and sensationalism is getting worse than ever.
Post by
gamerunknown
So tax cuts scholarships or anything beneficial for a specific race is in fact racism.
I don't think this argument holds up, since the existence of discrimination on the basis of the assumption of race is still prevalent even while there is little support for its use as an actual biological category.
Oh I suppose he could have said "the anti-war government negotiator"? In context, where he discusses Obama's aside to Mendevev, it would make some sense... but he wasn't really negotiating with federal government, which may provide a reason for him stopping midword.
Post by
Lombax
I'm nordic therefore I'm superior to all.
Jokes aside, I feel that at many times people think of racism as something only white people are able to being.
Will probably expand on this post when I've woken up.
Post by
MyTie
Simple racism is anything negative happening to a minority from a majority.
This is horribly inaccurate. Consider the case of Zimbabwe. Whites made up less than 1% of the population, but controlled at least 70% of the land. The power imbalance was heavily favored toward whites. In their power, by your definition, any mistreatment of black people at their hands COULDN'T be considered racist because they were the minority. Once Mugabe took power, and the power shifted, white people had their land and power taken from them, and in many cases were raped and beaten. By your definition, this WAS racist, because the whites were a minority.
I reject the notion that an action is racist based on the number of people of that skin tone, but that same action is not racist if there are more people of that skin tone. I think that is rooted in a desire for "fairness" and not for "moral justice". I think until we as a society overcome this backward thinking, we are going to continue to have problems.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
865056
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.