caj11 wrote:
Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Should this not be explored, right here in NJ? Two thug teens kill a church going, union welder? I'd say this is even more outrageous than the Martin/Zimmerman case.

http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/ ... html#incart_river_default

It is a very good thing that man didn't have a gun to defend himself with. And if he shot those poor misunderstood kids he should have gone to prison. In any event, as it stands events don't bother VV, and she will undoubtedly suggest that if we want to reduce incidents like these that we should spend more money on those kids, because the real culprit here is inequality. People shouldn't protect themselves at all, they should have a DIALOGUE across communities.

Ah, yes... kind of like, Bernie Goetz shouldn't have shot those four guys coming after him with screwdrivers, he should have said something like, "Young man, crime isn't the answer, let me give you directions to a food pantry". Of course!

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Should this not be explored, right here in NJ? Two thug teens kill a church going, union welder? I'd say this is even more outrageous than the Martin/Zimmerman case.

http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/ ... html#incart_river_default

It is a very good thing that man didn't have a gun to defend himself with. And if he shot those poor misunderstood kids he should have gone to prison. In any event, as it stands events don't bother VV, and she will undoubtedly suggest that if we want to reduce incidents like these that we should spend more money on those kids, because the real culprit here is inequality. People shouldn't protect themselves at all, they should have a DIALOGUE across communities.

Monroe wrote:
Should this not be explored, right here in NJ? Two thug teens kill a church going, union welder? I'd say this is even more outrageous than the Martin/Zimmerman case.

http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/ ... html#incart_river_default

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

caj11 wrote:
Quote:

VanVorster wrote:
This is the tower of Babel, you clearly don't understand what I'm saying with inane comments like this and devoid of perspective and nuance. "He was too white for your tastes" ... In no way did I say that and I don't even know what that means. His brother passes for white (when I said constructively white added with their dad and surname) and it's no secret that the family doesn't like black people per the article which is really about families absorbing anti-black views -- an intrinsic facet of this country since its inception. And nice race baiting on your part (he's not lily white but Hispanic for affirmative action purposes and job applications). When you lament the deplorable state of race relations in this country, do realize you're part of the problem. http://alumni.berkeley.edu/california ... tles-berkeley-prof-blasts

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/1/14 ... itics_how_politicians_use

Oh, Democracy Now, now that's a reputable organization that presents issues in an unbiased forum. Aren't they the same idiots who are constantly touting Mumia Abu Jamal's innocence? Mumia had more evidence against him than O.J. Simpson and thankfully is in prison where he belongs.

In any case, you previously mentioned that George Zimmerman could "at least be made penniless in a civil trial". Trayvon Martin's parents already settled with the homeowners' association for a reported $1 million.

Furthermore, Zimmerman is already relying on others to pay his own attorneys and I doubt has much to sue for anyway. On top of that, even if Zimmerman owns his home, Florida laws would prevent him from losing it in a civil suit (O.J. Simpson moved to Florida for that very reason during the civil trial).

This lawyer reminds me of Ron Kuby, the guy who filed a lawsuit against Bernie Goetz for his shooting of Darrell Cabey and won a $40 million judgment against him, despite Bernie being found not guilty on the grounds of self-defense in the ciminal trial. How much of that judgment has been collected since it was decided in 1996? Exactly zero. Bernie already spent everything on his own lawyers by the time the lawsuit was over. Darrell got nothing, Bernie ended up with nothing, but Ron Kuby got plenty of free publicity for his law practice and still enjoys a "celebrity lawyer" status today. I cringe every time I see him on TV or hear him on the radio.

This is the same crap that Mr. Crump is pulling because he knows full well a civil suit against Zimmerman is a waste of time and court resources.

WRONG! This is about Justice! To say anything otherwise makes you a racist devil! I won't listen! (and yes, in VanVorster's last post he said those who don't want Zimmerman in jail are "devils")

caj11 wrote:
Quote:

VanVorster wrote:
This is the tower of Babel, you clearly don't understand what I'm saying with inane comments like this and devoid of perspective and nuance. "He was too white for your tastes" ... In no way did I say that and I don't even know what that means. His brother passes for white (when I said constructively white added with their dad and surname) and it's no secret that the family doesn't like black people per the article which is really about families absorbing anti-black views -- an intrinsic facet of this country since its inception. And nice race baiting on your part (he's not lily white but Hispanic for affirmative action purposes and job applications). When you lament the deplorable state of race relations in this country, do realize you're part of the problem. http://alumni.berkeley.edu/california ... tles-berkeley-prof-blasts

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/1/14 ... itics_how_politicians_use

Oh, Democracy Now, now that's a reputable organization that presents issues in an unbiased forum. Aren't they the same idiots who are constantly touting Mumia Abu Jamal's innocence? Mumia had more evidence against him than O.J. Simpson and thankfully is in prison where he belongs.

In any case, you previously mentioned that George Zimmerman could "at least be made penniless in a civil trial". Trayvon Martin's parents already settled with the homeowners' association for a reported $1 million.

Furthermore, Zimmerman is already relying on others to pay his own attorneys and I doubt has much to sue for anyway. On top of that, even if Zimmerman owns his home, Florida laws would prevent him from losing it in a civil suit (O.J. Simpson moved to Florida for that very reason during the civil trial).

This lawyer reminds me of Ron Kuby, the guy who filed a lawsuit against Bernie Goetz for his shooting of Darrell Cabey and won a $40 million judgment against him, despite Bernie being found not guilty on the grounds of self-defense in the ciminal trial. How much of that judgment has been collected since it was decided in 1996? Exactly zero. Bernie already spent everything on his own lawyers by the time the lawsuit was over. Darrell got nothing, Bernie ended up with nothing, but Ron Kuby got plenty of free publicity for his law practice and still enjoys a "celebrity lawyer" status today. I cringe every time I see him on TV or hear him on the radio.

This is the same crap that Mr. Crump is pulling because he knows full well a civil suit against Zimmerman is a waste of time and court resources.

VanVorster wrote:
This is the tower of Babel, you clearly don't understand what I'm saying with inane comments like this and devoid of perspective and nuance. "He was too white for your tastes" ... In no way did I say that and I don't even know what that means. His brother passes for white (when I said constructively white added with their dad and surname) and it's no secret that the family doesn't like black people per the article which is really about families absorbing anti-black views -- an intrinsic facet of this country since its inception. And nice race baiting on your part (he's not lily white but Hispanic for affirmative action purposes and job applications). When you lament the deplorable state of race relations in this country, do realize you're part of the problem. http://alumni.berkeley.edu/california ... tles-berkeley-prof-blasts

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/1/14 ... itics_how_politicians_use

VanVorster wrote:
JCMan you say Devilsadvocate using lynching was inflammatory but then you back pedal and equivocate and say "well I sort of get his point." The fact is Zimmerman is alive and well and most recently a cause celebre at a gun show in Orlando and selling his trifling art. Yes, there were angry people (not a large segment) upset spouting nonsense about his death but nothing has happened to him and people were rightfully angry -- there were no riots after the Martin trial as predicted or any melees after Renisha McBride, Jonathan Farrell or Jordan Davis. You like Devils are devoid of empathy and any understanding and it's quite pathetic and sad and a sad commentary on your humanity or lack thereof. Devils brought up Zimmerman being Hispanic (and threw in Affirmative Action for good measure as a dog whistle) ostensibly to switch from the traditional black/white paradigm and that as a Hispanic he would have shot a white person too. I said that other racial groups (Hispanics, Asians, etc) can emulate and absorb the inherent racist anti-black views in this country (sounds like his mother certainly did); and moreover, that George's brother (Robert) could conceivably identify as white/constructively white and not have any affinity with being a minority in this country or particularly empathizing with black people.

http://www.timwise.org/2012/03/trayvo ... -of-blackness-in-america/

VanVorster wrote:
How is constructively white (i.e. passing) offensive or remotely equivalent to saying Zimmerman is being lynched? You never heard of the term "passing" or saw actual lynching photos in the US?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_(racial_identity)

Sounds like you both need better education on the history of this country. http://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/i ... erty_law_center_says.html

Adhere to No 5. in the Rules (be polite, on topic and CONSTRUCTIVE with the content of your posts).

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

VanVorster wrote:
How is constructively white (i.e. passing) offensive or remotely equivalent to saying Zimmerman is being lynched? You never heard of the term "passing" or saw actual lynching photos in the US?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_(racial_identity)

Sounds like you both need better education on the history of this country. http://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/i ... erty_law_center_says.html

Adhere to No 5. in the Rules (be polite, on topic and CONSTRUCTIVE with the content of your posts).

I think he was being unnecessarily inflammatory by using the term "lynched" but I get his point. The result many Zimmerman haters want is the same as the old-school lynchers: Zimmerman's death.

I don't understand your use of "constructively white" at all. It seems like a ridiculous term. What is your point, that because he was "constructively white" this means what he did is somehow worse? You weren't very familiar with the facts as discussed at trial and there was substantial evidence to suggest Martin jumped Zimmerman. Sorry, he had no right to do that.

I also agree with the sentiment that had Zimmerman been black, you and many others wouldn't give two shits about Treyvon or this case.

VanVorster wrote:
lynching them? and the troll award goes to you.

VanVorster wrote:
How is constructively white (i.e. passing) offensive or remotely equivalent to saying Zimmerman is being lynched? You never heard of the term "passing" or saw actual lynching photos in the US?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_(racial_identity)

Sounds like you both need better education on the history of this country. http://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/i ... erty_law_center_says.html

Adhere to No 5. in the Rules (be polite, on topic and CONSTRUCTIVE with the content of your posts).

VanVorster wrote:
lynching them? and the troll award goes to you.

VanVorster wrote:
This is the tower of Babel, you clearly don't understand what I'm saying with inane comments like this and devoid of perspective and nuance. "He was too white for your tastes" ... In no way did I say that and I don't even know what that means. His brother passes for white (when I said constructively white added with their dad and surname) and it's no secret that the family doesn't like black people per the article which is really about families absorbing anti-black views -- an intrinsic facet of this country since its inception. And nice race baiting on your part (he's not lily white but Hispanic for affirmative action purposes and job applications). When you lament the deplorable state of race relations in this country, do realize you're part of the problem. http://alumni.berkeley.edu/california ... tles-berkeley-prof-blasts

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/1/14 ... itics_how_politicians_use

VanVorster wrote:
I said I wasn't fearful at all as I've only felt unsafe once in the two decades being here and I don't understand why anyone else needs a gun or knife, pepper spray I get. As to Zimmerman being Hispanic, that's irrelevant. Hispanics and other minorities can exhibit anti-black animus and judging by his brother's statements, they likely feel their being Hispanic is incidental, completely assimilated and that they are constructively white with the dad and their surname. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07 ... -of-the-Zimmerman-Family#

VanVorster wrote:
Yes it's patently obvious you don't have an issue with the Zimmerman verdict from what you've written; and when Trayvon Martin is dead and you blithely laud Zimmerman by saying "he was actually doing something good and making things better" well, we see how that worked out for Trayvon. He pursued someone who was coming back from a convenience store buying skittles; and yes, public pressure caused him to be arrested and in that time for him to concoct his questionable story ("tonight you die" his injuries didn't look fatal or serious on police screens). He presumed that Travyon was up to no good just because he was black and saying "they always get away." Again had he NOT had a gun, I don't think he would have gotten out of his car. Even though there had been a spate of break-ins, he was obsessed and called the police 50 or so times when seeing someone he deemed suspicious, hypervigilant much. As a person of color, I do not want to be hesitant about my movements, go-abouts, gestures or what I am wearing out simply in the aim of appeasing the sensibilities of someone like a Zimmerman or you for that matter. I've lived in downtown Jersey City for 20 years and only once have I felt unsafe and it was because I was walking from Harsimus Cove back to my house at 3 AM from a friend's place. 1 time in 20 years for me doesn't warrant a gun or knife and me having to prep for when thugs attack. I had an incident where a woman clutched her purse on my bldg's elevator (she was visiting a resident) and I sort of had to chuckle at how preposterous. http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/implic ... merman-trial-and-verdict/

VanVorster wrote:
Both Zimmerman and Dunn felt bravado and machismo because they had guns. Plain and simple. In the former, Zimmerman got out go his car and pursued Trayvon who was on the phone saying someone was following him. In the latter, Dunn approached kids in a car to tell them to turn down their music while he went into a convenience store parking lot. Query if they would have been so bold without guns. They were champing at the bit to have an excuse to use it. You said earlier you wished or hoped they had SYG in NJ, do you live in a crime ridden area? Crime has been going down for years and I've never felt the need to have a gun wherever I've lived. And congratulations for going to elite schools, so did I and it's irrelevant for purposes of this discussion.

devilsadvocate wrote:
Quote:

murican wrote:
The program takes place on a university campus where a diversity of opinions is expected and encouraged, that is how we exchange ideas, learn and grow.
Please attend!

Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
[quote]

Have fun. I realize that my opinions, though supported by the court, should not be stated publicly.

Good one. I have multiple degrees from elite institutions and I always had a good understanding that espousing any viewpoint that could be perceived as politically incorrect is a massive liability. I have seen it actually happen to really good people.

murican wrote:
The program takes place on a university campus where a diversity of opinions is expected and encouraged, that is how we exchange ideas, learn and grow.
Please attend!

Quote:

devilsadvocate wrote:
[quote]

Have fun. I realize that my opinions, though supported by the court, should not be stated publicly.

VanVorster wrote:
You're entitled to your opinions like everyone else and I'm entitled to vehemently disagree with them. Implicitly, not expressly by the 4 corners of the statute, SYG can mean "be trigger happy, shoot first and ask questions later." There's no duty to retreat when one has a lawful right to be some place and you're entitled to use force, including deadly force, if you're in imminent fear of your life, even when that fear is irrational. I don't trust Zimmerman's story and Trayvon isn't here to refute it. I think Zimmerman got his ass kicked and didn't like it and shot the kid ("Tonight you die!" is what he said Trayvon said to him, not believing it). Likewise the cop in the movie theater shot the dad and Michael Dunn said he THOUGHT he saw a gun in the car of the kids in the convenience store parking lot. All these cases emanate from the South where people are zealots about their guns/second amendment rights and want to be dirty harry. And implicitly this deals with race when you juxtapose these cases with Melissa Alexander (the domestic violence case where NO ONE was actually shot and she's still in jail) and not being able to fathom black people being exonerated for shooting white kids out of fear.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum ... play-role-zimmerman-trial


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2 ... -zimmerman-trayvon-martin