• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Is the prosecution of Z an attempt to ban self-defense against blacks?

Are the TPTB trying to use the Z trial to de facto ban self-defense against blacks?


  • Total voters
    18

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
Marxists have long professed a divide-and-conquer mentality. Blacks, for various reasons (I went into detail in another thread on the selection pressures that contributed to this over an evolutionary timescale), commit violent crimes grossly out of proportion to their numbers. The Marxists trying to restructure this country want people to be help helpless and dependent on the government. If it becomes de facto illegal for a non-black to defend him- or herself against a dime-a-dozen black thug, those who do not revolt will demand a huge increase in the number of LEOs. Those who do revolt will give the powers that be an excuse to trash even more liberties.

The notion that if you're not black, you must let a black rob, rape, assault, or murder you, is rooted in the fcked up PC notion that victimhood and perpetratorhood are transferable. It is the result of severe mental illness. No sane person would deny any person the right of defense against any other person. However, leftist scum seem to think that there is some sort of nobility in protecting the lives of evil, violent vermin if they are black. As I outlined in the previous paragraph, this is a win-win situation for the social engineers behind this meme, because both passive acceptance and active opposition to the abolition of the right of self-defense against the very demographic for which one is most likely to need to use self-defense in th first place plays into their hands. The only solution is a complete eradication of the enemy.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Nope. It is just the natural (and evil) result of the infantilizing of some groups of people so that they are no longer responsible for what happens to them as a result of their actions, instead making them dependent on the nanny state. It is the new slavery, one to which millions (not necessarily, but disproportionately belonging to specific groups) offer themselves.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Marxists have long professed a divide-and-conquer mentality. Blacks, for various reasons (I went into detail in another thread on the selection pressures that contributed to this over an evolutionary timescale), commit violent crimes grossly out of proportion to their numbers. The Marxists trying to restructure this country want people to be help helpless and dependent on the government. If it becomes de facto illegal for a non-black to defend him- or herself against a dime-a-dozen black thug, those who do not revolt will demand a huge increase in the number of LEOs. Those who do revolt will give the powers that be an excuse to trash even more liberties.

The notion that if you're not black, you must let a black rob, rape, assault, or murder you, is rooted in the fcked up PC notion that victimhood and perpetratorhood are transferable. It is the result of severe mental illness. No sane person would deny any person the right of defense against any other person. However, leftist scum seem to think that there is some sort of nobility in protecting the lives of evil, violent vermin if they are black. As I outlined in the previous paragraph, this is a win-win situation for the social engineers behind this meme, because both passive acceptance and active opposition to the abolition of the right of self-defense against the very demographic for which one is most likely to need to use self-defense in th first place plays into their hands. The only solution is a complete eradication of the enemy.

The Marxist premise that you begin your post with is not very applicable in FLorida.

The trial appears, at this point, to be an attempt by state officials to "prove" that they are not racially biased by prosecuting the Hispanic dude, even though locals determined the evidence to convict the Hispanic dude was not present.

The real comdemnation in this case should be against Obama who politicized the tragedy for political gain.
 

Ca Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,330
Location
, ,
After a thorough and objective review of the evidence, a smart person would know prosecuting this case would have about a 10% chance of conviction for 2nd degree murder.

However, Zimmerman was negligent and at fault for the death of Martin. I just don't know if there is a state statute that applies to his actions.
 

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
After a thorough and objective review of the evidence, a smart person would know prosecuting this case would have about a 10% chance of conviction for 2nd degree murder.

However, Zimmerman was negligent and at fault for the death of Martin. I just don't know if there is a state statute that applies to his actions.

After a thorough and objective review of the evidence, a smart person would know prosecuting this case would have about a 0% chance of conviction for 2nd degree murder.
Fix it for you.

Zimmerman was negligent and at fault for the death of Martin.
Objection, facts not in evidence.
 
Last edited:

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
To those who responded and/or voted no: do you SERIOUSLY think that that majority of the "lynch Zimmerman" liberals are unaware that the evidence points overwhelmingly to clear-cut self-defense, and that their hatred has absolutely nothing to do with the respective phenotypes of the accused and the deceased? :rolleyes:
 

Ca Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,330
Location
, ,
To those who responded and/or voted no: do you SERIOUSLY think that that majority of the "lynch Zimmerman" liberals are unaware that the evidence points overwhelmingly to clear-cut self-defense, and that their hatred has absolutely nothing to do with the respective phenotypes of the accused and the deceased? :rolleyes:

you are a zealout
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
To those who responded and/or voted no: do you SERIOUSLY think that that majority of the "lynch Zimmerman" liberals are unaware that the evidence points overwhelmingly to clear-cut self-defense, and that their hatred has absolutely nothing to do with the respective phenotypes of the accused and the deceased? :rolleyes:

No. I don't think that. I posted what I think. Try reading it.

Moving on.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Explain why people who realize that Zimmerman acted in self-defense want him to be imprisoned.

I did. I also moved on. Read my post. I have nothing further to say on topic to a person who just misrepresented the opinions of everyone who disagreed with him. There is no point in debating with a person who is being dishonest.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
However, Zimmerman was negligent and at fault for the death of Martin. I just don't know if there is a state statute that applies to his actions.

Don't think the evidence points to this. I think the whole thing is unfortunate, but Zimmerman did nothing deserving charges.
 

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
I did. I also moved on. Read my post.

Your post is extremely vague. As best as I can tell, it essentially says "The powers that be want blacks to be given special treatment." How does that conflict with my assertion that TPTB want blacks to be protected from self-defense when they victimize innocent people?!

I have nothing further to say on topic to a person who just misrepresented the opinions of everyone who disagreed with him. There is no point in debating with a person who is being dishonest.

cowardly lemming
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
CaPatriot wrote: "However, Zimmerman was negligent and at fault for the death of Martin."

SNIP Objection, facts not in evidence.

<guffaw>

Objection. Absurdity to assert facts-not-in-evidence against a post that didn't offer facts, but was clearly two evaluations.

<raucous, jeering laughter>
 
Last edited:

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
The more I read the news concerning this trial (from various sources, including OCONUS sources), the more it appears that the prosecution's own witnesses are making the case for the defense.

At this point, and realizing that there is more testimony to go, I cannot conceive how a non-biased jury could vote to convict Z for anything.

I do think there are some people in powerful positions who would, if not for their positions, be held in contempt of court for their actions regarding this case.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Your post is extremely vague. As best as I can tell, it essentially says "The powers that be want blacks to be given special treatment." How does that conflict with my assertion that TPTB want blacks to be protected from self-defense when they victimize innocent people?!...

I post again only to point out again that either you cannot read or you are being deliberately dishonest about what I am writing.

Again, I will remain moved on, and not discuss with you on-topic, but only point out your dishonesty, until you can begin posting responsibly again.

Near as I can figure, you are upset that so many folks here do not see things the same way that you do, prompting some foot-stomping.
 

minarchist

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
473
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
I post again only to point out again that either you cannot read or you are being deliberately dishonest about what I am writing.

Again, I will remain moved on, and not discuss with you on-topic, but only point out your dishonesty, until you can begin posting responsibly again.

Near as I can figure, you are upset that so many folks here do not see things the same way that you do, prompting some foot-stomping.

From post # 3 (your post): "some groups of people", "their actions", etc.

You have used vague language and have failed to provide a one-to-one mapping from said vague language to the specifics of how liberals have reacted to Zimmerman's clear-cut self-defense. I am not a mind reader. Beyond a vague sense that you're saying that society coddls blacks (which I agree with), I don't see anything in post # 3, vague as it is, that refutes my thesis.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
The more I read the news concerning this trial (from various sources, including OCONUS sources), the more it appears that the prosecution's own witnesses are making the case for the defense.

At this point, and realizing that there is more testimony to go, I cannot conceive how a non-biased jury could vote to convict Z for anything.

I do think there are some people in powerful positions who would, if not for their positions, be held in contempt of court for their actions regarding this case.

I'm wondering if the state is taking a fall. People need to be fired and Zimmerman needs to be reimbursed for these malicious charges because this is a show trial. It was apparent a year ago that the state had no evidence to bring him to trial on anything really.

Hopefully the state will be equally inept at arguments in Norman vs Florida, restoring the right to bear arms.

https://www.floridacarry.org/index.php/litigation-32/70-norman-v-state
 
Last edited:
Top