Bagism: Web Board
[Show Followups] [Post New Message]
 [Search Web Boards] [Web Boards Menu] [Letter Box Web Board]

Re: Obama was Trayvon 35 years ago?

Posted by **BlackMonk** on Jul 20, 2013 at 5:53:16 PM:
In Reply to: Re: Obama was Trayvon 35 years ago? posted by **Johnny D** on Jul 20, 2013 at 5:28:07 PM:

*******President Obama on Friday broached the shooting of 17-year-old African-American Trayvon Martin and the subsequent trial of his shooter, providing his explanation of why the case created so much anxiety within the African-American community.
*******
*******"When Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said this could've been my son. Another way of saying that is, Trayvon Martin could've been me 35 years ago," Mr. Obama said from the White House briefing room.
*******
*******"When you think about why in the African-American community, at least, there's a lot of pain around what happened here, it's important to recognize the African-American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and history that doesn't go away."
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******Still trying to keep the tension alive
*******
*******What is it that Obama wants? does he want to keep bringing up the subject of Trayvon Martin and putting his own personal stamp
*******on it by attaching himself to Trayvon in order to keep people riled up about it? and at the same time calling for calm?
*******or is this all just an effort to keep things off of him and the controversy's in DC now..
*******
*******What's it going to be?
*******
*******The Department of Justice (Eric Holder specifically) is now looking for ways to bring Zimmerman back to trial for civil rights violations or anything else they can possibly get him on and have asked Florida not to release his gun back to him or destroy any evidence from the trial. Why?
*******
*******Because those who didn't like the verdict still want their revenge regardless that Zimmerman has already been acquitted of all charges. After all..he killed a black person!
*******
*******There is an acknowledged double standard in this country wrt to black vs other races when it comes to victim vs killer. If the victim had been white, Hispanic, Latino, or anything other than black, we wouldn't have all this going on. It's a fact.
*******And even Obama seems to acknowledge that fact at the end of his statements in the video above. At least he got that right..
*******
*******Or does all of this serve to keep the attention off Obama and the shenanigans being pulled in DC right now?
*******
*******For a couple of examples..
*******
*******Let's not talk about Benghazi or the fact that it has been learned that Obama and party have already made sure everyone involved with Benghazi sign Non Disclosure Statements to protect his/their hides.
*******
*******Or that Obama now doesn't want to talk to Putin anymore and there's now even talk of boycotting the next Moscow Olympics because Putin is apparently giving asylum to Snowden because Obama didn't have the gonads to stand up to the challenge and find a way to get Snowden back here to face justice (as Obama promised earlier).
*******
*******Putin 1, Snowden 1, Obama 0.
*******
*******There is laughter coming from the Kremlin...
*******
*******Obama failed the test and Putin is laughing at the weak President. Sadly, Obama has failed our test too.
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
*******
******
******I can't believe this moron would double down on his Trayvon Martin, race baiting. It's almost beyond comprehension. Our esteemed POTUS just stated Trayvon could have been him 35 years ago. Keep those racial flames burning Obama. He threw in for good measure:
******“There are very few African-American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store -- that includes me,” he said.
******
******“There are very few African-American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me – at least before I was a senator,” he said. “There are very few African-Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often.”
******
******So, Trayvon could have first been his son, now him. I guess the thousands of African American ( what the hell is that already- we've all come from somewhere else) kids who kill each other daily don't merit the same attention from the fraud.
******
******He also threw in :“both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different” if Trayvon Martin had been white.
******Maybe he should check the case of Roderick Scott. A 42 year old black man who killed an unarmed 17 year old white kid right here in NY and was acquitted.
******
******This man has no shame. He's no less a race baiter than Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton-- EXCEPT half this country lives and dies by what he says. What a disgrace.
******
*****
*****
*****
*****It will be pointed out that the case you cite that the white teenagers were confronted because they were actually committing a crime whereas Trayvon Martin wasn't. IMHO the 42 year old black guy was right to defend himself. A couple of years ago, in England, a middle-aged white man was kicked to death by white youths when confronting them committing a crime against his property. So, there you go, that's how harmless "unarmed teenagers" can be.
*****
****
****
****Yes, it will pointed out. It will also be accurate. You don't address that fact. Nor the fact that in the second example you gave, the man was "confronting them committing a crime against his property" whereas Martin was not committing any crime, much less one against ZImmerman. Nor do you address the fact that "youths" and "a youth" are not the same thing. Nor the fact that it wasn't definitely established that Martin was the aggressor, nor what actually happened in the conflict between the two.
****
****Funny, I keep hearing about how liberals are "soft on crime" and ignore the victim in favor of the accused.
****
***
***
***
***Forensic and ballistics experts during the trial testified that Martin was the aggressor at the time he was shot. Both experts agreed that at the time he was shot, Martin had to have been on top of Zimmerman and according to witnesses, Martin was pounding on Zimmerman's head just before they heard a shot.
***
**
**There was also testimony to the contrary, but even granting what you say is true, that doesn't say anything about who started the fight, does it?
*
*Just some thoughts, and NOT directed at you or anyone:
*
*The Jury can not give a verdict based on who started the fight.
*

What's your legal opinion based upon? The question of who started the fight seems very relevant to a claim of self-defense. Otherwise, we would have a situation where someone could start a fight, shoot the other person when he begins to lose, and have no responsibility legally. As far as I know, legally, if a person starts a fight, they usually can't claim self-defense.


*
*That is just for others to debate, and be mad or not about who they THINK started the fight. For better or worse. The jury only heard and saw what was presented to them, not what was shown and heard on TV night after night. It might not be a factor anyway, given the actual fight is when the fear factor for one's life can happen, or even without a fight, one can claim fear for their life, and the goes Bang. The Who started anything doesn't seem to apply to the right to defend with deadly force. ???
*
*I think cases should not be public, (on TV), for the obvious reason of the people getting everything, and the jury only getting what any judge allows, (based on rules of what can be admitted or not). Many cases happened at the same time as this case. I wonder how many went for one of a deeper color, rather than the lighter one,,Latino, Mexican, on and on? ??? e ONLY debate and protest and maybe some cheered, ONLY based on the TV show, The hype. The extra talking on the shows, etc.
*
*Getting back to Who started the fight: If WHO started the fight would determine guilt or innocent in using deadly force in self defense, there wouldn't be many cases that would allowed to even start,,,for that quick area of who started a fight, either by words or action, happens so fast, who's to be believed as a witness? Or even physical evidence? So, WHO started the fight? Many times the two involved won't even be sure at the heated moment. Can a fight start in someone's mind before even getting there? So many ways doubt can be created for either party. NO way to truly tell who started what, and WHEN! Try figuring out who started a fight with a spouse! Good luck on that one!
*For me? I always lose! And gladly! I always start a debate! So says my wife, so that MUST be the case,,,NO Matter! :)
*
*
*To have many of today's people who can't even decide or know what line to get in at a DMV, or who are drinking or worse, can have a gun and shoot anyone, and just say,,,self defense? That seems ludicrous, given today's masses of nut-jobs and all else who shouldn't have a cap gun or pee shooter, never mind a gun with REAL bullets!
*
*This is not the Old Days, when one shot rifles and guns were all anyone could have at any given time, and there were no police to patrol. And no locks by Stanley! NO passwords to put in the box when entering a home armed with a security system, etc. No LIGHTS to put around the home. Candles, people!,,,,they only had candles when writing the things for THEIR DAY and the FORESEEABLE future. Like speed limits,,,adaptions should have been made, in the name of common sense of the firearms made over the years.
*
*But, here we are,,FREE to buy a gun and use it as we feel, for anytime we fear for our life,,,ANYTIME. Yeh WE The People, dying every day! Isn't that great? To have such an amendment!?
*
*The 2nd Amendment lives on, while We The People die off.
*Yippie for OLD Times! NOT good for the NEW Times...obviously. Ask the 50,000 or so dead last year and whatever amount this year SO FAR on how such freedom and that right is panning out.
*
*
*I wonder how many deaths were from pure self defense reasons?
*
*But that there is die to WHY? For having GUNS be available to anyone, criminal or not. Street buying or in stores. USA Loves to kill. If not hunting for game, it's a game for hunting people, or instead of using fists and feet when AFRAID,,,BANG, your dead!
*
*Great, (sarcastic).
*
*
*

Followup Messages:

top of page

 

Home Web Chat Web Boards Discography Library Quiz Art & Poetry Links Store

Image Map -- text links below

Home | Web Chat | Web Boards | Discography | Library | Quiz | Art & Poetry | Links | Store

Produced by Sam Choukri
Frequently Asked Questions
Last updated on Jul 26, 2013