Why is Joshua Chellew less important than Trayvon Martin?

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
Untrue. You stated as fact two things as fact, both of which are unknowable. The first because the only evidence surrounding it is tainted by the fact that it comes from the killer, and the second because it is pure speculation.

Wrong, still. The evidence supports the self defense claims. When everything we know agrees with what Mr, Zimmerman stated, then it's reasonable and logical to believe that the rest of what he stated is also accurate.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
This is a trick of the demagogue-led right generally: to gradually harden a position based on leaps of faith and scraps of factoids into hard "fact". It won't work.

Actually, that is what you are doing; claiming that he was racist, that he stalked Martin, etc. You don't even use scraps of facts, but pure supposition and inventions.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
I can look at his history, and his propensity to violence. I can look at many other cases of attacks, and the results. I can look at the already-sustained injuries to Mr. Zimmerman, and I can apply common sense. Try it.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
This is logically nonsense. You still can't know it. You are still making a supposition based on some stuff a 17 year old wrote on Facebook and your bias. You may assume it, but that's a world of difference.

Upon what logic do you base ANY of your claims and assumptions? Explain that, and then, and ONLY then, can you debate mine. Mine have back-up, and yours do not.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
And anyway the evidence is against you. According to you, Martin had 45 seconds to "ground and pound" Zimmerman. And yet he still didn't manage to kill him. Or even knock him unconscious. If he couldn't do it in that time he was never going to get it done.

No, the evidence is with me, and, more importantly, with Mr. Zimmerman, which is why he was acquitted of all charges. People beat others to death all too often, and it frequently takes more than 45 seconds to do so. You seem to have either an unwillingness or an inability to accept solid facts as such.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
As I said, show me a case where a black man is immediately released after shooting a white teenager. Then we can talk. Because then you would have an equivalence. Simply posting that sometimes black people attack white people and that - horror of horrors - the entire "black community" doesn't turn up at your door or take out an ad in the NYT to apologise doesn't prove anything.

No, you show me a case where they were not, in similar circumstances. Also, who said anything about "turning up" at a door, or placing ads? Kindly stick to what was actually stated, instead of trying to evade the issues with nonsensical distractions.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
Except they didn't even have the witness reports when they set him free. Which kind of gives the lie to your claim.

They had witness statements that night, and plenty of evidence to show self defense. ALL collected later proved this was the right decision.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
Here you go:

www.dailymail.co.uk... -defence-law-wake-Zimmerman-verdict.html

Sure helps to be white if you're going to shoot somebody.

All that does is show who is more likely to actually commit a crime. You never read that study I linked, did you? The Color of Crime

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
Strangely (or perhaps not that strangely) you can't find a case in which a black person has walked away with no charge after shooting a white kid dead.

So, you still can't post a case where they claimed self defense, supported by evidence, and didn't? That's what I thought.

Again, check that study. Read it. Research it. Then come back and address it.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes


Wrong, still. The evidence supports the self defense claims. When everything we know agrees with what Mr, Zimmerman stated, then it's reasonable and logical to believe that the rest of what he stated is also accurate.

Wait a second. I'm not disagreeing with the self defence claims (although they are hardly beyond a shadow of doubt). I am taking issue with your wild claims - that Zimmerman would definitely have been killed had he not shot Martin, and that Martin definitely started the altercation. These have not been proven beyond the very low standard required to exonerate Zimmerman in court.

Perhaps you need to learn the difference between the narrow definition of what a court does and the establishment of absolute fact. They are quite distinct.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Upon what logic do you base ANY of your claims and assumptions? Explain that, and then, and ONLY then, can you debate mine. Mine have back-up, and yours do not.

You are confused. The logic of my claims has no bearing at all on the logic of yours, by definition. If you're making a point or order about my right to criticise you without providing the logical workings of my reasoning then you owe it to me to at least point out where you consider me to be making an error.

After all, I am doing this for you. Once again: your argument states that you know that Martin would have killed Zimmerman and that Martin begun the altercation. In reality with the known facts you cannot be absolutely certain of either.

No, the evidence is with me, and, more importantly, with Mr. Zimmerman, which is why he was acquitted of all charges. People beat others to death all too often, and it frequently takes more than 45 seconds to do so. You seem to have either an unwillingness or an inability to accept solid facts as such.

Yes, it's possible that he may have been beaten to death. Unlikely, I surmise, given that in 45 long seconds Martin had been unable to even definitively break his nose or knock him out, but possible.

But you didn't say that. You said it was definite. Which leads me to believe that either you are wrong or you have some sort of method of accurately predicting alternative futures.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

No, you show me a case where they were not, in similar circumstances. Also, who said anything about "turning up" at a door, or placing ads? Kindly stick to what was actually stated, instead of trying to evade the issues with nonsensical distractions.

You are in a thread arguing that race played no part in this because some black people killed a white person. Or rather that reverse racism did play a part because there was no outcry in the latter case. I have pointed out to you that the outrage came when the killer was first released - which in the Chellew case they were not. It is not equivalent. So I ask you to provide an equivalent case. You cannot, and instead ask me to find a case where a black person kills a white person and is immediately arrested and goes to jail.

I have to ask, are you joking? Because the OP is one such case. It's already been presented. The black guys in that case are in jail.

You've asked me for figures on black people's likelihood of getting away with 'self defence' when they have killed people. I've provided you with them and let's wait and see what you do with them...

All that does is show who is more likely to actually commit a crime. You never read that study I linked, did you? The Color of Crime

...Oh yes. You wave them away. Surprise surprise.

They do not show "who is more likely to commit a crime" in any way. They are adjusted for volume, and show quite specifically that black people are far less likely to be believed to be acting in self defence when they kill someone.

Perhaps you would care to consider how this squares with your failed refutation of my (correct) assertion that the system appears biased against blacks?

So, you still can't post a case where they claimed self defense, supported by evidence, and didn't? That's what I thought.

But I've just given you the figures that show those cases exist. Unless you think that black people are genuinely over three times more likely to be lying about self defence? Do you think that?

You have developed a baseless idea that people care less about blacks killing whites than they do about whites killing blacks. Your proof for this is an unpersuasive admixture of anecdotal cases about black people commiting crimes almost all of whom appear to be in jail, certainly none of whom has been immediately let go.

Asked to find the case that would prove your proposal, the case where the black guy is let go, you can't do it.

Weird, that.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
Wait a second. I'm not disagreeing with the self defence claims (although they are hardly beyond a shadow of doubt). I am taking issue with your wild claims - that Zimmerman would definitely have been killed had he not shot Martin, and that Martin definitely started the altercation. These have not been proven beyond the very low standard required to exonerate Zimmerman in court.

You certainly have disagreed with those claims. As for mine, I stand by the statement that Mr, Zimmerman would likely not have lived, had he not been armed. A few moments more of the assault he was receiving could easily kill. Such attacks often do. No help from neighbors, and the police arrived a bit later. Since Mr. Zimmerman was, in fact, acquitted, your claim is invalid.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
You are confused. The logic of my claims has no bearing at all on the logic of yours, by definition. If you're making a point or order about my right to criticise you without providing the logical workings of my reasoning then you owe it to me to at least point out where you consider me to be making an error.

I provided the reasons for my opinions. You have not. I have pointed out error after error on your part.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
Yes, it's possible that he may have been beaten to death. Unlikely, I surmise, given that in 45 long seconds Martin had been unable to even definitively break his nose or knock him out, but possible.

Probable, not possible. Based on all that happened, and a not-small knowledge of biology and some medical training, I believe he would have died. I believe that Martin wanted to kill him.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
But you didn't say that. You said it was definite. Which leads me to believe that either you are wrong or you have some sort of method of accurately predicting alternative futures.

If you want to quibble about that, should I take it to mean you concede my other points, and admit this was a clear case of self defense, and a righteous shooting?

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
You are in a thread arguing that race played no part in this because some black people killed a white person. Or rather that reverse racism did play a part because there was no outcry in the latter case. I have pointed out to you that the outrage came when the killer was first released - which in the Chellew case they were not. It is not equivalent. So I ask you to provide an equivalent case. You cannot, and instead ask me to find a case where a black person kills a white person and is immediately arrested and goes to jail.

No, I stated that race was not a motivating factor on the part of Mr, Zimmerman. I state that RACISM, not "reverse" racism, was a factor in the LACK of outcry in the other case (and many more like it). It's racism, when black against white, just as when white against black. No "reverse", no phony "justification", simply racism. You claim that a black person using self defense would be jailed, so I asked for such a case. Show me one, where self defense is as clear as in the Zimmerman case, and I will defend that person's right, as I have that of Mr, Zimmerman. I did, quite vocally, defend the right of the elderly (black) shop owner to shoot people breaking into his business, where he and his wife slept, even though by law he wasn't supposed to have a gun.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
I have to ask, are you joking? Because the OP is one such case. It's already been presented. The black guys in that case are in jail.

You've asked me for figures on black people's likelihood of getting away with 'self defence' when they have killed people. I've provided you with them and let's wait and see what you do with them...

...Oh yes. You wave them away. Surprise surprise.

No, you showed that self defense in states with SYG laws is typically supported. Show the actual cases of blacks not being supported, when evidence shows self defense, not suppositions that they somehow "must exist" because of crime stats.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
You have developed a baseless idea that people care less about blacks killing whites than they do about whites killing blacks. Your proof for this is an unpersuasive admixture of anecdotal cases about black people commiting crimes almost all of whom appear to be in jail, certainly none of whom has been immediately let go.

No, I have stated, based on actual cases (MANY), that race-baiters like Sharpon and Co. don't address those cases, and that the media and covers them up, and that the WH doesn't address them. Those are FACTS. The news stories are all over the internet, MANY with videos. Cases based on RACE are not addressed as such, when the victim is white.

Where;s the case of a black arrested for self defense?

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

I stand by the statement that Mr, Zimmerman would likely not have lived, had he not been armed.

That's not what you said. You claimed he would have definitely died.

I will accept this as a (grudging) retraction of your overstatement.

Probable, not possible. Based on all that happened, and a not-small knowledge of biology and some medical training, I believe he would have died. I believe that Martin wanted to kill him.

Okay, so you are backtracking on the "definite". We are getting somewhere. But quite why you think he would be able to kill him even though he had failed in 45 long seconds of "ground and pound", and why you think he should want to, given that 17 year olds with no criminal record don't usually just murder people, I don't know. Certainly most people wouldn't share your view and the evidence doesn't support it in any meaningful sense.

Countdown to "But he smoked WEED and said he WAS A GANGSTER". Yeah, so does my 15 year old cousin and she's not exactly dangerous.

If you want to quibble about that, should I take it to mean you concede my other points, and admit this was a clear case of self defense, and a righteous shooting?

It's important to be accurate about this. It is not "quibbling". You were trying to claim something as definite that is not, something that has an important bearing on the case.

Do I think self defence was "clear" here? No. Do I think it was a righteous shooting? No. Do I think it was the correct verdict? Possibly, by a cigarette paper.

Is the whole situation desirable, and is it edifying seeing all you guys trying to smear a dead kid and his family, and revel in a grubby, tragic event? No.

I state that RACISM, not "reverse" racism, was a factor in the LACK of outcry in the other case (and many more like it). It's racism, when black against white, just as when white against black.

Yeah, it's a totally level playing field because white people have a history of repression by... oh... wait a minute.

You claim that a black person using self defense would be jailed, so I asked for such a case.

I said that that is my suspicion. I'm less sloppy with my wording than you. I have given you figures that show that a black person is much less likely to succeed in a self defence plea than a white person and I think that bias would have become active in this case, yes. Can I prove it? No. But the statistics and reality overwhelmingly suggest it.

Meanwhile here you are unable to find a single case where a black person shot a white person and got let out straight away. Sure, you've got zillions of cases where black people kill somebody and get dumped straight in jail. Heck, the OP is one. But, um, that kind of proves the point that blacks feel the full force of the law, doesn't it?

No, you showed that self defense in states with SYG laws is typically supported. Show the actual cases of blacks not being supported, when evidence shows self defense, not suppositions that they somehow "must exist" because of crime stats.

Even for you this is weak. Are you really saying that a sober statistical analysis (which covers non SYG states also by the way, did you read it?) is trumped by a single anecdotal case? These figures are made up of real cases. They show beyond a doubt that black people are not believed when it comes to self defence and whites are.

And anyway, if one did show an example like you demand you and the usual crew would certainly subject that person to a higher standard than George. It's what you do, and it's part of the problem.

No, I have stated, based on actual cases (MANY), that race-baiters like Sharpon and Co. don't address those cases, and that the media and covers them up, and that the WH doesn't address them. Those are FACTS. The news stories are all over the internet, MANY with videos. Cases based on RACE are not addressed as such, when the victim is white.

What is all over the net is idiots spouting off about decades old crimes, assuming racial elements with not much evidence, and a load of scared white fools pretending they are under sustained racial attack from feral black people. I see many articles which start with emotive crimes and then expand with a few isolated examples and no genuinely persuasive statistics or arguments. That you think that an anecdote trumps a proper analysis speaks volumes, because that's all that you guys have: anecdotes and half truths to prop up a skewed worldview.

This thread is a great example. Puffed up false anger that "Chellew is seen as less important than Martin" because of his colour, when in fact Chellew is less reported precisely because his assailants went straight to jail. As one might expect - after all, they were black.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
Do I think self defence was "clear" here? No. Do I think it was a righteous shooting? No. Do I think it was the correct verdict? Possibly, by a cigarette paper.

Self defense was clear, and that is why he wasn't arrested that night, and why he was acquitted. Have you actually looked at the data? ALL the data? The trial footage is on YT, and you can listen to the witnesses, see the evidence, and see why self defense was CLEAR.

As for the other, I am NOT quibbling with you whether or not Mr. Zimmerman would have died. The law doesn't state that he MUST DIE if he doesn't defend himself, to make his self defense legal. Stop blowing smoke.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
Is the whole situation desirable, and is it edifying seeing all you guys trying to smear a dead kid and his family, and revel in a grubby, tragic event? No.

What is edifying to you? Seeing a man's life threatened, his family threatened, strangers with a similar phone number threatened, and so forth, for defending his life? Why can't you accept that Martin really wasn't some nice guy, that he committed a felony assault, and died because of HIS OWN behavior?

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
Yeah, it's a totally level playing field because white people have a history of repression by... oh... wait a minute.

No, it isn't a level playing field, because blacks and other minorities have special allowances, based on COLOR, instead of merit. You'd better believe that's oppression.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
I said that that is my suspicion. I'm less sloppy with my wording than you. I have given you figures that show that a black person is much less likely to succeed in a self defence plea than a white person and I think that bias would have become active in this case, yes. Can I prove it? No. But the statistics and reality overwhelmingly suggest it.

Statistics can "prove" a lot of things. Show me ONE CASE. Just one.

The simple fact is that this case is over, that Mr. Zimmerman was found to be innocent, in spite of all the race baiting, all the concealed evidence, all the polluting of the jury pool. Get over it. It's DONE. Talk about the case in THIS thread, or expect to receive NO response from me.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
Do I think self defence was "clear" here? No. Do I think it was a righteous shooting? No. Do I think it was the correct verdict? Possibly, by a cigarette paper.

Self defense was clear, and that is why he wasn't arrested that night, and why he was acquitted. Have you actually looked at the data? ALL the data? The trial footage is on YT, and you can listen to the witnesses, see the evidence, and see why self defense was CLEAR.

As for the other, I am NOT quibbling with you whether or not Mr. Zimmerman would have died. The law doesn't state that he MUST DIE if he doesn't defend himself, to make his self defense legal. Stop blowing smoke.

You're changing the subject, and I'm aware of what the law states. You were trying to subtly alter the facts of the case to further exonerate his actions by saying he would definitely have died - a trick that many of Zimmerman's more fervent supporters have indulged in a fair bit. I corrected you. With that - and your grudging acknowledgement of it - the issue is at an end, I guess.

What is edifying to you? Seeing a man's life threatened, his family threatened, strangers with a similar phone number threatened, and so forth, for defending his life? Why can't you accept that Martin really wasn't some nice guy, that he committed a felony assault, and died because of HIS OWN behavior?

Again, this is a different issue. But no, I am not in favour of harassing Zimmerman and I am aware of Martin's shortcomings. But he was 17 and no matter what he did it's a shame he's dead. Seeing people refer to him as an animal and laugh at his family's plight has been pretty nasty.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

No, it isn't a level playing field, because blacks and other minorities have special allowances, based on COLOR, instead of merit. You'd better believe that's oppression.

Oh dry your eyes. I don't expect you to understand the structural bases of racism or its linguistic complexities because obviously it's not in your interest to try to do so. But to call affirmative action "oppression" is rich given what white people in the US were doing to blacks in living memory.

Statistics can "prove" a lot of things. Show me ONE CASE. Just one.

One case wouldn't prove anything. A set of numbers based on many cases can't be glossed over. It's abundantly clear that whites have a distinct advantage if claiming self defence. Plus I don't feel particularly like feeding the trolls more bait to get their teeth into.

The simple fact is that this case is over, that Mr. Zimmerman was found to be innocent, in spite of all the race baiting, all the concealed evidence, all the polluting of the jury pool. Get over it. It's DONE. Talk about the case in THIS thread, or expect to receive NO response from me.

Stop trying to change the subject.