REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

It IS About Race: Study Finds Significant Racial Bias In ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Friday, July 19, 2013 11:28
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5001
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, July 15, 2013 7:36 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

First of all, let’s get a bit of background: the law was originally called the “castle doctrine” and held that a person had the right to defend their “castle”; meaning, they didn’t have to retreat but could, in fact, use deadly force against an intruder in their home. During the 1980s, several states adapted the law, changing the name to “Make My Day” (Dirty Harry, anyone?) and in 2005, Florida took the law even further with “Stand Your Ground”:
Quote:

Florida’s law states “a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felon.

Laws in at least 21 states allow that there is no duty to retreat an attacker in any place in which one is lawfully present. (Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.) At least nine of those states include language stating one may “stand his or her ground.” (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and South Carolina.) http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/justice/self-defense-and-stand-you
r-ground.aspx
]


That’s the foundation of the law; clearly interpretation can be found in between the lines and often is. The question is, has the law helped make people safer? Kept their homes safer? Kept them alive in situations in which they felt threatened? And has there been or is there a racial component in how the law is implemented, as many believe is the case with Trayvon Martin’s death and the acquittal of the man who killed him?

A Frontline piece titled Is There Racial Bias in “Stand Your Ground” Laws? discussed a study done last year by PBS Frontline on those very questions, focused particularly on how murder convictions and the racial make-up of victims have been impacted by the SYG. What they found was, to put it bluntly, that “Stand Your Ground” makes it easier for blacks to be murdered without anyone being convicted of the crime. From Frontline:
Quote:

Since Martin’s killer, George Zimmerman, invoked the stand-your-ground defense, these laws have been defended by gun rights groups for empowering civilians. They’ve also been criticized by civil rights groups for encouraging violence and being racially biased.

A recent study suggests that laws may lead to more deaths. According to a June study [pdf] by researchers at Texas A&M University, the rates of murder and non-negligent manslaughter increased by 8 percent in states with Stand Your Ground laws. That’s an additional 600 homicides per year in the states that have enacted such laws.

The study, which analyzed FBI crime data nationwide from 2000-2009, says it could mean either that more people are using lethal force in self-defense, or that situations are more likely to escalate to the use of violence in states with the laws. “Regardless, the study said, “the results indicate that a primary consequence of strengthening self-defense law is increased homicide.”



Sound like a recent case on trial? And given the clear backlash to the law since Martin’s murder and, certainly, since the verdict came in, isn’t it time to discuss the fact that the law contributes to an increase in murder and manslaughter as opposed to a decrease? That cannot be the intent of anyone involved with SYG and yet… the law persists on the books of 28 states. And, let’s be clear, the racial component is something to note:
Quote:

[John] Roman [senior fellow at the Urban Institute's Justice Policy Center] also found that Stand Your Ground laws tend to track the existing racial disparities in homicide convictions across the U.S. — with one significant exception: Whites who kill blacks in Stand Your Ground states are far more likely to be found justified in their killings.In non-Stand Your Ground states, whites are 250 percent more likely to be found justified in killing a black person than a white person who kills another white person; in Stand Your Ground states, that number jumps to 354 percent.


Those percentages are staggering in both cases, but 354 PERCENT?

Roman’s analysis of the FBI crime data breaks it down even further:
Quote:

If there are types of homicide where shootings are often justified, SYG laws are reasonable. However, if there are few circumstances where shootings are justified, those laws will impede justice.

We turned to the Supplemental Homicide Report (SHR) maintained by the FBI, which includes all reported homicides in the US, including justifiable homicides, to determine what types of cases—and how often—civilian use of deadly force was justified.

We combed the data to identify homicides which resemble the known facts from the Trayvon Martin case—cases in which there was a single victim and a single shooter (both of whom were civilians and strangers) and in which the victim was killed by a handgun. We identified 4,650 of these cases in the SHR. Of these, just 10.9 percent (506) were ruled to be justifiable homicides.

However, we note that these numbers vary by whether a state is a SYG state. In SYG states, 13.6% of homicides under these circumstances are found to be justified. In non-SYG states, only 7.2 percent are justified.

We then looked for a scenario where homicides are justified more than half the time. It turns out that the scenario with the highest probability of being a justified homicide is much like the Martin case—a single, White civilian handgun shooter who is a stranger to (and older than) the Black victim. But even then, the shooting is found to be justified less than half the time. http://blog.metrotrends.org/2012/03/stand-ground-laws-miscarriages-jus
tice/
]


But let’s look specifically at the very notorious state of Florida. Known for its sharply conservative climate and its controversial decisions about a great many things, from religion, porn, pot, politics, and, of course, race, the issue of SYG has taken center stage since the Martin killing. Roman extrapolates:
Quote:

Finally, we searched the SHR data for cases that matched all the facts of the Martin case (including ages and races). Out of 70,000 cases, we find that the homicides similar to the Martin case occurred just 23 times in five years. Of those 23 cases, only 9 (39 percent) were ruled to be justifiable homicides. Since the overwhelming majority of shootings are not justified, it seems clear that SYG laws reduce the chance for justice by moving the burden of proof from the shooter to law enforcement.

In the Martin case, since Florida is a SYG state, the law strongly favors Zimmerman. It appears as though local law enforcement [with SYG] will not find probable cause that Zimmerman’s shooting was unjustified. By contrast, without the SYG law, it seems reasonable to predict that Zimmerman would not be able to demonstrate to a jury that the shooting was justified. Thus, history suggests Florida’s Stand Your Ground law will lead to a miscarriage of justice. http://blog.metrotrends.org/2012/03/stand-ground-laws-miscarriages-jus
tice/



As it did for Trayvon Martin. John Roman wrote that piece over a year ago; little did he know how prescient his words would be. Or, then again, maybe he did.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 15, 2013 8:37 AM

JONGSSTRAW


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

TOTAL

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 15, 2013 8:43 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Since Martin’s killer, George Zimmerman, invoked the stand-your-ground defense...


Except he didn't evoke stand your ground. It never came up during the trial. He plead self-defense, justifiable in all 50 states.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 15, 2013 10:35 AM

FREMDFIRMA



And that makes it any better, how ?
Stats for THAT one, as well, right here.
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&con
text=wmborj

(PDF Reader Required)
Discriminatory Aquittal is a known and so far unaddressed problem in our so-called justice system, as is of course, stacking a jury with people likely to be hostile to the defendant for the reverse effect, and who "selects" the Jury, along with the Venue and cherry picks the Witnesses/Evidence ?

The State - thus IMHO violating the Constitutional right to a fair trial in EVERY case they process.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 15, 2013 1:27 PM

PEACEKEEPER

Keeping order in every verse


Let's face it. The rest of the sentient world is aware that the US is institutionally racist. But on this occasion, I'm not ENTIRELY convinced it's the case.
If this man had been found guilty, it would have fuelled the fires concerning your gun laws, and let's face it, your legal system just doesn't want that argument rehashing.
But, coupled with the farce that was OJ Simpson,race issue or not,this is an embarrassment on the world stage when it comes to your Judiciary.
We all have our miscarriages of justice, but this does you no favours at all.


With the grace of age, commander, we learn to accept.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 15, 2013 1:33 PM

MAL4PREZ


Also posted in Kwicko's thread:


"Marissa Alexander had never been arrested before she fired a bullet at a wall one day in 2010 to scare off her husband when she felt he was threatening her. Nobody got hurt, but this month a northeast Florida judge was bound by state law to sentence her to 20 years in prison.

...

On Aug. 1, 2010, Alexander was working for a payroll software company. She was estranged from her husband, Rico Gray, and had a restraining order against him, even though they'd had a baby together just nine days before. Thinking he was gone, she went to their former home to retrieve the rest of her clothes, family members said.

An argument ensued, and Alexander said she feared for her life when she went out to her vehicle and retrieved the gun she legally owned. She came back inside and ended up firing a shot into the wall, which ricocheted into the ceiling.

Gray testified that he saw Alexander point the gun at him and looked away before she fired the shot. He claims she was the aggressor, and he had begged her to put away the weapon.

A judge threw out Alexander's "stand your ground" self-defense claim, noting that she could have run out of the house to escape her husband but instead got the gun and went back inside."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/19/marissa-alexander-gets-20_n_1
530035.html


So a black woman walks into a dangerous situation with a gun and hurts no one and she gets 20 years in prison. GZ? Murders a teenager and gets sent home with the same gun in his hand.

This law and the morons who support it are seriously messed up.


*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 15, 2013 3:40 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Peacekeeper, you nailed it. In spades, unfortunately. I am ashamed for my country.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 15, 2013 3:45 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Looks pretty straight-forward: In Florida, "not black" equals "not guilty", and "black" equals "guilty."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 4:31 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Except he didn't evoke stand your ground. It never came up during the trial. He plead self-defense, justifiable in all 50 states.



Just because he did not invoke his right to a pre-trial hearing does not mean he was not covered by the law. In many other states Zimmerman would have had to prove his self defence claim beyond a resonable doubt and would have had to prove he absolutly needed to use lethal force or he would have been guilty of imperfect self defence.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 5:31 AM

FIVVER


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Except he didn't evoke stand your ground. It never came up during the trial. He plead self-defense, justifiable in all 50 states.



Just because he did not invoke his right to a pre-trial hearing does not mean he was not covered by the law. In many other states Zimmerman would have had to prove his self defence claim beyond a resonable doubt and would have had to prove he absolutly needed to use lethal force or he would have been guilty of imperfect self defence.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.



Wow. Speaking of ignorance. In every felony trial whether state or federal it is the government that brings the charges and must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant has to prove nothing. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 5:38 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by fivver:
Wow. Speaking of ignorance. In every felony trial whether state or federal it is the government that brings the charges and must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant has to prove nothing. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty?



Ever hear of an affirmative defence? No, that what self-defence is. It is a defence that requires a person to present evidence to support his or her claim. Even in Florida self defence is an affermative defence, it is just that any bit of evidence to support that claim shifts the burden back on the state. Other states have a much higher bar for the defense to overcome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 5:50 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!











In Firefly the Alliance merged the US flag with the flag of Communist China

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, July 16, 2013 1:00 PM

PEACEKEEPER

Keeping order in every verse


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Peacekeeper, you nailed it. In spades, unfortunately. I am ashamed for my country.




Don't be ashamed of your country.Be ashamed of the judge.


With the grace of age, commander, we learn to accept.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 9:45 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Fact: Stand your ground laws benefit blacks more than whites.

Those who stood, those who fell: fatal cases

Critics say "stand your ground" turned Florida into the Wild West. Supporters say it has helped keep innocents out of jail. The truth of how the law has been used over the past six years was unknown until now.

What follows is the most comprehensive list of "stand your ground" cases ever created. Browse by victim or defendant, by fatal or nonfatal cases. Hover over a photo to explore the basics of each case or click it for a more detailed case file. Use the buttons at right to filter by race, sex and location.



http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/fatal-cases


Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 10:22 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by BRENDA:
They need a study to notice this is biased? In a state like Montana, Martin would have been Indian and Zimmerman would have walked.

Maybe I just look at these kinds of laws with a jaundice eye because I view it through a minority lense.



Had said Indian attacked Zimmerman in a similar fashion, he SHOULD walk, too. Everyone who was fighting for their life would walk. It's a none issue as to the color of the attacker's ( Martin )skin color.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 4:16 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Brenda:
I'm still not sure who started what. But then I am also not sure that Zimmerman is completely innocent either.

I grew up in neighbourhoods like that, I can tell you that Martin threw the first punch- in response to a nervous white dude unable to adequately explain just WHY he was stalking the youth. Yeah, Martin might have been guilty of a pre-emptive defence strike, but Zimmerman initiated it, and should be responsible for its outcome.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 4:33 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:

a nervous white dude unable to adequately explain just WHY he was stalking the youth.




A nervous white dude which , according to Rachel Jeantel, Trayvon KNEW was a security guard.

And yet, he still chose to confront GZ with violence, instead of running away or simply talking to him.

But GZ, he was the 'adult' in this situation, but didn't act like it.

Trayvon didn't " deserve " to die that night, but George didn't deserve a broken nose and having his head bounced off the cement either. But that's exactly what happened.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 18, 2013 1:22 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Brenda:

Agreed that Zimmerman should be held accountable for the boy's death.




Legally, the matter's already been addressed.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 18, 2013 2:07 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
I grew up in neighbourhoods like that, I can tell you that Martin threw the first punch- in response to a nervous white dude unable to adequately explain just WHY he was stalking the youth. Yeah, Martin might have been guilty of a pre-emptive defence strike, but Zimmerman initiated it, and should be responsible for its outcome.



I don't think you get to punch someone for coming up to you and asking you what you are doing.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 18, 2013 3:15 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
I don't think you get to punch someone for coming up to you and asking you what you are doing.

Martin probably came on with the tough guy "Why you followin' me mutha***er?" prompting Zim to reflexively reach towards his gun making it look like a move of some kind to Martin who didn't wait for a punch or wrestling move to come his way- he attacked.

So, you can simplify it all you want, but if you really DO want to simplify it for real, Zimmerman at home drinking his beer & not out looking to be everyone's hero would have been better for all concerned.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 18, 2013 4:07 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Martin probably came on with the tough guy "Why you followin' me mutha***er?" prompting Zim to reflexively reach towards his gun making it look like a move of some kind to Martin who didn't wait for a punch or wrestling move to come his way- he attacked.

So, you can simplify it all you want, but if you really DO want to simplify it for real, Zimmerman at home drinking his beer & not out looking to be everyone's hero would have been better for all concerned.



It could have happened that way, no one knows.

Your argument about Zimmerman being at home works for Martin as well. I can fault Zimmerman for wanting to help and try and prevent his neighbors from being robbed. I think he went about it in the wrong way, but I think he intentions were good. In the end I think both Zimmerman and Martin could have done things differently and avoided the confrontation.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 18, 2013 4:10 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Trayvon didn't " deserve " to die that night, but George didn't deserve a broken nose and having his head bounced off the cement either. But that's exactly what happened.


The are a number of possible scenarios for how this all got started, which is the ONLY issue.

Racist Zimmerman stalked young child Martin and killed him, probably from a bullet to the back of the head and while wearing a white hood and raping a black stripper with his lacross buddies. (Al Sharton's version)
Zimmerman followed Martin and Martin attacked Zimmerman. (The generally understood version).
Zimmerman was on his way back to car and gets attacked by Martin. (Zimmerman version).
Zimmerman followed Martin because he hates black people and Zimmerman caused the fight...somehow. (The Prosecutor's version).
Martin attacked Zimmerman because he believed he was a male rapist. (Jenteal's latest version).

Its also possible that both sides are responsible and acted with racial bias and unwarranted aggression.

There is even the possibility that both sides were acting in good faith and this was all just a tragic misunderstanding that was both cultural and systemic.

My take is that Zimmerman was doing his neighborhood watch thing and Martin didn't like it and went after him because he was white, older, and in poor shape, I don't think he intended to kill Zimmerman, but he did intend to beat him. Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked and pulled the gun to defend himself. Zimmerman was not a wanna-be cop but rather a concerned citizen. Martin was a wanna-be thug, bully and racist with some cowardess built in (he never gets into this fight if Zimmerman is built like a linebacker and looks like a ass kicker or if he knew Zimmerman had a gun).

Have you ever looked at the history of Florida's concealed carry and self defense laws? There was some very interesting criminal issues that lead to those laws being enacted. One issue was a series of murders and robberies of tourists driving out of state vehicles. The idea behind concealed carry was that a person was less likely to follow an out of state vehicle to a rest stop and murder them if there was the possibility that the victim could be armed. I note for the record that Florida crime rates have dropped dramatically since these laws were enacted.

I note for the record that I observed police ground combat training (which is basically MMA or wresting for police) and its amazing how fast things go from grapple to the other guy getting your gun out. Its not like the movies, its more like fast forwarding through a fight scene. That said, I carry a gun and I have no intention of waiting till I'm on the ground to use it. If somebody comes after me I'll retreat if I can because I don't want to kill anyone (unless I'm at home, in which case I still don't want to kill anyone, but I'm not retreating) and if I can't I'll fight with everything I have.

This 'duty to retreat' business is nonsense. Worse, its unAmerican. When did we become a country where a free man committing no crime can't stand their ground if they choose? America was founded by people standing their ground. Worse still is the opinion expressed by some of you that we have a 'duty to be beaten'. Zimmerman (or anyone) can't fight back against an unarmed person and must submit to the pain and humiliation and serious injury or death merely because the other party is unarmed...or a teenager...or because that person is a minority. This is America and I have the God given right to make my stand, armed or unarmed, and for any cause I choose. Nobody has the right to beat me in my home or on the street. Maybe you would allow yourselves to be beaten, but that is your right...stay out of mine.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 18, 2013 4:52 AM

JONGSSTRAW


A wannabe cop met up with a wannabe thug gangsta. The rest is history. Zimmerman was acquitted by a jury after a trial, but he's certainly not "free" in any normal sense. He's more of a hated and marked person than either OJ or Casey Anthony. That's not right, but it is what it is.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 18, 2013 10:57 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Why Hero, you're such a .......hero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 18, 2013 12:50 PM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Why Hero, you're such a .......hero


I don't know about that but the cultural implications of 'duty to retreat' vs 'stand your ground' go far beyond this isolated incident. In many ways the 'duty to retreat' mentality is a big part of everything that is wrong with this country.

I'm sure that there are those who see the opposite as the case and that 'standing your ground' is what's wrong. Those people are simply not relevant...because they will surrender or retreat if pressed to defend...their opinion.

They say that God made man but Sam Colt made men equal. That is a simple recognition that no man is powerless, no man must surrender to a beating, no man must aquiess to the terror of bullies, tyrants, or thugs be they King or common. The world is full of places where men must bow without choice or hope. America has always been a place to stand, win or lose.

Duty to retreat? Tell that to Washington, Lincoln. Lawrence Chamberlain. Travis, Frederick Myers. George Patton would slap you silly for suggesting it. Wyatt Earp, Elliot Ness. Countless names. A duty to retreat would never have set foot onto the moon or invented the IPhone. Hundreds refused to answer the call of duty to retreat on 9/11 and instead stormed burning towers to save lives just as their fathers stormed burning beaches to liberate nations. An old woman refused to retreat to the back of the bus and defied the indifferent prejudice of a nation, her people refused to run from dogs and firehoses and the beating of injustice upon their flesh. "Here we stand" has been the true motto of this nation and we should not abandon it to our passion or prejudice.

You want to make a stand for Trayvon, go make it, God bless you, but remember, after all the hype, all the tears, all wish it was, Trayvon never stood for anything but himself. Its not wonder he's so attractive to the Sharptons and Jacksons out there.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 18, 2013 6:35 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


hero. you're patriotic undies are showing again. It doesn't make my beating heart race to hear your hyperbole, because that's why it comes across as.

To retreat or stay and defend. Any military strategist worth their salt will tell you there is a time for both, even if John Wayne films (which a lot of Americans seem to use as their reality) suggest that to do otherwise would be less than *ahem* heroic.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 19, 2013 11:28 AM

OONJERAH


Obama: 'Trayvon Martin could have been me'
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/19/politics/obama-zimmerman

"Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago," Obama told White
House reporters in a surprise appearance at the daily briefing.

Oonjerah: With all my fears and ingrained attitudes, can I
really claim to be fair?


======================:>
A man's gotta know his own heart.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Thu, March 28, 2024 18:43 - 50 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 16:32 - 9 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL