What if Trayvon Had Been White, and the Shooter Black?

Wehrwolfen · Jul 18, 2013

pbrauer said:
Did the black guy follow the white guy like Zimmerman did to Trayvon?

Apparently you didn't read the entire article. You like mysteries don't you?

reinoe · Jul 18, 2013

Wehrwolfen said:
Apparently you didn't read the entire article. You like mysteries don't you?

Since your article is misleading, I'll fill in the blanks: No, the Black guy didn't follow the White guy like what Zimmerman did. In fact the Black Guy took the stand because he didn't have inconsistencies in his story, unlike George "I look for street signs in backyards" Zimmerman.

Gathomas88 · Jul 18, 2013

reinoe said:
Not charged, convicted. Read it again. I know that reading for some folks is hard and just because "charged" and "convicted" both start with the letter "c" doesn't translate into them having the same meaning. You see, "charged" and "convicted" mean two different things in the English language. Please try to keep up.

For review here is the actual name of the article...
Jury finds Trevor Dooley guilty in manslaughter case

You do know what "finding guilty" means don't you? It's very different from being "charged".

I meant to say "convicted." Frankly, anyone with even the barest level of reading comprehension should have been able to pick up on that. :roll:

Minus the misuse of the one word in question, the basic gist of my response to you hasn't changed at all.

We basically have evidence of a 50% conviction rate for black people who shoot whites, which seems to be pretty much entirely dependent upon whether or not their attorneys can make a reasonable argument for self-defense being the primary motivation behind the shooting in question.

What exactly do you think this proves?

Paschendale said:
No, my point is not about who is perpetrating crimes. My point is that black kids are dying, and the courts are letting their killers go. The message is clear. Killing black kids is okay, killing white kids is not. The race of the killer is honestly not relevant.

So what? The law is the law. No one is entitled to special treatment simply because of the color of their skin.

More than a few examples have also been provided in this thread which show that the killing of white teens is considered to be just as acceptable as the killing of the black variety where circumstances similar to those present in the Trayvon Martin case are involved.

trfjr · Jul 18, 2013

Paschendale said:
No, my point is not about who is perpetrating crimes. My point is that black kids are dying, and the courts are letting their killers go. The message is clear. Killing black kids is okay, killing white kids is not. The race of the killer is honestly not relevant.

Fascinating. I've had the exact opposite statistic quoted at me many times on this forum, that most violent crime by blacks is on other blacks. That black on black crime is an epidemic. Which is it? It seems to change based on what point the conservative speaker (and it is always conservatives who try to make points about this sort of thing) is trying to make.

And I have no white guilt. I recognize my privilege, but I do not feel guilt for it. Sometimes I'm bothered by it, because neither I nor anyone else deserve such privilege. I would happily sacrifice it to be judged by my merits alone, and for others to be similarly judged. Sadly, we do not live in such a society today. But I certainly do not want white kids to die. I don't want any kids to die. That's the point. But we have an exception in this country, where it's okay when black kids die.

these are statistics about interracial crime not over all black crime there is a difference

Of the approximately 1,700,000 interracial crimes of violence involving blacks and whites, 90 percent are committed by blacks against whites. Blacks are 50 times more likely than whites to commit individual acts of interracial violence. They are up to 250 times more likley than whites to engage in multiple-offender or group interracial violence.

whites are not hunting down black kids and shooting them it is the other way around blacks are hunting down whites and killing them

Paschendale · Jul 18, 2013

Wehrwolfen said:
Were there complaints that GZ was scaring the people in the community? NO.
Was GZ concerned for the people in his Community? Yes.
Were there recent complaints of break ins within that community? Yes
Did TM look suspicious that night in the rain? Yes.
Did TM strike and break GZ's nose and attempt to bash his head into the concrete? Yes.
Did TM further attack GZ in MMA style? Yes.
Could TM have continued home and still be alive? Yes
He chose to close in on GZ and attack him, not the other way around.
Were burglaries reduced to a trickle after TM was killed? Yes

1. Who cares? The police knew he was causing trouble, and he didn't listen when they tried to stop them.
2. Definitely who cares? I'm concerned for the people of my community. I don't stalk you, do I?
3. Then if Treyvon was a suspect in them, he should have been duly investigated and tried for them, as per the law.
4. And if a duly authorized police officer had been suspicious of him, that would matter.
5. I don't really care about the actions in the fight. Why is only the vigilante allowed to fight for his life? Even when he created the danger to begin with.
6. Same question.
7. Speculation. If he wasn't being stalked, he'd still be alive, too. If he hadn't dared leave his home in the first place, he'd still be alive. He'd be alive in any situation other than being stalked and murdered by a vigilante.
8. See 5 and 6.
9. See 3.

None of your minutiae about a fight matters at all. The mere presence of a black youth was deemed suspicious, and he was killed for the brazen act of walking down the street. He should never have been hassled or stalked by a vigilante in the first place. You don't get to claim self-defense when you create the danger in the first place. If he'd gone home when the police told him to, no one would be dead from this.

The message from this situation was the vindication of vigilantism, and the murder of "suspicious" looking people. Fantastic precedents to set, aren't they?

reinoe · Jul 18, 2013

Gathomas88 said:
I meant to say "convicted." Frankly, anyone with even the barest level of reading comprehension should have been able to pick up on that. :roll:

Minus the misuse of the one word in question, the basic gist of my response to you hasn't changed at all.

The difference between the almost right word & the right word is really a large matter--it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.
- Letter to George Bainton, 10/15/1888

Lets assume you're telling the truth here. This is what you wrote...

You haven't "debunked" anything. So far we have one example of a black man shooting a white man and getting acquitted, and one case of a black man shooting a white man and being charged with manslaughter.

And this is what you're pretending you meant to say...

You haven't "debunked" anything. So far we have one example of a black man shooting a white man and getting acquitted, and one case of a black man shooting a white man and being convicted with manslaughter.

Whoops! People aren't convicted "with" manslaughter, they're convicted OF manslaughter. But they can be charged with manslaughter. Strike out again. Look if want to confess to English not being your fist language then I'll accept that and move on.

Wehrwolfen · Jul 18, 2013

pbrauer said:
:cuckoo:

Here you go Pete. Maybe this will answer all your questions about the Roderick Scott case.

Roderick Scott Trial: What’s Wrong with New York?
Roderick Scott Trial: What’s Wrong with New York?*|*The Martialist
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
More for you to read. Maybe you'll become an authority on Stand Your Ground and Self Defense issues?

D.A. Green: Lesser Charge Against Roderick Scott Rejected - Rochester

rochester.ynn.com/.../491135/...charge-against-roderick-scott-rejected

People in the community are still talking about the Roderick Scott case. ... expressed written permission of YNN Rochester and Time Warner ... New York. Western NY.

trfjr · Jul 18, 2013

Paschendale said:
1. Who cares? The police knew he was causing trouble, and he didn't listen when they tried to stop them.
2. Definitely who cares? I'm concerned for the people of my community. I don't stalk you, do I?
3. Then if Treyvon was a suspect in them, he should have been duly investigated and tried for them, as per the law.
4. And if a duly authorized police officer had been suspicious of him, that would matter.
5. I don't really care about the actions in the fight. Why is only the vigilante allowed to fight for his life? Even when he created the danger to begin with.
6. Same question.
7. Speculation. If he wasn't being stalked, he'd still be alive, too. If he hadn't dared leave his home in the first place, he'd still be alive. He'd be alive in any situation other than being stalked and murdered by a vigilante.
8. See 5 and 6.
9. See 3.

None of your minutiae about a fight matters at all. The mere presence of a black youth was deemed suspicious, and he was killed for the brazen act of walking down the street. He should never have been hassled or stalked by a vigilante in the first place. You don't get to claim self-defense when you create the danger in the first place. If he'd gone home when the police told him to, no one would be dead from this.

The message from this situation was the vindication of vigilantism, and the murder of "suspicious" looking people. Fantastic precedents to set, aren't they?

because your basing you assumptions on liberal talking points that have been proven false.
what evidence do you have that Zimmerman wasn't returning to his truck when told we don't need you to do that? you have none. but evidence presented in the trail proves he was.
just like the evidence proves that Martin turned around back tracked and confronted Zimmerman. so that makes Martin the aggressor his intent wasn't to get home his intent was to have a conflict.
these are the facts and if you wouldn't ignore those facts you would not be making as absurd false assumptions that you are

Gathomas88 · Jul 18, 2013

reinoe said:
The difference between the almost right word & the right word is really a large matter--it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.
- Letter to George Bainton, 10/15/1888

Lets assume you're telling the truth here. This is what you wrote...

And this is what you're pretending you meant to say...

Whoops! People aren't convicted "with" manslaughter, they're convicted OF manslaughter. But they can be charged with manslaughter. Strike out again. Look if want to confess to English not being your fist language then I'll accept that and move on.

Or maybe the phrase "charged of" would've simply sounded wrong, and I instinctually avoided it as such. :roll:

Are you actually going to respond to my argument here, or are you simply going to continue nitpicking minor mistakes in content?

pbrauer · Jul 18, 2013

Wehrwolfen said:
Here you go Pete. Maybe this will answer all your questions about the Roderick Scott case.

Roderick Scott Trial: What’s Wrong with New York?
Roderick Scott Trial: What’s Wrong with New York?*|*The Martialist

Thanks, this is nothing like the Zimmerman case.

"Back in April, after an argument with his common-law wife, Scott was asleep on the couch in his home. At 3:00 in the morning he heard a disturbance outside, looked out the window, and saw three teenagers trying to break into his car. Shoving his gun into his waistband, he went outside to see what in hell was going on."

reinoe · Jul 18, 2013

Gathomas88 said:
Or maybe the phrase "charged of" would've simply sounded wrong, and I instinctually avoided it as such. :roll:

Are you actually going to respond to my argument here, or are you simply going to continue nitpicking minor mistakes in content?

Wait I thought you meant to say he was "convicted of", or are you just trolling at this point? If I wanted to play with trolls I'd be on Facebook.
And wasn't your point that if Black man shot a white guy under similar circumstances he'd be found not guilty?

Wehrwolfen · Jul 18, 2013

reinoe said:
Since your article is misleading, I'll fill in the blanks: No, the Black guy didn't follow the White guy like what Zimmerman did. In fact the Black Guy took the stand because he didn't have inconsistencies in his story, unlike George "I look for street signs in backyards" Zimmerman.

Scott could have stayed in his home and waited for the police. In the State of NY there is a retreat to safety law in Self defense. Roderick left the safety of his home. In my books he did what was right to confront the kids rifling his car. Now I'm not saying he did anything wrong, in protecting himself and his property. In fact I think he was right to defend himself. Just as George Zimmerman had the right to protect himself.

Excon · Jul 18, 2013

Paschendale said:
1. Who cares? The police knew he was causing trouble, and he didn't listen when they tried to stop them.

Wrong!

Paschendale said:
2. Definitely who cares? I'm concerned for the people of my community. I don't stalk you, do I?

Neither did Zimmerman stalk antone, so you are in good company.

Paschendale said:
4. And if a duly authorized police officer had been suspicious of him, that would matter.

:doh
Just as it matters when a citizen finds a person suspicious.

Paschendale said:
5. I don't really care about the actions in the fight.

Nor should you as there was no fight, but an attack.

Paschendale said:
Why is only the vigilante allowed to fight for his life?

There was no vigilante.
Acting in self-defense is not vigilantism. Or did you not know that?

Paschendale said:
Even when he created the danger to begin with.

He didn't. Trayvon created it by his attack.

Paschendale said:
He'd be alive in any situation other than being stalked and murdered by a vigilante.

As it didn't happen that way, it matters not.

Paschendale said:
None of your minutiae about a fight matters at all.

As there was no fight, but an attack.

Paschendale said:
The mere presence of a black youth was deemed suspicious,

Wrong!
It was a person looking into the homes which was seen as suspicious. Learn the evidence.

Paschendale said:
and he was killed for the brazen act of walking down the street.

Wrong!
Learn the evidence.

Paschendale said:
He should never have been hassled or stalked by a vigilante in the first place.

He wasn't. Learn the evidence.

Paschendale said:
You don't get to claim self-defense when you create the danger in the first place.

One, he didn't. Two, under Florida law it is possible. Learn the evidence.

Paschendale said:
If he'd gone home when the police told him to, no one would be dead from this.

No one told him to go home. Just showing that you still do not know the evidence.

Paschendale said:
The message from this situation was the vindication of vigilantism, and the murder of "suspicious" looking people. Fantastic precedents to set, aren't they?

Wrong.
The message is that you do not know the evidence.

pbrauer · Jul 18, 2013

Wehrwolfen said:
Scott could have stayed in his home and waited for the police. In the State of NY there is a retreat to safety law in Self defense. Roderick left the safety of his home. In my books he did what was right to confront the kids rifling his car. Now I'm not saying he did anything wrong, in protecting himself and his property. In fact I think he was right to defend himself. Just as George Zimmerman had the right to protect himself.

The two stories are the same, why don't you just admit it? This is why you should never trust the American Thinker. Just notice they did give external links to real news stories.

Wehrwolfen · Jul 18, 2013

pbrauer said:
Thanks, this is nothing like the Zimmerman case.

"Back in April, after an argument with his common-law wife, Scott was asleep on the couch in his home. At 3:00 in the morning he heard a disturbance outside, looked out the window, and saw three teenagers trying to break into his car. Shoving his gun into his waistband, he went outside to see what in hell was going on."

New York State Castle Doctrine

New York has a self-defense law based on the castle doctrine, but it is considered weaker than castle doctrine laws in other states. In New York, a duty to retreat exists in any place outside one’s home. Within the home, the statute authorizes deadly force as long as the resident is not the initial aggressor. Outside the home, however, persons must retreat from attackers if they can do so safely.

I didn't see or read about that happening in this case did you? Calling the police would have been the proper action. Going out to confront the thieves was not allowable under NY State Self Defense statutes.

pbrauer · Jul 18, 2013

Wehrwolfen said:
New York State Castle Doctrine

New York has a self-defense law based on the castle doctrine, but it is considered weaker than castle doctrine laws in other states. In New York, a duty to retreat exists in any place outside one’s home. Within the home, the statute authorizes deadly force as long as the resident is not the initial aggressor. Outside the home, however, persons must retreat from attackers if they can do so safely.

I didn't see or read about that happening in this case did you? Calling the police would have been the proper action. Going out to confront the thieves was not allowable under NY State Self Defense statutes.

No, I didn't he should have been charged. He must have had a good lawyer.

reinoe · Jul 18, 2013

Wehrwolfen said:
New York State Castle Doctrine

New York has a self-defense law based on the castle doctrine, but it is considered weaker than castle doctrine laws in other states. In New York, a duty to retreat exists in any place outside one’s home. Within the home, the statute authorizes deadly force as long as the resident is not the initial aggressor. Outside the home, however, persons must retreat from attackers if they can do so safely.

I didn't see or read about that happening in this case did you? Calling the police would have been the proper action. Going out to confront the thieves was not allowable under NY State Self Defense statutes.

I did read more about the story. In case you weren't paying attention, and you clearly weren't, Scott didn't get out of his house for the clear purpose of chasing down the criminals.

"You decided you were going to handle the situation," said Finocchio.

"No," replied Scott. He told Finocchio he was going to go across the street to tell his neighbor someone was trying to break into the truck. On the way there, Scott said he saw something - a person walking on the sidewalk. Scott pulled the gun out of its holster and chambered a round.

Zimmerman got out of his car and chased Trayvon. Scott got out of his house in order to alert a neighbor. It turns out that the criminals were outside. Scott couldn't retreat safely because the teen charged at him, or at least that's how the story goes. You don't even read up on the cases you're trying to cite, which is why you're looking increasingly ridiculous.

Roderick Scott Claims Self-Defense in Teen's Shooting - Rochester

Gathomas88 · Jul 18, 2013

reinoe said:
Wait I thought you meant to say he was "convicted of", or are you just trolling at this point? If I wanted to play with trolls I'd be on Facebook.
And wasn't your point that if Black man shot a white guy under similar circumstances he'd be found not guilty?

A black man did shoot a white man under similar circumstances, get off on all charges, and there was no ridiculous racial outrage over it.

There is clearly no reason for such outrage in the current case.

The other case is irrelevant in this regard, as the defendant's legal team was unable to clearly demonstrate that self-defense was the primary motivation behind the shooting. There is absolutely no evidence that the ruling was in any way racially motivated.

Rainman05 · Jul 18, 2013

I still wouldn't give a rats ass, unless either the shooter or the victim were people of national importance. Not random joe.

Wehrwolfen · Jul 19, 2013

reinoe said:
I did read more about the story. In case you weren't paying attention, and you clearly weren't, Scott didn't get out of his house for the clear purpose of chasing down the criminals.

Zimmerman got out of his car and chased Trayvon. Scott got out of his house in order to alert a neighbor. It turns out that the criminals were outside. Scott couldn't retreat safely because the teen charged at him, or at least that's how the story goes. You don't even read up on the cases you're trying to cite, which is why you're looking increasingly ridiculous.

Roderick Scott Claims Self-Defense in Teen's Shooting - Rochester

Please prove to us that Zimmerman chased Martin. I did hear that during the trial.
BTW, in the State of New York there is a retreat clause. Scott didn't retreat nor did he call the police until after the shooting. The police would have told Scott to stay in his house until they arrived had he made the first call.

What if Trayvon Had Been White, and the Shooter Black?

Uncanny