[WS:] Why do you consider this person "ignoramus"? I think, but of course can't prove, that she acted on a well ingrained Southern stereotype of white men defending their honor and property, hence their "good intentions," and black men being good for nothing hoodlums.
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Marta Russell <ap888 at lafn.org> wrote:
> I agree with Joanna. One of the jurors was interviewed by Anderson
> Cooper. She said Zimmerman had "good" intentions. That in his heart he
> was "good." With jurors like this ignoramus there is no justice possible
> because she cannot even get the facts straight and her perception is flawed.
> Marta
>
> On Jul 15, 2013, at 3:43 PM, JOANNA A. wrote:
>
> > I have not followed the case closely, but here's what I know
> >
> > 1. Martin was walking home with ice tea and skittles.
> >
> > 2. Z decided M was a punk who needed to be stopped and followed him
> first with SUV, then on foot. This despite being explicitly told not to do
> so.
> >
> > 3. There is a scuffle during which Z might have been over-powered, at
> which point he shot M.
> >
> > So M had every reason to believe that he was followed and had no idea
> why, since he had done nothing wrong.
> > He had every reason to believe that Z was following with evil intent
> (which he was).
> > Z shot M because the gun was there, which removed the need to fight M
> physically.
> >
> > So, basically, Z acted recklessly putting himself and another in danger
> on the grounds of baseless suspicion. The result was the death of an
> innocent man. The kindest verdict would have been manslaughter with some
> serious jail time.
> >
> > Joanna
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > Wojtek, citing Florida law about self-defense, notes:
> >
> >> The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter
> >> is
> >> not available to a person who:
> >>
> >> (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself,
> >> unless:
> >
> > So you have evidence that Z provoked the use of force against himself?
> >
> > The evidence presented in the case suggests otherwise ...
> >
> >> So it is clear to me that Martin had all reasons to feel
> >> threatened when approached by armed Zimmerman ...
> >
> > Wait, M knew Z had a gun? Under what theory?
> >
> > Supported by whose testimony?
> >
> > Hint: actually this is specifically unsupported by testimony ...
> >
> > /jordan
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."