After Trump Blasts N.F.L., Players Kneel and Lock Arms in Solidarity

[majj27]

No, I asked you a serious of questions to understand your position so I can answer you.
Your asking my opinion of your personal position, so I can't comment without knowing that position now can I?

Alright-y then, here you go. Once I answer these, I would like a yes or no answer on whether I am an enemy of America.

Do you see the US as the reason for all the trouble in the world? Of course not. It's responsible for it's share, just like other nations, but trouble knows many parents.

Do you believe that the third world is only impoverished and oppressed because the US plundered all its resources? No. If I had to choose a single greatest factor, I'd hazard a guess that Colonialism has done more damage long term than nearly anything else.

Do you think that capitalism, which has elevated the standard of living of most of the world, is a bad thing? Unfettered and unregulated capitalism? Yes, that isn't a healthy thing. Properly regulated capitalism? I have no problem with it. The tricky part is where to draw the line.

Do you think that taking the wealth from those who earn it and giving to those who do not is a good thing? I assume you're talking taxes. Yes, taxes are a necessary part of living in a modern social system.

Do you think that a natural disaster should give you the right to plunder and loot area businesses? Will doing so save lives? Then yes. Otherwise no.

Do you think that burning down your neighborhood is a good way to protest a legal decision that doesn't go your way? Nope. Not a good way.

Do you think farmers should work for free because having plenty of food is a right? Nope. My family would be really annoyed if that were the case, since half are farmers. But yes, I do believe that in a modern, just society, nobody should worry about going hungry.

Do you think doctors should work for free because having health care is a right? Nope. And yes, I do think that in a modern, just society, healthcare is a right.

Do you think educators should work for free because having an education is a right? Nope. And yes, I agree that in a modern, just society, education is a right.

Do you think that government employees who are in your party and commit felonies should be exempt from prosecution? Nope. I don't think any government employees who are indicted should be exempted from possible prosecution.

Do you think that attacking the children of Republicans is okay but not the children of Democrats? Nope. Horrid no matter who does it to whom. Unless of course they are adults and holding official positions. If Sentator Bob Sleezeball's 25-year old son is working in Bob's office, he's fair game for his actions as such.

Do you agree with the notion that working to start a war and then trying to lose it because the other party is in charge is good strategy? Sounds counterproductive to me.

 

[Andrew4jesus]

It is worship of false idols

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Not true.
Obama inserted himself into the Cambridge police issue which was not a racial incident.

You don't see treating black people with more aggression than white people as being racist. But it is.

Obama said Devon Martin, the burglar who violently attacked a neighborhood watchman doing his job and reporting suspicious behavior to the police, could have been his son.

Trayvon Martin was shot by George Zimmerman, who, while armed, confronted Trayvon and provoked a conflict. It sure looks like he started it because of race.

You couldn't criticise any criminal act the Obama administration did without being called a racist.

Sure you could. However, in your case, you might find that to be a frequent occurrence, I understand that.

Obama was and is a rabble rousing community organizer who gave good speeches.

So you think all Obama's voters were rabble. Well, thanks for the opinion.

History will record that he was among the poorest presidents in our history; not because of his race; but because he was a corrupt socialist who never liked this country.

You have swallowed many lies.

 

[KWCrazy]

Alright-y then, here you go. Once I answer these, I would like a yes or no answer on whether I am an enemy of America.

No. Just a political adversary, but not looney enough to be elected to any national office.

 

[KWCrazy]

You don't see treating black people with more aggression than white people as being racist. But it is.

A man is trying to get into a home and refuses to show his ID to police. What are they to assume? Color had nothing to do with it.

Trayvon Martin was shot by George Zimmerman, who, while armed, confronted Trayvon and provoked a conflict.

Your statement has no relation to the truth. Zimmerman called 911 to report a suspicious character. The DISPATCHER asked his race. Zimmerman said "I think he's black." Martin reached his home and the operator said she didn't think Zimmerman should follow him any more. Martin dropped off some things and went after Zimmerman, jumping him as he went back to his truck. He was on top of Zimmerman beating him when he saw the gun and told Zimmerman he was going to kill him. Zimmerman acted in self-defense and would never have been charged had the corrupt media not put pressure on the prosecutor. It was clearly self defense as the jury so ruled.

It sure looks like he started it because of race.

That statement is devoid of any truth whatever.

So you think all Obama's voters were rabble.

Rabble Rouser: a person who speaks with the intention of inflaming the emotions of a crowd of people, typically for political reasons.

You have swallowed many lies.

But none of yours. Sorry.

 

[Marvin Knox]

The police have stopped my son when he is out late more than they have his white friends. Seldom is there animosity shown toward him though. Other young black men may have a different experience - particularly in the inner city where there is gang activity and more of a rowdy street life late at night.

But as a conservative law abiding family we (including my son) understand why he is stopped a bit more often than his white friends. Frankly - we acknowledge that it is because of the disparity of crime in the black community in general and or the verbal treatment and lack of respect the police often have to endure at the hands (mouths) of young black men.

The black community in many cases is it's own worst enemy. You only have to listen to the music played by young black men to understand that fact. Solid, law abiding young black men unfortunately get some of the blow back from it.

Of course there's history in our country which has fostered these unfortunate circumstances. But it's still the greatest country on earth for a decent black person to live and raise a family.

IMO - the NFL players are for the most part simply ignorant of the facts concerning the strides made in civil rights and why there are still occasional civil rights violations.

[Staff edit].

I certainly believe that civil rights violations should be addressed in protest whenever they occur. I don't however see many civil rights violations in most of the occurrences which have ended in violent protests by young black people in the last few years.

It seems to me that protesting the flag of the United States and it's national anthem is antithetical to how any real police grievances should best be handled.

A few conservative black leaders have expressed similar thoughts. But for the most part black leaders have simply toed the supposed black party line (spurred on by the left leaning media and politicians).

IMO, these kinds of protests, coupled with all too common violent ones, - along with the Obama presidency - have set race relations back a great many years.

Having been involved in the civil rights protests of the 60's and the gains made over many years after that, I am grieved by what I am witnessing.

[Staff edit].

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It seems to me that protesting the flag of the United States and it's national anthem is antithetical to how any real police grievances should best be handled.

Kneeling is not protesting. Kneeling in this case is intended to be presenting a petition for a change in the current situation. Those who frame it as a protest are playing into the hands of those who don't want to reduce racism in our country.

[Staff edit].

 

[Marvin Knox]

Kneeling is not protesting. Kneeling in this case is intended to be presenting a petition for a change in the current situation.

Bologna!

Doing something radical to call attention to yourself (like kneeling) as a means of petitioning for a change in a current situation is a protest by definition pure and simple.

Those who frame it as a protest are playing into the hands of those who don't want to reduce racism in our country.

Those who participate in and encourage such inappropriate attacks on the nation and the civil rights it stands for are playing into the hands of those who want to set back the great strides we have made in race relations in this country over the last half century.

Black men insulting the national flag and anthem is a sure way to bring many potentially racist thoughts to the forefront of white psyches. Right or wrong a tendency toward racist thought is in every sinner be he black, white, or brown.

No one is condoning racist thoughts. But if you want to draw them out into the public sphere this is as good a way as any and the left is more than willing to encourage it for their own gains.

These protests and the often violent protests which preceded them are right up there with vulgar hip hop music, and the demeaning of women which goes with it - when it comes to drawing out negative thoughts toward black men by the white public. Many of whom are police by the way.

Talk about ill advised and counterproductive activity. I do believe the young black community has been making such activity a specialty lately.

By the way - IMO - if all of these people feel outraged enough about police abuse issues to do what they are doing now - why is it that they didn't have the spine to protest along side of their friend Colin before?

Instead of stepping up to the plate when it would be unpopular, they waited for a cover issue like the general dislike for President Trump and his tweeting before they grew a spine. Before this - they left Colin hanging out to dry while they went their merry way spending their millions until it was deemed politically expedient to do otherwise.

While I feel that Colin's protests were misplaced, I will say this. He's got more integrity in his little finger than all of these other Johnny come lately players and the gutless owners who go along to get along.

But I'm thinking that most of the players didn't really feel all that outraged against the nation's flag and anthem over the abuses within some city police departments in the first place.

I.e. - these widespread protests are mostly political and have very little to do with the civil rights issues many of us fought for so hard and for so long.

 

[Followers4christ]

Sorry but nonsense. The only thing that is completely false about the American national anthem is that it paints the British as the eternal villain against whom your freedoms were established and your bravery proven. In fact it was the British who gave you your culture of freedom , who abolished slavery long before you did by way of example and have been your friends in battle for 100 years now. The only racism in the bit of your anthem that you actually sing is against me and my nation!! And to be perfectly honest I do not care and have sung along more than once cause it is a part of history that has well and truly been forgiven and paid for.

Oh, say! can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming;
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there:
Oh, say! does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

To understand the full “Star-Spangled Banner” story, you have to understand the author. Key was an aristocrat and city prosecutor in Washington, D.C. He was, like most enlightened men at the time, not against slavery; he just thought that since blacks were mentally inferior, masters should treat them with more Christian kindness. He supported sending free blacks (not slaves) back to Africa and, with a few exceptions, was about as pro-slavery, anti-black and anti-abolitionist as you could get at the time.

Of particular note was Key’s opposition to the idea of the Colonial Marines. The Marines were a battalion of runaway slaves who joined with the British Royal Army in exchange for their freedom. The Marines were not only a terrifying example of what slaves would do if given the chance, but also a repudiation of the white superiority that men like Key were so invested in.

All of these ideas and concepts came together around Aug. 24, 1815, at the Battle of Bladensburg, where Key, who was serving as a lieutenant at the time, ran into a battalion of Colonial Marines. His troops were taken to the woodshed by the very black folks he disdained, and he fled back to his home in Georgetown to lick his wounds. The British troops, emboldened by their victory in Bladensburg, then marched into Washington, D.C., burning the Library of Congress, the Capitol Building and the White House. You can imagine that Key was very much in his feelings seeing black soldiers trampling on the city he so desperately loved.

A few weeks later, in September of 1815, far from being a captive, Key was on a British boat begging for the release of one of his friends, a doctor named William Beanes. Key was on the boat waiting to see if the British would release his friend when he observed the bloody battle of Fort McHenry in Baltimore on Sept. 13, 1815. America lost the battle but managed to inflict heavy casualties on the British in the process. This inspired Key to write “The Star-Spangled Banner” right then and there, but no one remembers that he wrote a full third stanza decrying the former slaves who were now working for the British army:


"And where is that band who so vauntingly swore,
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a Country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash’d out their foul footstep’s pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave."

In other words, Key was saying that the blood of all the former slaves and “hirelings” on the battlefield will wash away the pollution of the British invaders. With Key still bitter that some black soldiers got the best of him a few weeks earlier, “The Star-Spangled Banner” is as much a patriotic song as it is a diss track to black people who had the audacity to fight for their freedom.

http://www.theroot.com/star-spangled-bigotry-the-hidden-racist-history-of-the-1790855893

 

[Followers4christ]

According to Fatal Encounters, the database created by former Reno News & Review editor and journalism instructor Burghart (which tracks all deaths resulting from interactions with police), a total of 1,388 people were killed by police in 2015, 318 (23%) of them black, and 560 (40%) of them white. So roughly 23 percent of those killed by any police interaction in 2015 were black and just over 40 percent were white. According to those statistics (adjusted for racial demographics), black people had a 2.7 higher likelihood of being killed by police than whites. source

As previously stated, blacks are 85% more likely to be cited for resisting arrest, so even if you cut that figure in half you have blacks resisting arrest 42.5% more than whites resulting in a 2.7% higher likelihood of being killed by police. It's a direct correlation. If you refuse to show your hands to a cop and he thinks you're holding a gun, you'r going to get shot. If you attack a cop and try to grab his gun like Michael Brown did, you're going to get shot. People who sew distrust between members of the black community and law enforcement are largely to blame.

If someone reads what you wrote and decides that the cops are the enemy then is killed resisting arrest over something meaningless, then you are to blame. Certainly there are bad cops, but there are nowhere near as many bad cops as there are bad civilians.

As for the national anthem, yes it references slavery. Why would it not? It mentions "Hireling" also. It is an intrinsic evil because it mentioned some worked for pay? The song is a celebration of American victory. No kidding. What about the black men who fought on the American side and won? What your liberal link does not say is that one of the main reasons for the War of 1812 was the British practice of forcing Americans to serve on British ships. Your biased leftist source says the reason for war was "a war of aggression that began with an attempt by the U.S. to grab Canada from the British Empire."

The biggest problem with our history is that liberals who hate this country are re-writing it. That's why leftist publications cannot ever be trusted to tell the truth about anything.

Here are sources you will ignore that blows everything you just said out of the water. These sources show that not only are blacks more likely to be wrongly arrested but are also more likely to be killed by police while unarmed. The sources are from New York Times, CNN, PBS, NBC and even Stanford. But of course you will ignore them like you did the last time.

Study Supports Suspicion That Police Are More Likely to Use Force on Blacks

Baltimore police overwhelmingly target blacks: DOJ report

Police respect whites more than blacks during traffic stops, language analysis finds

Black People More Likely to Be Wrongfully Convicted of Murder, Study Shows

Fatally shot black Americans twice as likely as whites to be unarmed: study

https://news.stanford.edu/2016/06/2...-shows-racial-profiling-police-traffic-stops/

Black Crime Rates: What Happens When Numbers Aren't Neutral | HuffPost

Opinion | Unequal Sentences for Blacks and Whites

Black men nearly 3 times as likely to die from police use of force, study says - CNN

Report shows black drivers more likely to be pulled over in Missouri

Test suggests North Carolina police target black drivers - Futurity

Nearly a quarter of young black people say they've been harassed by police, poll finds

 

[Followers4christ]

Nobody kills anyone without a reason. It's called "motive."

Your right the motive is called racism. Here is an article about the SF police sharing very racist emails between each other. Unless you want to say there is no racism in the police department and this is all wrong somehow. Countless deaths have happened for no good reason like Freddie Gray and Philando Castile. But somehow people try to justify them. There is a real problem in this country that needs to be addressed.

More racist text messages uncovered among San Francisco police officers

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Bologna!

Doing something radical to call attention to yourself (like kneeling) as a means of petitioning for a change in a current situation is a protest by definition pure and simple.
.

Kneeling isn't "radical". You just claim it is. Protests are not necessarily disrespectful. You just think they must be. But since you are protesting my ideas, you logic compels me to assume you are disrespecting me. You should repent.

 

[Followers4christ]

A man is trying to get into a home and refuses to show his ID to police. What are they to assume? Color had nothing to do with it.

Your statement has no relation to the truth. Zimmerman called 911 to report a suspicious character. The DISPATCHER asked his race. Zimmerman said "I think he's black." Martin reached his home and the operator said she didn't think Zimmerman should follow him any more. Martin dropped off some things and went after Zimmerman, jumping him as he went back to his truck. He was on top of Zimmerman beating him when he saw the gun and told Zimmerman he was going to kill him. Zimmerman acted in self-defense and would never have been charged had the corrupt media not put pressure on the prosecutor. It was clearly self defense as the jury so ruled.

That statement is devoid of any truth whatever.

Rabble Rouser: a person who speaks with the intention of inflaming the emotions of a crowd of people, typically for political reasons.

But none of yours. Sorry.

Now for the parts you left out:

1. The police advised Zimmerman to remain in his car until law enforcement arrived, but Zimmerman disobeyed those orders. Why?

2. After Zimmerman was kicked out of a bar after using racist remarks the police arrived and he told the police that he was was attacked by a black man. Sound familiar?

As for the possible battery, cops say George claimed a man had hit him on the shoulder multiple times, but surveillance video showed it was just a friendly pat. The bar manager said they've had repeated issues with Zimmerman and banned him from returning.

Funny how when there is a surveillance video it does not back him up. I wonder what it would of showed moments before he took someone's life don't you?

3. The manger at the bar he was kicked out of said Zimmerman said "I didn't know you were a n***** lover." Sounds pretty racist to me doesn't it?


George Zimmerman kicked out of bar after using racial slur, claiming black man hit him: deputies

TMZ

 

[mindlight]

To understand the full “Star-Spangled Banner” story, you have to understand the author. Key was an aristocrat and city prosecutor in Washington, D.C. He was, like most enlightened men at the time, not against slavery; he just thought that since blacks were mentally inferior, masters should treat them with more Christian kindness. He supported sending free blacks (not slaves) back to Africa and, with a few exceptions, was about as pro-slavery, anti-black and anti-abolitionist as you could get at the time.

Of particular note was Key’s opposition to the idea of the Colonial Marines. The Marines were a battalion of runaway slaves who joined with the British Royal Army in exchange for their freedom. The Marines were not only a terrifying example of what slaves would do if given the chance, but also a repudiation of the white superiority that men like Key were so invested in.

All of these ideas and concepts came together around Aug. 24, 1815, at the Battle of Bladensburg, where Key, who was serving as a lieutenant at the time, ran into a battalion of Colonial Marines. His troops were taken to the woodshed by the very black folks he disdained, and he fled back to his home in Georgetown to lick his wounds. The British troops, emboldened by their victory in Bladensburg, then marched into Washington, D.C., burning the Library of Congress, the Capitol Building and the White House. You can imagine that Key was very much in his feelings seeing black soldiers trampling on the city he so desperately loved.

A few weeks later, in September of 1815, far from being a captive, Key was on a British boat begging for the release of one of his friends, a doctor named William Beanes. Key was on the boat waiting to see if the British would release his friend when he observed the bloody battle of Fort McHenry in Baltimore on Sept. 13, 1815. America lost the battle but managed to inflict heavy casualties on the British in the process. This inspired Key to write “The Star-Spangled Banner” right then and there, but no one remembers that he wrote a full third stanza decrying the former slaves who were now working for the British army:


"And where is that band who so vauntingly swore,
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a Country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash’d out their foul footstep’s pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave."

In other words, Key was saying that the blood of all the former slaves and “hirelings” on the battlefield will wash away the pollution of the British invaders. With Key still bitter that some black soldiers got the best of him a few weeks earlier, “The Star-Spangled Banner” is as much a patriotic song as it is a diss track to black people who had the audacity to fight for their freedom.

http://www.theroot.com/star-spangled-bigotry-the-hidden-racist-history-of-the-1790855893

That is all very interesting but it does not change the fact of why the song was written and what its stanzas in context actually mean. This is an anti-British tirade not an anti-Black one. Hirelings and slaves are singled out in the third stanza because they fought with the British. Also it is not absolutely clear that the sentence has to be confined to black people. It could well be a reference to the British per see enslaved or paid for by their "corrupt and evil" monarch and fighting against the freedoms of the new American nation.

Even if your reading is correct and this sentence is an expression against those black slaves who joined the Colonial Marines then you still have a problem here with your reading. The Colonial Marines was officered by white British officers and commanded by a white British man and fought for British purposes. The British gave amnesty to all slaves who joined them after the war and also to slaves liberated from American ships. This indicates that the anthems portrayal of the British as the evil ones was probably less than accurate at the time as well as in hindsight. But clearly the prejudice that motivated its errors was anti-British not specifically anti Black.

This whole discussion is more motivated by liberal revisionism and current protests against perceived injustice than it is by an accurate reading of the historical meaning of the anthem.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Kneeling isn't "radical". You just claim it is.

Kneeling during the anthem as a protest is radical. It's hardly only me who claims that it is.

It is radical enough that most people in the United States are personally offended by it. It is radical enough that the entire nation and much of the world are commenting on it - particularly those who wish to disparage the U.S. to their people.

Entire teams kneeling during the anthem or staying in the locker room as a protest - not against police misconduct in particular - but to protest the tweeted remarks of the President is radical in the extreme. Particularly when the sentiments of the President happen to reflect accurately the feelings of the majority of the nation.

Now - had the President taken executive action in some way to force the owners to fire the protesters - I would not only think the particular protest of kneeling during the anthem was appropriate - I would take a knee myself, among other more useful things.

Protests are not necessarily disrespectful. You just think they must be.

Nonsense!

I think no such thing.

Not only are not all protests disrespectful - they are not all appropriate. Which is the point of course.

As much as I abhor police misconduct wherever it occurs - protesting the nation where certain cities are located in which police have sometimes engaged in misconduct is not appropriate. I.e. - it is aimed at the wrong target.

Of course - in this case - the protest is not only about police misconduct in some cities. It is about the comments of a man whom the players dislike as President. It is political. The place to address that is the ballot box - not in front of the flag of our nation and millions of impressionable young people who are watching on.

These latest protests are disrespectful of the fans as well. Millionaire players whom the fans have paid hundreds of dollars per family to see and cheer for staying in the locker room in protest of a flag which stands for everything they are protesting "for" is out of bounds IMO. If they only thought the issues over, rather than simply reacting from their emotions, they would choose another more appropriate way of protesting.

The targets of the protests, be they the nation or the President, are completely misplaced and counter productive to the goal of lessening police misconduct in certain locals.

But since you are protesting my ideas, you logic compels me to assume you are disrespecting me. You should repent.

What a silly backhanded comment.

Stick to the issue at hand. Just like the players themselves, your protests are misplaced.

This forum and thread is exactly the place and means for protesting what you say.

Coming to your favorite Sunday sporting event and kneeling in front of you and your family while you were trying to concentrate on the National Anthem would not be.

That's, again, the point.

A great many of the protests against the police shootings of black men are not even appropriate considering the circumstances of those shootings.

Even where there is reason for protest - it should be appropriate.

Just as rioting is not appropriate as a protest of a local problem - neither is a Nationally viewed protest against the flag of the United States of America.

By the way - the current round of over the top protests are purely political. They have little to do with the police misconduct situations Colin Kaeperniick originally protested - be they, themselves appropriate or not.

If they had to do with that entire teams, coaches, and owners would have been taking a knew or staying in the locker room during the anthem months ago.

They are about the President who, whether you like him or not, tweeted the sentiments of the majority of the nation in the rather crude way which he tends to use.

Just because you disagree with the President doesn't translate to protesting the flag, the anthem, and the military which stands in the world as a bulwark against those who would squelch your right to protest in general.

IMO - this latest round of protests typifies the kind of knee jerk, identity politics, leftist snowflake, (and even so called "reverse" racism on the part of some of the black community) which we have witnessed over the last few years.

Much of which can be traced, at least in part, to President Obama's failure to foster good race relations during his tenure as President (and in fact do just the opposite to his lasting shame as an educated and articulate black man IMO).

 

[KWCrazy]

Now for the parts you left out:
1. The police advised Zimmerman to remain in his car until law enforcement arrived, but Zimmerman disobeyed those orders. Why?

False. He was advised to return to his car. Martin jumped him before he could get there.

2. After Zimmerman was kicked out of a bar...

Not relevant to the Martin incident.

 

[Followers4christ]

False. He was advised to return to his car. Martin jumped him before he could get there.

Not relevant to the Martin incident.

Actually he did follow him after the police told him not to and the police later stated that this was all avoidable if he would of listened. He later changed his story. Here is some from CNN:

The dispatcher asked Zimmerman, who'd called 911 at least four times previously for other incidents, if he was following the person. He replies, "Yes."
"OK. We don't need you to do that," the dispatcher responded.
But Zimmerman followed him anyway.

On March 13, police described what happened as "ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement, or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin

What happened the night Trayvon Martin died - CNN

2. It is very relevant as it speaks to character that's why it's always used in the court of law. If your character is questionable then that will play out how you conducted yourself during the incident. He has made a nice number of racist remarks since the shooting as he did in the bar which he was banned from. Not to mention bragging about shooting Martin and even auctioned off the gun that was used in the shooting.

Here are more controversial stuff that followed him after the shooting:

George Zimmerman’s many, many controversies since the Trayvon Martin case

 

[Ringo84]

The national anthem and the flag mean nothing in and of themselves. They're a song and a piece of cloth. What matters are the principles they represent. Kaepernick and the others were kneeling to call attention to the fact that America isn't living up to the principle we sing about in that anthem that we worship so much.
Ringo

 

[KWCrazy]

Actually he did follow him after the police told him not to and the police later stated that this was all avoidable if he would of listened.
The dispatcher asked Zimmerman... if he was following the person. He replies, "Yes."
"OK. We don't need you to do that," the dispatcher responded.

The dispatcher did not tell him to stop following the thug. They said they didn't need him to do that. Not the same thing.

It is indisputable that Martin jumped Zimmerman near his truck, not near Martin's home.
There was no excuse for Martin to attack Zimmerman. None.
Martin instigated the attack. It was a felonious assault.
Martin was killed as a result of his own felonious actions. If he was killed robbing a store, also a felony, most would understand that the store owner had every right to protect his property. Zimmerman was at that point trying to protect his life.

The media immediately tried to portray it as a white on black homicide. Zimmerman is Hispanic.

The incident could have been avoided. Had the thug gone inside, called the police and said someone was following him it would have been a joke at the station the next morning. Again, there was absolutely no excuse for Martin to attack Zimmerman.

What happened the night Trayvon Martin died - CNN

CNN is incapable of reporting the truth on any topic ever. There is not an honest reporter on staff.

He has made a nice number of racist remarks since the shooting as he did in the bar which he was banned from. Not to mention bragging about shooting Martin and even auctioned off the gun that was used in the shooting.

So Zimmerman is a pig and Martin was a thug. It was a clear case of self defense. he never should have been arrested.

 

[Followers4christ]

The dispatcher did not tell him to stop following the thug. They said they didn't need him to do that. Not the same thing.

It is indisputable that Martin jumped Zimmerman near his truck, not near Martin's home.
There was no excuse for Martin to attack Zimmerman. None.
Martin instigated the attack. It was a felonious assault.
Martin was killed as a result of his own felonious actions. If he was killed robbing a store, also a felony, most would understand that the store owner had every right to protect his property. Zimmerman was at that point trying to protect his life.

I wouldn’t go that far to say that the facts are indisputable that Martin attacked Zimmerman when DNA does not support that theory. But to be fair it does not say it did not happen either just that it is disputable. But to say the facts are indisputable is far from the truth as he went court cause it was refutable. From Fox News:

An expert witness testified Wednesday that none of George Zimmerman's DNA was found under the fingernails of Trayvon Martin, despite defense attempts to portray Zimmerman as only firing his gun in self-defense.

Crime lab analyst Anthony Gorgone testified no DNA samples taken from Martin's fingernails matched that of Zimmerman, a Florida neighborhood watch volunteer charged with killing the teenager during a scuffle.

No Zimmerman DNA under Martin's fingernails: Expert witness


“In court Wednesday, attorneys displayed items of clothing Zimmerman and Martin were wearing the night of the fatal altercation that Gorgone tested for DNA, including Martin's hoodie and Zimmerman's red jacket.

Gorgone said he didn't detect any DNA that wasn't Martin's on the cuffs and sleeves of Martin's hoodie.”

George Zimmerman trial: Trayvon Martin's DNA not on Zimmerman's gun, DNA analyst testifies

Remember when Zimmerman told the press that Martin tried to get his gun?

“Teenager Trayvon Martin's DNA was nowhere to be found on the gun George Zimmerman used to fatally shoot him, a forensics expert testified Wednesday – a development that may cast doubt on the contention that the 17-year-old tried to grab the gun during a fight with Mr. Zimmerman in a gated community in Sanford, Fla.”

Gun grab? No Trayvon Martin DNA on George Zimmerman gun, expert says

Far from indisputable.