Kana
Posts: 6676
Joined: 10/24/2006 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote:
ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 I never claimed he wasn't a racist. I'm not a mind reader, and I've asked repeatedly why those who claim to know what is in Zimmerman's head haven't taken *their* mind reading skills over to the JREF to collect the $1 million prize. I asked because, for the first time that I've heard of, a negative was proven on these boards. Nigh on possible - completely impossible, according to some. As far as I'm concerned it's next to impossible to 'prove' that someone is either a racist, or not a racist. I can't be bothered to go down that path. Yet, it *is* possible to develop a strong feeling one way or the other. My own feelings have changed, a lot, at different times of my life. It was only when I did some teaching in further education (i.e. of 16-18 year olds) I didn't realise just how *big* black kids came. Six-foot teenaged boys. Weird. But then realised that these were still boys who were awkward, clumsy, trying to be cool, couldn't hit it off with girls and didn't know how . . . and so on. We all know teenaged boys. We males, at least, all were teenaged boys, once. Twats, basically. Well, I know I was. Zimmerman should have known this. Any mature man should have. A silly teenaged boy *will* do silly things to 'defend his honour' and 'not lose face'. I picked fights with giant bouncers at that age - but they remembered themselves at my age, then, and didn't crush me as they could have done, easily. I was a twat. They remembered that they were twats at my age. I think that's why I wasn't pummeled. Silly 17 year old girls go out and do stupid things that lead to rape or worse. Silly 17 year old boys get into insane fights. I do think black boys get 'sized up' as way more dangerous than they are. I've not seen the slightest thing about Zimmerman that's suggested that he was above that. He *could* have seen a stroppy teenaged kid with attitude and realised that the situation should have been handled one way rather than the other. 17 year old boys should not be killed for what 17 year old boys ordinarily are and can't much help being. It isn't civilised. Actually, it's quite cuntish, IMO. The jury found that M was killed because he assaulted Z w/o provocation. Not for doing what 17 year old boys "ordinarily do." That is,unless you know lots of 17 year old "boys" (Notes that the state of Fla is more than happy to declare 17 year old adults when it comes to death penalty time, or trying a minor as an adult.)who go around committing A&B on complete strangers. Which, as has been noted on this thread, is a truly insane thing to do in FLA where 1/2 the population is armed. Since when is attacking someone, hitting them in the face, knocking them to the ground and the repeatedly driving their head into the pavement acceptable behavior? For some reason, everyone freaks at Z-Oooh,he left his truck.Oooh, he followed the "kid" (Notes that Z has exacty as much to walk any street as M, or any other citizen for that matter. And needs to justify his being there not at all. It's a free country). But nobody has a problem with M committing assault. It's all Z's fault, ya see. Because this "kid," he wasn't responsible. I don't get it. I don't get it at all. Z could have gotten in his face, called him a motherfucker and it still,legally at least, would not have justified an assault. On the other hand, M assaulted a "cracker" (His own gals words), so who exactly was the target of a hate crime here...?
< Message edited by Kana -- 7/23/2013 5:32:20 PM >
_____________________________
"One of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die. " HST
|