Beating A Live Horse: One Redskin Fan's Cessation Of Protesting The Name

[redskinsfan]

So, you too believe that it's ancient history....sad!

Because it is. What exactly do you then think should happen?

 

[Sharkinva]

He's talking about the centuries old claims that Native Americans and others may have against their subjugators. Whatever the merits of those claims may be, they're ancient history. That's not to say that we should forget it or distance ourselves from those dark chapters in our history, but there's nothing we can do it about now.

Actually there is something we can do.

1. Admit that it was wrong and quite trying to justify it as.. well it was legal at the time.

2. This country can stop treating Native Americans and African Americans as second class citizens while trying to tell us we have every opportunity in the world.

I dont want 40 acres and a mule. But I would like to be able to take a walk at night without fearing for my life simply because of the color of my skin.

 

[redskinsfan]

Actually there is something we can do.

1. Admit that it was wrong and quite trying to justify it as.. well it was legal at the time.

2. This country can stop treating Native Americans and African Americans as second class citizens while trying to tell us we have every opportunity in the world.

I dont want 40 acres and a mule. But I would like to be able to take a walk at night without fearing for my life simply because of the color of my skin.

I think you won't get much argument on number one. This country has exacted some unspeakable acts against millions of people. As for two, that's about as pie-in-the-sky suggestion as you can get. That's not to say that I disagree with it, but it's so resistant to any precise definition that it's really not a suggestion at all.

 

[Sharkinva]

Then you don't understand some basic legal principles. Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force to protect against Trayvon Martin's use of deadly force against him. How you can't see that is baffling.

Because what you are basically saying is, him committing a crime and putting himself in that situation gave him the right to use deadly force. If you totally ignore the fact that he had no right to accost Trayvon in the first place, then yes he had every right to defend himself. But you dont get to kill some one if you first threatened them... well unless they guy you threatened was black apparently.

 

[Stymietee]

Because it is. What exactly do you then think should happen?

Better educate ourselves would be a great start!

 

[redskinsfan]

Because what you are basically saying is, him committing a crime and putting himself in that situation gave him the right to use deadly force. If you totally ignore the fact that he had no right to accost Trayvon in the first place, then yes he had every right to defend himself. But you dont get to kill some one if you first threatened them... well unless they guy you threatened was black apparently.

Again, you don't seem to understand some basic legal principles. American law recognizes and contemplates an initial aggressor as someone who can, under certain circumstances, also be a proponent of a deadly force defense. The view that someone forfeits a self-defense argument because they were the guy that started a fight is BS.

 

[redskinsfan]

Better educate ourselves would be a great start!

You'll get no argument from me on that one.

 

[Sharkinva]

Again, you don't seem to understand some basic legal principles. American law recognizes and contemplates an initial aggressor as someone who can, under certain circumstances, also be a proponent of a deadly force defense. The view that someone forfeits a self-defense argument because they were the guy that started a fight is BS.

IM not saying he was guilty of murder. But I am saying he was guilty of intentional man slaughter. He walked into that fight knowing he had a gun. He started the altercation. But if you are telling me its ok to pick a fight and kill some one because you are losing... pray for the next person that pisses me off.

 

[gkekoa]

I honestly wish you would stop saying that, you have no footing that supports your first two lines.

No footing?

Slavery officially ended in 1865. Unless there is a person 152 years of age, I am correct.

Tell me the last time the US stole Indian tribal land and prove I am wrong on part one.

 

[redskinsfan]

IM not saying he was guilty of murder. But I am saying he was guilty of intentional man slaughter. He walked into that fight knowing he had a gun. He started the altercation. But if you are telling me its ok to pick a fight and kill some one because you are losing... pray for the next person that pisses me off.

It depends HOW you are losing. If the guy you started the fight with is simply punching back and knocks you around and you shoot him dead, you'll be doing a lot of time.

 

[gkekoa]

NOt to mention he committed Assault

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal and/or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and tortlaw.

And lets not forget harassment

It's worth pointing out that, while laws vary from state to state, followingsomeone is not only a gross invasion of privacy, but can also be illegalif it can be interpreted either as stalking or harassment in your area

So there you go.

Was Zimmerman charged with assault? Can you prove he had the intent of bodily harm on Trayvon?

Was Zimmerman charged with stalking or invasion of privacy? Also, Zimmerman was in public areas with Trayvon where there is no reason to expect privacy...

Next

 

[Sharkinva]

It depends HOW you are losing. If the guy you started the fight with is simply punching back and knocks you around and you shoot him dead, you'll be doing a lot of time.

And once again you ignore the fact that the only person who can testify that he felt his life was in danger actually lived through this. Most people in that situation are going to try and curl up and protect themselves, not try and reach for a gun. Unless they had plans to go for the gun in the first place.

 

[gkekoa]

Again, tell me what exactly Trayvon Martin did wrong aside from walking while black, and defending himself when he felt threatened?? Its all grat for society when Zimmerman can say.. I wasnt the aggressor. But if you were accosted from behind in the dark by someone you didnt know, would you feel justified in using deadly force?? Martin did exactly what I would have done in the same situation. And to try and say Zimmerman was justified is complete and utter bullshit.

Tell me how you assume Trayvon defended himself or felt threatened end. The only reason you can assume this is his race and wanting it to be true. While Trayvon originally did nothing wrong, except perhaps trespassing. If memory serves he was in the yard of an abandoned house in a neighborhood watch area.

Accosted from behind? The only marks on Trayvon were the bullets. Zimmerman began to run after Trayvon ran...Zimmerman never would have caught Trayvon if Trayvon felt threatened.

 

[Stymietee]

For those who believe that Slavery is a thing of the past beyond what's directly in front of you, take the time to read the slave codes and see if they don't apply today. OK, even if that does not convince you, try reading about American (meaning the U.S) Eugenics applied long before Hitler used them. It's current scientific and popular manifestations should do the trick!

No footing?

Slavery officially ended in 1865. Unless there is a person 152 years of age, I am correct.

Tell me the last time the US stole Indian tribal land and prove I am wrong on part one.

You're wrong, that form of slavery ended in 1865, replaced by it's offspring Jim Crow, that ultimately was replaced by it's current offspring, James Crow Esq.

I actually agree with you, we are all living on stolen land which can be proven despite other postings. Manifest Destiny allowed Squatters rights to land that was already occupied by people who had every right to claim the same, IF, IF, IF, they were indeed considered equal. We all know how that turned out! So stolen land = stolen land, today tomorrow, always! SOL my ass

 

[redskinsfan]

And once again you ignore the fact that the only person who can testify that he felt his life was in danger actually lived through this. Most people in that situation are going to try and curl up and protect themselves, not try and reach for a gun. Unless they had plans to go for the gun in the first place.

Newsflash, shark: in every murder case, the guy who got killed can't testify as to what happened. And your view that most people will curl up to protect themselves is nothing but rank speculation on your part. Whatever the merits or lack thereof of that view may be, Zimmerman discharged his sidearm. There's NO evidence he intended to reach for his gun in the first place. And even if he did, the evidence still supports his use of deadly force despite your wildly speculative theory of his mindset.

 

[gkekoa]

Actually there is something we can do.

1. Admit that it was wrong and quite trying to justify it as.. well it was legal at the time.

2. This country can stop treating Native Americans and African Americans as second class citizens while trying to tell us we have every opportunity in the world.

I dont want 40 acres and a mule. But I would like to be able to take a walk at night without fearing for my life simply because of the color of my skin.

Such bullshit. The only people you fear for your life are black people. The odds of a white dude killing you are negligible. If you are referring to cops, more whites are killed than blacks.

 

[gkekoa]

This has nothing to do with SOL, nor reparations, just that he seems to be saying that everyone is dead who were slaves or NA's who were slaughtered because of Manifest Destiny. I absolutely challenge that stance!!

You challenge there are no former US slaves alive?

 

[redskinsfan]

For those who believe that Slavery is a thing of the past beyond what's directly in front of you, take the time to read the slave codes and see if they don't apply today. OK, even if that does not convince you, try reading about American (meaning the U.S) Eugenics applied long before Hitler used them. It's current scientific and popular manifestations should do the trick!


You're wrong, that form of slavery ended in 1865, replaced by it's offspring Jim Crow, that ultimately was replaced by it's current offspring, James Crow Esq.

I actually agree with you, we are all living on stolen land which can be proven despite other postings. Manifest Destiny allowed Squatters rights to land that was already occupied by people who had every right to claim the same, IF, IF, IF, they were indeed considered equal. We all know how that turned out! So stolen land = stolen land, today tomorrow, always! SOL my ass

The only part of your obscure dissertation that made any sense was about the stolen land. If that's true, anyone owning land in the US should have it forfeited. Isn't that about right, stymie?

 

[Stymietee]

You challenge there are no former US slaves alive?

I'm still alive and lived through Jim Crow, where the only difference technically was the selling of human cargo. Do you actually, believe that Slavery ended in 1865? REALLY???

 

[redskinsfan]

I'm still alive and lived through Jim Crow, where the only difference technically was the selling of human cargo. Do you actually, believe that Slavery ended in 1865? REALLY???

Slavery DID officially end with the adoption of the 13th Amendment. Prejudice, oppression, Jim Crow and its residual effects didn't. And you lived through Jim Crow? Do you realize that Jim Crow started with the compromise between the Democrats and Republicans in the election of 1867?