500 march for Trayvon Martin in Columbus

Mar 26, 2012 Full story: The Columbus Dispatch 404

Israel Tolbert, 5, holds a sign while riding on the shoulders of his mother, Tyann Craig, during a demonstration in Columbus to honor 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, who was shot and killed by a crime-watch volunteer in Sanford, Fla.

Full Story

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#380 May 15, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
And by the way, I feel a need to point out that Trayvon Martin is in fact dead, the victim of a bullet if nothing else. Although as so many are quick to point out, guns don't kill people, people kill people. And Trayvon did not kill himself.
In effect, he did, by his thuggy actions.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#381 May 15, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, exactly. As I understand it, Harriet Beecher Stowe, master propagandist, never set foot in the South. On this one point, Abraham Lincoln may have been correct, when he asked upon meeting her:
"Is this the little woman who made this big war?"
And the obvious question most Americans never think to ask is...why did all those young, struggling farmers, millworkers and other laborers voluntarily risk their lives for the Confederacy?
For the right to keep their slaves?
/s
She wasn't wrong, necessarily, just a bit sensationalist.

But yeah, slaves they never owned I guess. But history is written by the victors. I have no doubts that we came to the right result, despite the catastrophe that it was for my family at the time.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#382 May 15, 2013
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
She wasn't wrong, necessarily, just a bit sensationalist.
But yeah, slaves they never owned I guess. But history is written by the victors. I have no doubts that we came to the right result, despite the catastrophe that it was for my family at the time.
Portraying all Southern slaveowners as Legree-types is more than "just a bit sensationalist."
It is a flat-out lie.

Further:

"Less than 5% of the whites in the South owned slaves. Fully 3/4's of the white people of the South had neither slaves nor an immediate economic interest in the maintenance of slavery or the plantation system."

-- John Hope Franklin, in From Slavery to Freedom, McGraw-Hill, 1994. Franklin was a Harvard-educated Professor Emeritus of History and Professor of Legal History at Duke University. Dr. Franklin also happened to be a black man.

The "right result" did not require the loss of 620,000 American lives [and contemporary historians have raised that figure to exceed 700,000].

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#383 May 15, 2013
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
She wasn't wrong, necessarily, just a bit sensationalist.
But yeah, slaves they never owned I guess. But history is written by the victors. I have no doubts that we came to the right result, despite the catastrophe that it was for my family at the time.
Had Gettysburg gone the other way:

Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#384 May 15, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Portraying all Southern slaveowners as Legree-types is more than "just a bit sensationalist."
It is a flat-out lie.
Further:
"Less than 5% of the whites in the South owned slaves. Fully 3/4's of the white people of the South had neither slaves nor an immediate economic interest in the maintenance of slavery or the plantation system."
-- John Hope Franklin, in From Slavery to Freedom, McGraw-Hill, 1994. Franklin was a Harvard-educated Professor Emeritus of History and Professor of Legal History at Duke University. Dr. Franklin also happened to be a black man.
The "right result" did not require the loss of 620,000 American lives [and contemporary historians have raised that figure to exceed 700,000].
It is a fact that some Southern slaveowners were LeGrees, and even worse. She exaggerated their numbers and sensationalized them, but the underlying sentiment of her work was more or less valid.

It was still slavery, however "nice" anyone might have been about it.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#385 May 15, 2013
It was a hell of a mess, but we are better for having come through it.

Now if we could only stop Yankees from invading Florida and paving over every bit of wilderness they can find, I'd be a little happier.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#386 May 15, 2013
Strel wrote:
It was a hell of a mess, but we are better for having come through it.
Now if we could only stop Yankees from invading Florida and paving over every bit of wilderness they can find, I'd be a little happier.
I disagree.

We are no longer these United States of America.
We are a single entity [e.g., the imposition of Obamacare] subject to a centralized behemoth, all courtesy of Dishonest Abe and the power-hungry politicians who followed in his footsteps.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#387 May 15, 2013
Strel wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a fact that some Southern slaveowners were LeGrees, and even worse. She exaggerated their numbers and sensationalized them, but the underlying sentiment of her work was more or less valid.
It was still slavery, however "nice" anyone might have been about it.
So...700k Americans should have died to end slavery, practiced by 5% of white Southerners?

Hint: It wasn't about slavery. But Harriet sure came in handy.
Strel

Tallahassee, FL

#388 May 15, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
So...700k Americans should have died to end slavery, practiced by 5% of white Southerners?
Hint: It wasn't about slavery. But Harriet sure came in handy.
Yes, we know it wasn't about slavery. Slavery was just a context for a broader conflict.

It was about money, as all wars are.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#389 May 15, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>In effect, he did, by his thuggy actions.
According to a narrative you have created--not the evidence.

The evidence reveals an unarmed teenager on his way home from the store was followed and killed by a man with a gun.

If you have any evidence to support your conclusion, you have had ample time to present it. But you always come up empty.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#390 May 15, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
So...700k Americans should have died to end slavery, practiced by 5% of white Southerners?
Hint: It wasn't about slavery. But Harriet sure came in handy.
What percentage of black southerners were enslaved?

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#391 May 15, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
According to a narrative you have created--not the evidence.
The evidence reveals an unarmed teenager on his way home from the store was followed and killed by a man with a gun.
Neither of which were illegal as will be proven at trial.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#392 May 15, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>Neither of which were illegal as will be proven at trial.
Pretty sure that killing people is illegal, even in Florida.

If this case were the slam dunk that you believe it to be, they would have gone for the immunity hearing and it would all be over by now. If the facts were on their side, they would benefit from a presentation to the judge and the lower standard of proof.

Instead they are betting on the ability to make an emotional appeal to a jury, waving that pic with the bloody nose in front of them and hoping they will believe that young black men are simply predisposed to go around trying to kill random white people for no reason.

Well, you would obviously buy it.

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#393 May 15, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Pretty sure that killing people is illegal, even in Florida.
If this case were the slam dunk that you believe it to be, they would have gone for the immunity hearing and it would all be over by now. If the facts were on their side, they would benefit from a presentation to the judge and the lower standard of proof.
Instead they are betting on the ability to make an emotional appeal to a jury, waving that pic with the bloody nose in front of them and hoping they will believe that young black men are simply predisposed to go around trying to kill random white people for no reason.
Well, you would obviously buy it.
Justifiable homicide in self-defense is illegal in Florida? You'd better get down there and sign up all the families of the thuggy "victims" to sue.

Since: Apr 13

Hilliard, OH

#394 May 15, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
What percentage of black southerners were enslaved?
Roughly the same percentage nationwide who have actually voted to remain enslaved judging from the results of the last two presidential elections.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#395 May 15, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
What percentage of black southerners were enslaved?
We are not disputing that slavery existed in the U.S., both in the South and in the North; in fact, slavery continues to this day in regions around the world [namely, Muslim].

However, slavery was not the cause of the U.S. Civil War, and neither its end nor the desired aggrandizement of centralized power, was worth 700+k American lives lost.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#396 May 15, 2013
-Clayton Bigsby wrote:
<quoted text>Justifiable homicide in self-defense is illegal in Florida? You'd better get down there and sign up all the families of the thuggy "victims" to sue.
Again, if there were clear evidence of self-defense based on the evidence, the wiser course would have been to present this at an immunity hearing. The defense cancelled the immunity hearing, pretty clear indication that they knew their case is weak and that they are terrified of allowing their client to be cross-examined, or even to speak in court.

Did you watch the hearing and the multiple attempts to prevent the judge from questioning Zimmerman about whether he understood his right to an immunity hearing and whether it was his decision to forego that hearing? First, the defense was clearly terrified of allowing their client to answer even yes/no questions from the judge. Second, they had to take him out first and coach him on the answers and the two attorneys were standing so close I thought that they were afraid he would fall over if they weren't holding him up.

This is the conundrum. They cannot make a self-defense case without his testimony and if they allow him to testify they will lose--because he has already told too many lies that are going to follow him right up to the stand.

Consider the possibility that he is a pathological liar. Fits with that phonied up NAACP story his brother just retold. Fits with the made-up kids he mentored. Fits with the almost but not quite graduation party that he had, and his belief that he was responsible for preventing breakins in the neighborhood. Also fits with the continually shifting details in his stories to the police.

Consider this, he says to the dispatcher, "he's running!" and is heard leaving his car and running after.

He tells Sean Hannity, "he wasn't running," with a smirk on his face. Maybe he was skipping.

He is not credible and he's a loose cannon to boot. Try and get a jury to believe him. Real tough.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#397 May 15, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, if there were clear evidence of self-defense based on the evidence, the wiser course would have been to present this at an immunity hearing. The defense cancelled the immunity hearing, pretty clear indication that they knew their case is weak and that they are terrified of allowing their client to be cross-examined, or even to speak in court.
Did you watch the hearing and the multiple attempts to prevent the judge from questioning Zimmerman about whether he understood his right to an immunity hearing and whether it was his decision to forego that hearing? First, the defense was clearly terrified of allowing their client to answer even yes/no questions from the judge. Second, they had to take him out first and coach him on the answers and the two attorneys were standing so close I thought that they were afraid he would fall over if they weren't holding him up.
This is the conundrum. They cannot make a self-defense case without his testimony and if they allow him to testify they will lose--because he has already told too many lies that are going to follow him right up to the stand.
Consider the possibility that he is a pathological liar. Fits with that phonied up NAACP story his brother just retold. Fits with the made-up kids he mentored. Fits with the almost but not quite graduation party that he had, and his belief that he was responsible for preventing breakins in the neighborhood. Also fits with the continually shifting details in his stories to the police.
Consider this, he says to the dispatcher, "he's running!" and is heard leaving his car and running after.
He tells Sean Hannity, "he wasn't running," with a smirk on his face. Maybe he was skipping.
He is not credible and he's a loose cannon to boot. Try and get a jury to believe him. Real tough.
Those regular Holiday Inn Express stays just haven't worked for you.
You're no legal expert.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#398 May 15, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Pretty sure that killing people is illegal, even in Florida.
If this case were the slam dunk that you believe it to be, they would have gone for the immunity hearing and it would all be over by now.
Apparently, you don't understand the stand your ground law. It is for cases where you had an opportunity to escape, but chose to "stand your ground" instead.

Since he was, according to him, laying on the ground with Martin on top of him, he did not have the opportunity to escape, thus stand your ground does not apply. Clearly the hearing is not applicable to Zimmerman's version of events. Why would he want a hearing to determine a claim that he's not making?

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#399 May 15, 2013
TonyD2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently, you don't understand the stand your ground law. It is for cases where you had an opportunity to escape, but chose to "stand your ground" instead.
Since he was, according to him, laying on the ground with Martin on top of him, he did not have the opportunity to escape, thus stand your ground does not apply. Clearly the hearing is not applicable to Zimmerman's version of events. Why would he want a hearing to determine a claim that he's not making?
He is claiming a self defense immunity. His attorney was pretty clear about asserting a continued right to make that claim despite not going through the immunity hearing. Legally I don't think the judge is likely to buy that, should he attempt to assert at trial a right for a judge's ruling following the prosecution's case.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Xenos Christian Fellowship is a CULT! (Jul '12) 17 min Concerned Brother 953
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 38 min They cannot kill ... 3,541
Two fish were swimming upstream.... 45 min Pope Che Reagan C... 384
OH Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 48 min Pope Che Reagan C... 31,466
Early Voting VICTORY for Ohio! 54 min Duke for Mayor 21
Connecticut: Democrat arrested Voter Fraud 54 min Pope Che Reagan C... 6
Dear Duke (Got a problem, I've got your solution) 1 hr Duke for Mayor 59

Columbus Jobs

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]