Team Zimmerman Vs Team Martin?

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by J3123MY

This seems crazy. How can a wannabe hero vigilante pull out a gun in a fist fight that arguably provoked and walk?

Ok, fixed that for you. The answer - Florida. Seriously, I am not even joking. Florida has pretty much said that if you are losing a fight you can kill the person winning the fight. Regardless of who may have started the fight.

Originally Posted by Corbic

Following abd talking to people is not provoking a fight.

Stalking a kid at night is more accurate. Again, if Martin was being followed and he had any reasonable fear this man was after him, under Florida law (caveat - being black in Florida kind of negates all of this) he has the right to defend himself.

Originally Posted by drftngs14

This was a great debate/discussion with logical opinions and facts, until that post ^^.. come back and join us with logic instead of your street talk bullshit. If thats you're only input pleast dont bother

Unfortunately, there were quite a few other post that lacked any intelligent thoughts or opinions.

[drftngs14]

I know Fla laws can be a bit screwy, lived there for 10 yrs but regardless I think a lot of this could have been avoided by TMs lack of good decision making. I say this because if I were him and Im sure a lot of you were the same way, at 17 Id react in a negative manor to the way GZ was. Mainly cause I didnt like people of authority or who thought they did, this is the reasoning behind my opinion. Dont put yourself in a situation that could have a negative outcome, regardless of anyone elses actions and unfortunately he paid the ultimate price.

[Phlip]

Originally Posted by drftngs14

I know Fla laws can be a bit screwy, lived there for 10 yrs but regardless I think a lot of this could have been avoided by TMs lack of good decision making. I say this because if I were him and Im sure a lot of you were the same way, at 17 Id react in a negative manor to the way GZ was. Mainly cause I didnt like people of authority or who thought they did, this is the reasoning behind my opinion. Dont put yourself in a situation that could have a negative outcome, regardless of anyone elses actions and unfortunately he paid the ultimate price.

Neither party involved made good decisions. Zimmerman got out of his car, when his duties (<-- notice the word "duties" and not "job") as a neighborhood watch volunteer is to flash his little flashlight, observe and report, not to get out of his car and follow anyone.
That is why this law is bullshit, as it has completely removed the onus of NOT getting out of the car and placing himself in the "danger" he claims to fear for his life from.
And again, Florida... A state doesn't want to pursue charges until the public outcry, and even then compiles the shittiest of prosecution cases. I honestly believe they only arrested and charged the guy to shut black people up, then blew the case so they could shrug and throw up their hands as if to say "shit, well we did all we can do." The lack of ANY male jurors, and the presence of at least one whose words since the trial suggests a bias to the advantage of the defense is where I draw this from.

[drftngs14]

You make a valid point and I wont argue that, but I will argue that he was not guilty of 2nd degree murder or violating anyones civil rights, for the simple fact if the roles on ethnicity were reversed, same scenario nothing different, we wouldnt have even heard about it. The more we play into the media's bullshit the more we are the little sheep I and others keep referring to... I do think its unfortunate TM is dead and GZ didnt handle the situation right, but all we have is speculation and assumption which is why I feel the way I do. Im a firm believer in you controlling your own destiny. If you dont want to be a "victim" or racial profiling or anything other profiling at that, dont fit the description to get profiled negatively. Dont want to be targeted by cops as a street racer for driving an import with wheels/exhaust/kit, dont drive it. Its simple as taking responsibility for the situations you put yourself in, Ive learned the hard as Im sure many of you have to, cause he paid a higher price doesnt change anything

[Phlip]

Originally Posted by drftngs14

If you dont want to be a "victim" or racial profiling or anything other profiling at that, dont fit the description to get profiled negatively.

Thanks for the advice, I will immediately cease being black in America tomorrow.
Seriously, did you think about that before you typed it, or do you really not understand that the things that people are most often singled out for are not of their control? Most people who don't have to go through it are oblivious like that, it seems.

[Corbic]

Originally Posted by ineedone

Ok, fixed that for you. The answer - Florida. Seriously, I am not even joking. Florida has pretty much said that if you are losing a fight you can kill the person winning the fight. Regardless of who may have started the fight.

What fight bro? There is no evidence that GZ fought TM. NONE WHAT SO EVER.

GZ had injuries, regardless of your opinion of them, to his face and head with grass stains on his back. TM had bruised and bloody knuckles.

There is NO EVIDENCE that GZ challenged TZ to a fight, lost, got pissed and shot him.

Also as stated, STG had nothing to do with this case. GZ disc nor fire his weapon untill after he was pinned to the ground snd sustained wounds to the head. THIS IS FACT. THERE IS NO OTHER PHYSICAL EVIDENCE SHOWIBG OTHERWISE!

Originally Posted by ineedone

Stalking a kid at night is more accurate. Again, if Martin was being followed and he had any reasonable fear this man was after him, under Florida law (caveat - being black in Florida kind of negates all of this) he has the right to defend himself.

Sorry but you are clueless. Stalking is a SPECIFIC LEGAL TERM.

In Florida :

748.048 section 2
Any person who willing, maliciously, and REPEATEDLY follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor.

Sorry, you can't "ground and pound" someone of asking you what you are doing.

Originally Posted by ineedone

Unfortunately, there were quite a few other post that lacked any intelligent thoughts or opinions.

All posted by you.

[drftngs14]

Clearly you're taking way more offense to it than you should. Do you wear your jeans half way off your ass with a baggie hoodie over your head? Sorry to say that most people, not saying myself as Im white and used to dress that way, will profile you negatively, I learned that at a young age and didnt understand it. I didnt HAVE to dress that way and either did TM, its a choice. So my point is if you dont want to be negatively profiled make the changes needed. To follow up my point, you dress two WHITE people, one in what "society" see's as "preppy" or "proper" and the other in baggy jeans and hoodie, and you polled the majority of people on their thoughts of the individual solely on how they dress you dont think the one dressed in baggy jeans and a hoodie would have more negative views??????? I never once mentioned stop being black, thats what bothers me the most, it has more to do with how he dressed than his color, I guarantee it. And dont get it confused, Im not saying Im like that cause Im not, I was one who was judged majority of my life by my CHOICES to dress and act a certain way, I even admitted Id probably react the same way as TM did to GZs actions. It doesnt matter what color you are, you dress like what "society" see as a hoodlum or gang member, you're going to get a negative response

[Phlip]

Originally Posted by drftngs14

I never once mentioned stop being black, thats what bothers me the most, it has more to do with how he dressed than his color, I guarantee it.

Allow me to repeat to you what YOU said and I quoted:

Originally Posted by drftngs14

If you dont want to be a "victim" or racial profiling or anything other profiling at that, dont fit the description to get profiled negatively.

Your grammar is poor, but that is your business and not mine.
Now, to your point. Why would someone who is walking in the rain NOT wear a hooded sweatshirt? Furthermore, you have now assumed that since he did have on a hooded sweatshirt, then he MUST have also had his jeans baggy and hanging off of his ass and generally looking like he "fit the description." But hey, I can only assume that by some of you guys' responses that you were there and watching the fight as it unfolded. If only you had used your phones to make a video of it, this might have been more decisively handled like John Spooner of Milwaukee a couple of days ago.

[Moncef]

Originally Posted by Phlip

Neither party involved made good decisions. Zimmerman got out of his car, when his duties (<-- notice the word "duties" and not "job") as a neighborhood watch volunteer is to flash his little flashlight, observe and report, not to get out of his car and follow anyone.
That is why this law is bullshit, as it has completely removed the onus of NOT getting out of the car and placing himself in the "danger" he claims to fear for his life from.
And again, Florida... A state doesn't want to pursue charges until the public outcry, and even then compiles the shittiest of prosecution cases. I honestly believe they only arrested and charged the guy to shut black people up, then blew the case so they could shrug and throw up their hands as if to say "shit, well we did all we can do." The lack of ANY male jurors, and the presence of at least one whose words since the trial suggests a bias to the advantage of the defense is where I draw this from.

This. The state of Floridumbass did not want to even try this case, and it is evident in the composure of the prosecution. IT was cake for the witnesses to make the prosecution look like some fucking clowns.

On the other hand, its not like Trayvon was pursuing anything of value at his age anyways. Being a teenager entitles you to a certain degree of dumbassery (especially in the 21st century), however he was there because he wasn't in school, he wasn't in school because he got suspended, and he was headed towards just being another statistic of the system that taxpayers would be supporting by ways of welfare, unemployment and state prisons.

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by Corbic

What fight bro? There is no evidence that GZ fought TM. NONE WHAT SO EVER.

Martin had none of Zimmerman's DNA on his hands. The defense said there was a fight - granted their theory was that Martin was the initial aggressor and threw the first punch. Kind of hard to say there was no fight when they stipulate to the fact that there was a fight.

The only evidence to show that was the word of the only person alive who knew exactly what happened. Do you know if Zimmerman said or did anything first? What if he through the first punch and got tackled? We do not know. If you accept Zimmerman's story, fine. The jury did so it is not crazy to do so. However, we only have one side. That is just fact.

Originally Posted by Corbic

GZ had injuries, regardless of your opinion of them, to his face and head with grass stains on his back. TM had bruised and bloody knuckles.

I never saw/heard of any evidence of bruised knuckles. But I did read evidence of bloody knuckles. Which is very interesting since Zimmerman had no Martin DNA and vice versa. Again, just more questions. Usually, in a fight you share each others DNA - especially when a nose is broken - they tend to squirt. So we can draw at least one logical conclusion from this - the police did not do their job correctly. What that does is raise doubt/questions in my head that the story they accepted was the entire story. Crazy I know...

Originally Posted by Corbic

There is NO EVIDENCE that GZ challenged TZ to a fight, lost, got pissed and shot him.

We only have one side of the story and that side did not testify. So really you have no idea if there was evidence of any of that. I am sure if Martin survived the shot he would have said Zimmerman started the fight - which the police/attorneys and the judicial system would have had to hash out. We did not get that though. All we got as one person telling his side to the police, the police accepting that and doing a shoddy investigation, and then the state putting on a less then stellar case. Questions are still unanswered that are important to the truth of the incident. However, the judicial system is not based on truth - it is based on what you can show to be true or what you can show to be not true by the evidence available. Hard concept to understand I am sure.

Originally Posted by Corbic

Also as stated, STG had nothing to do with this case. GZ disc nor fire his weapon untill after he was pinned to the ground snd sustained wounds to the head. THIS IS FACT. THERE IS NO OTHER PHYSICAL EVIDENCE SHOWIBG OTHERWISE!

SYG did not come into play once the case began. I have not said that. What I have said is that SYG is what played into the initial investigation (if we can call it that) by the police. SYG is not something I necessarily disagree with when it comes to the court room (though I see where it has its huge downfalls) - but if it is being applied before a judicial process I have a huge problem with that. It hinders thorough investigations and gives legal decisions to those who should not be making them. Again, is this a crazy view?

Originally Posted by Corbic

Sorry but you are clueless. Stalking is a SPECIFIC LEGAL TERM.


Sorry, you can't "ground and pound" someone of asking you what you are doing.

Well, stalking is also a verb, like pursuing, chasing, following.

Let me put it this way. Would Martin have been able to use a gun to shoot Zimmerman, who had a gun, who he did not know, who was following him in a car - if he felt threatened by him?

And, if you accept, for the sake of argument, that Martin would feel threatened by this man following/pursuing/stalking/chasing him - punching him in the face is probably well within his legal ability to defend himself.

I would argue that under the law he would have. The answer to that question is ambiguous but I do not think you can definitively say yes or no either way.

Originally Posted by Corbic

All posted by you.

Thanks for your input. We all have grown here I see.

[drftngs14]

My grammar is not poor, maybe I failed to prove my point in a manner that you'd understand and didnt mean racial profiling the way I said it.. And Im assuming he was wearing his jeans half way off his ass, he was, as in the other pictures they've showed of him. I never once argued how everything unfolded or what GZ did was right, Im simply giving my opinion on the race card that everyone is using, cause if it were a white person dressed the same way and acted the same way TM did, the same results would have followed. Whats more, if it were a white person GZ shot and killed, we wouldnt hear about it either. Everything is turned into a racial debate which is dividing this country more and more. I dont take offense to anyone's arguments or debates on the internet and clearly you are which is not my intent. Maybe Im just more in reality than others, I understand profiling of all types and am well aware of it everyday, deal with it. Its never going to stop and its actually going to get worse the more these type of cases make national news turning into riots and arguments from both sides

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by drftngs14

because if it were a white person dressed the same way and acted the same way TM did, the same results would have followed. Whats more, if it were a white person GZ shot and killed, we wouldnt hear about it either.

If Martin was white, he would have had a thorough investigation the first time around. Zimmerman would have been arrested that night and the case would have meant nothing to no one. Not because he was white, but because it would have looked like any other terrible incident. Statistics show this, history shows this. It is a fact that this country treats young white men differently than young black men - regardless of socioeconomic status and the way they dress.

[drftngs14]

If you can show me actual statistics you speak of Id be happy to support your statement. I will agree that with more money anyone can be protected from the law to an extent, there are plenty examples of both sides for that.

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by drftngs14

If you can show me actual statistics you speak of Id be happy to support your statement. I will agree that with more money anyone can be protected from the law to an extent, there are plenty examples of both sides for that.

This is in regards to SYG (on topic and goes to proving my assertion!). More money absolutely helps, but if you are a black man you start out at a huge deficit to begin with.



Florida Lawmaker Stands His Ground Against Me Over ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law Schools, Law Suits, Judges and Courts + Career Resources

The source for the chart is the Urban Institute's John Roman - http://www.urban.org/bio/JohnRoman.html

http://blog.metrotrends.org/2013/07/...nd-statistics/

[drftngs14]

Ok so you've shown that racism exists and I know that. What I want to see where young black males are treated differently than young white males cause this is what we were discussing. I know all to well there is a major racist problem in this country and its getting worse, in fact Id never even argue against it. What I wont agree with is if you take 2 young males, one black and one white, from economic position, region, similar personalities, view points and wearing similar attire, that they'd be treated different, generally speaking.

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by drftngs14

Ok so you've shown that racism exists and I know that. What I want to see where young black males are treated differently than young white males cause this is what we were discussing. I know all to well there is a major racist problem in this country and its getting worse, in fact Id never even argue against it. What I wont agree with is if you take 2 young males, one black and one white, from economic position, region, similar personalities, view points and wearing similar attire, that they'd be treated different, generally speaking.

When the incident is Black shooter, White victim - 3% are found to be justified. When reversed (White shooter, Black victim) 29% are found to be justified and nearly 36% in SYG states.

Important quote here

"The one gap in the SHR data is the setting where the homicide occurred. If it turns out that almost all the white-on-black homicides occur in residences or businesses and almost all the black-on-white homicides happen on the street, then perhaps there is no racial animus. But if you look through data compiled by the Tampa Bay Tribune on cases in which a SYG defense was used, you do not see much of a difference in setting. Some may think that white-on-black shootings are justified more often because it involves the black person as an intruder while black-on-white shootings happen in different scenarios. This is not the case. Black-on-white shootings also occur in the shooter’s home."

All statistics from FBI crime data.

[drftngs14]

Right, and I agree that generally speaking there is a racism problem here, but young black/white males is the stats I want to see. And a chart doesnt give us the number of cases for each side can easily sway readers, not saying I dont see the obvious picture.

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by drftngs14

Right, and I agree that generally speaking there is a racism problem here, but young black/white males is the stats I want to see. And a chart doesnt give us the number of cases for each side can easily sway readers, not saying I dont see the obvious picture.

Yes it does. It clearly shows that if you are black, your death is 35% more likely to be considered justified when the shooter is white. Whereas if you are white, it is only a 3% chance that it will be seen as justified (whether the shooter is black or white). That stretches across all areas (Crime in nice, bad, business, homes etc). I am not sure what else I can show to prove the main point that white males are treated differently than black males regardless of their socioeconomic status.

I could cite stats on stop/frisk, being pulled over, arrests, drug offense convictions, plea deals accepted for crimes that they are later acquitted of, etc. etc. etc. But I really should not have to, it is common knowledge that this happens.

[bc.]

Having one side of the story is not means to convict someone... and if OJ can get acquitted, I have absolutely no problem with GZ getting acquitted.

As for the Jury, weren't they picked by both sides? What would you say if half were 'black' and the other half 'white'? I doubt we ever see their faces though, I sure as fuck would stay anon...

[Phlip]

Originally Posted by bc.

As for the Jury, weren't they picked by both sides? What would you say if half were 'black' and the other half 'white'? I doubt we ever see their faces though, I sure as fuck would stay anon...

I don't much care about their races (5 white, one non-black minority, for the record). As Zimmerman was the one we were TOLD was on trial - though it wound up being the deceased on trial instead - that a jury of his "peers" would include zero men is curious. Since he was not a black guy, that there were no black men was not so much a curious omission.
And yes, the jury was selected by both sides, furthering my suggestion that the state never intended to actually CONVICT Zimmerman of anything. The time it took them to bother with charging him with anything, and then OVER charging does the same.

[ineedone]

Originally Posted by bc.

Having one side of the story is not means to convict someone... and if OJ can get acquitted, I have absolutely no problem with GZ getting acquitted.

I agree. Like I said, our judicial system is not about getting the truth. Generally speaking, when the government is going to take away your liberty they have a certain burden they MUST prove. Whereas, the defense has no burden to prove anything. What the O.J. case has in common with the Zimmerman case is that when you have experienced and well funded defense attorneys you can create a certain amount of doubt with a states case. Where there is doubt it is nearly impossible to convict someone of those crimes.

Originally Posted by bc.

As for the Jury, weren't they picked by both sides? What would you say if half were 'black' and the other half 'white'? I doubt we ever see their faces though, I sure as fuck would stay anon...

Well, not necessarily. Both sides can object to witnesses for different reasons. Jury selection in these cases is often very contentious, but the attorneys have to make good faith arguments against jurors they want to exclude. As you can imagine, the two sides rarely agree and they both want to have those in the jury that will be more sympathetic to their side. Usually, it takes quite some time for jury selection and neither side ends up very happy. It is one of the more common appeals if the defense loses the case.

6 woman/men juries are troublesome to me. I would prefer a larger more diverse group. The fault I saw with this jury was not necessarily race, but gender. A male juror may have not seen Zimmerman's injuries as "life-threatening" and may have had a different opinion as to what a regular street fight is vs. a situation where someone is claiming to be afraid for their life. Who knows though... I seriously doubt any Florida jury would have convicted 2nd degree, but manslaughter was certainly in play. The initial votes of the jurors were 1 for 2nd degree, 2 for Manslaughter, and 3 for acquittal.

[Corbic]

Originally Posted by ineedone

If Martin was white, he would have had a thorough investigation the first time around. Zimmerman would have been arrested that night and the case would have meant nothing to no one. Not because he was white, but because it would have looked like any other terrible incident. Statistics show this, history shows this. It is a fact that this country treats young white men differently than young black men - regardless of socioeconomic status and the way they dress.

There was a thorough investigation. Stop being ignorant. The investigation said it was self-defense. So sorry Black American disagreed with the investigative results. So we then had a trial... which also came to the conclusion that it was self defense. Black America still disagrees.

If only they put this much thought and care into the thousand of children murdered each year in the streets by other black people.

[Corbic]

Originally Posted by ineedone

I agree. Like I said, our judicial system is not about getting the truth. Generally speaking, when the government is going to take away your liberty they have a certain burden they MUST prove. Whereas, the defense has no burden to prove anything. What the O.J. case has in common with the Zimmerman case is that when you have experienced and well funded defense attorneys you can create a certain amount of doubt with a states case. Where there is doubt it is nearly impossible to convict someone of those crimes.

I'm addressing all your other BS here. See, your statements above clearly show you do not have an understanding of the criminal justice system, nor have you read, watched or tried to understand the Zimmerman case.

OJ and Zimmerman have nothing to do with each other, other than the media and black community made it a "race" issue.

What normally happens in a murder investigation is that the investigators collect evidence and witness statements and then put the evidence and statements together with logical deductions to create a time-line of events. If you had watched one episode of CSI ever, you would know this.

It is not normal by any stretch of the imagination for LE to say "Zimmerman shot a kid, how do we convict him for murder".

What they do is they say - "ok, George shot the kid, this is his story... does the evidence collected, the witness statements and reasoning support it". Time and time again in GZ's case the evidence supports the story.

During the trial the Prosecution was completely unable to present a story of what "happen". It is the prosecutions job to state "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED. HERE IS THE SCIENTIFIC FACTS, HERE ARE THE WITNESSES... THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED!"

Meanwhile, the defense will then say "well.... what are the chances someone else has a gun just like that... or maybe this is what happened" Their job is to create doubt.

The OJ case created "doubt" because the defense was aloud to brutally attack the LAPD over race and basically say "what if this is all a police conspiracy to frame a black man"... and the majority black jury still pissed over Rodney Dangerfield aquatinted OJ out of spite. In fact one Juror would go onto say "I know he did it, but white people get away all the time, this time a black man walks free".

So once again. GZ had a story. He had evidence that supported it. The prosecutions too big "ah ha" moments are - a witness that couldn't tell who was on top - even though ballistics confirm TM was. And a medical expert that said GZ wasn't going to die from the wounds he sustain - well no shit, he's in court.

At no time, as you are trying to say, did the prosecution try and say TM defended himself, or that GZ was the attacker or that TM did not hit GZ. They only thing the Prosecutor tried to say was "George wasn't in any life treating danger, so he didn't need to shoot" .

Originally Posted by ineedone

6 woman/men juries are troublesome to me. I would prefer a larger more diverse group. The fault I saw with this jury was not necessarily race, but gender. A male juror may have not seen Zimmerman's injuries as "life-threatening" and may have had a different opinion as to what a regular street fight is vs. a situation where someone is claiming to be afraid for their life. Who knows though... I seriously doubt any Florida jury would have convicted 2nd degree, but manslaughter was certainly in play. The initial votes of the jurors were 1 for 2nd degree, 2 for Manslaughter, and 3 for acquittal.

Most of the time you need an unanimous vote. The more jurors you have, the more likely you would get someone that say doubt in the prosecutions case.

Personally I'd want Jurors of my peers. 30 year old professionals with MBAs, not the illiterate pond scum you typically see.

Also, how do you not know the women where not deserve? Economics, education, marital status, children, age, ethnic background, religion, political views, profession, sexual preference. I'm sorry, but there is more to life then skin-tone.

Saying you need a black person on the jury is actually racist, because I would hope not all black people are the same.

[Corbic]

Originally Posted by ineedone

Ever think that is because blacks are most likely to be the assailant?

From the FBI - which is headed by a black man, so no calling racist DOJ.

FBI &mdash; Expanded Homicide Data Table 3

11% of the population is know to commit 30% of the populations murders (the largest margin).


Also, I love your source. Bias much? http://abovethelaw.com/

I'd like to see their data source - I'd also like to understand how you can have a "negative" percentage. Does that mean people that don't even claim SYG get convicted?

[godsmack]

Why should he have been placed under arrest when the cops got there? He shot someone in self defense and there was no evidence that would've proved otherwise as he did everything that he should've being on night watch. He place the 911 call followed and then got attacked.

I agree that it sucks that someone died as a result but this is the reason that we are allowed to carry firearms. You can die from ground and pound. The funny ppl with mma experience should really know that. It's in the waivers that you sign since you can recieve massive brain trauma from it.

[Phlip]

Originally Posted by Corbic

The OJ case created "doubt" because the defense was aloud to brutally attack the LAPD over race and basically say "what if this is all a police conspiracy to frame a black man"... and the majority black jury still pissed over Rodney Dangerfield aquatinted OJ out of spite. In fact one Juror would go onto say "I know he did it, but white people get away all the time, this time a black man walks free".

You are an idiot, I am having a hard time believing you are not a bigot and you can't spell.

[Corbic]

Originally Posted by Phlip

You are an idiot, you are probably a bigot and you can't spell.

Soundz lyke uz our profying me.

I'm well aware of the difference between Rodney Daingerfield and Rodney King.

[xilovelsdx]

Originally Posted by Corbic

Soundz lyke uz our profying me.

I'm well aware of the difference between Rodney Daingerfield and Rodney King.

Bro, your'e white so you're automatically racist and your opinion does not matter.

[Corbic]

Originally Posted by xilovelsdx

Bro, your'e white so you're automatically racist and your opinion does not matter.

Even though my people were slaves at one time and persecuted for their ethnicity?

[godsmack]

Originally Posted by Corbic

Even though my people were slaves at one time and persecuted for their ethnicity?

So tell me this. Should I get in trouble now for beating up some stupid low life black guy because he started with me because I'm white? Just had some idiot come up to me and start running his mouth about this whole zimmerman trial. Did any of the white ppl start shit with black ppl when oj got let off? No. Most african americans in my neck of the woods are seriously disturbed and only getting worse.

I'm not racist by anymeans but it doesn't help the cause when well more than half of the crimes committed in my area are from that race.