Replies

It's a shame liberals can't see their noses right in front of them: They try to say we don't have the right to defend ourselves and that, when confronted with the potential for violence, we should try to "run away" from it.

So why do they try to say Zimmerman was at fault when it was Martin who really had the chance to avoid a confrontation - "run away"?

Martin did not have to confront Zimmerman the way he did. He could have asked why Zimmerman was following him and after being told that he was the Neighborhood Watchman just checking things out, Martin could have ID'd himself and been on his way home (with his "Skittles").

But no, Martin had to initiate a violent confrontation, probably such as what he is used to in his environment (and that does not necessarily mean "black"!).

Liberals are always harping on how kids turn bad due to the environment they're brought up in. Well, here was a perfect chance for them to step up to the plate and put their words to action. But what did they do? They chose to play the race card.

Martin is dead because he wanted to play the tough guy, maybe even thought he had to, such as it is in today's society.

... if TM had been confronted with a BLACK handgun instead of a WHITE handgun, there would have been:

no “civil rights” issue-
no “stalking”-
no “vigilantism”-
no “lynching”-
no “hate crime”-
no “ashamed to be an American”-

Sadly, TM would have been just another ‘murder’ statistic added to the heap of young dead Black men killed by a Black gun.

But, put that SAME GUN in the hands of a NON-Black American and it magically turns into a racist weapon, used to “hunt” Black Americans with the sole purpose of trampling on their “civil rights” with the Black ‘criminal’ becoming the ‘victim’; and because the gun owner is NOT Black, he/she has NO civil rights, NO “right to life” and is never justified in “bringing” a White gun to a Black crime-

Just my 2cents...