I think you are conflating a few different things in this post, and sending out a muddled message because of it. First of all, there is very little evidence that Martin was a "thug." Did he have a juvee or criminal record? No. Did he have any known gang affiliation? No. Any firsthand accounts of violence, crime, theft, arson, anything? Nope. So what's your basis for calling him a thug?
The only people for whom the shooter's race is of paramount importance are the racists and the race-baiters. Of which we have (in my opinion) a small number of each, making a great deal of noise. (And it can be very hard to tell the two groups apart.)
Nah, this country is pretty darn great. Look, in this case race can matter exactly as much as you want it to. But I think the urge to discredit and blame Martin for his own shooting, as expressed by you and Whacker in this thread, is misguided, and comes from a sense that liberals and blacks such as Al Sharpton are trying to milk this incident for their own purposes. (Which undoubtedly they are.) So to defuse it, and redirect your anger, you reach for calling Martin a "thug," based on slim to zero evidence.
I get what you're doing, but I think it is misguided. Martin's shooting can be a horrible tragedy and a softball for race-baiters. One does not exclude the other. The "stand your ground" laws can be a horrible perversion of justice and Bobby Rush can be a grandstanding idiot. One does not cancel out the other.
Think about the standard for lethal violence written into Florida's law: you merely need to "feel" threatened to use deadly force. Contrast that with the standard for violence, in, say, the Old West, where you typically had to demonstrate that they other feller touched his gun first. We're more lax than that, which is kinda head-snapping if you think about it.
Don't let racist idiots and/or race-baiting trolls derail you from the serious issues at stake here.
-edit-
A side-note: We've had three years of gun ownership and 2nd A groups screaming that Obama was going to take our guns away. Even though not a single legislative or administrative move has been made, they're still going on about it. And all the while, concealed-carry permits have been getting okayed in state after state, the castle doctrine has been expanded in almost every state, and something like 26 states have passed "stand your ground" laws with the support of ALEC and the NRA. It certainly seems that the more the NRA gets exactly what it wants, the harder it screams and cries to its membership. I wonder if there is any end-game or final state that would actually satisfy them. You want to talk about special-interest groups that scream "victim" constantly with little to no basis in fact or reality?
Bookmarks