DescentBB

i can tell who's black and who's not just by reading this thread.

ThugsRook wrote:i can tell who's black and who's not just by reading this thread.

That is quite an interesting skill, assuming it is true, but is it really useful?
Can you tell who is correct? That is the important distinction, color is just eye candy.

ThugsRook wrote:i can tell who's black and who's not just by reading this thread.

REALLY please enlighten us.

funny Bill Clinton was considered the first black president. did you get that one right just by reading his writings??.
and how about President Obama, can you tell he's not "Black" just by his writings?
How about Col. Alan West, can you tell what race he is by his writings or his accent??
Or How about Dr, Ben Carson??

or does someone need to sound like Al Sharpton Or Jessie Jackson for you to tell

Nah, I'm not biting. This board has become almost unbearable to read and post on. I can't imagine how unpleasant it must be to live around some of you; I enjoyed the banter when I was younger but now that I'm a bit older it just makes me feel a little bad for most of you. The hate and disdain that you hold for your fellow countrymen just boggles my mind. Please continue your thread where you blame a kid walking down the street with nothing but a can of iced tea and a bag of skittles for getting shot. No desire to be a part of these types of discussions with the kinds of people that post to this board.

I guess the fact that his reaction to being followed by a "creepy ass cracker" by pile-driving him in the snout, jumping on top of him and "slapping him MMA style" while banging his head on the ground while the guy screams for help holds no bearing at all to you? You must be a politician! Is it not interesting to note that the only wound martin received was the gunshot that took his life?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:It's hard to explain expectations of civilized behavior to someone who likes to believe that adolescent anarchy is the sanctioned norm.

You obviously don't live in a college town. I swear that adolescents here (and in most college towns for that matter) think that drinking, partying, carousing around, urinating in people's yards, giving you lip or a dose of vandalism if you tell them to quit being jerks, playing music so load the windows rattle and being general assholes to their neighbors is a RIGHT OF PASSAGE. And these are WHITE kids to. So where does that come from, because that kind of insolent crap sure wasn't taught to me by my parents.

Will Robinson wrote:And there lies the heart of the matter! 'Martin thought he was justified starting a fight'!!!
He wasn't justified by any custom of civilized society or any law of self defense, etc. he was justified by his programming that anyone who dares consider him a 'problem' based on 'appearance' can be beaten to the ground and have their head pummeled into stone!
That firey anger that is kept stoked by the race mongers is what led him to his doom.

You're probably right. But you've never lived the life of a black teenager and neither have I. Their world is far different than ours and in their minds, things they normally justify are far different than what we normally justify. It may not be right by our white society's standards, but it has to be taken into consideration when interacting with others who's culture is drastically different than what we're used to. Therein lies the problem between Zimmerman and Martin. Zimmerman assumed he was stopping a criminal punk black kid out for no good. Martin thought he was defending himself against a potential attacker following him because that's what he knew about life in a society that still distrusts most black people. Nobody won.

tunnelcat wrote:[...

You're probably right. But you've never lived the life of a black teenager and neither have I. Their world is far different than ours and in their minds, things they normally justify are far different than what we normally justify. It may not be right by our white society's standards, but it has to be taken into consideration when interacting with others who's culture is drastically different than what we're used to. Therein lies the problem between Zimmerman and Martin. Zimmerman assumed he was stopping a criminal punk black kid out for no good. Martin thought he was defending himself against a potential attacker following him because that's what he knew about life in a society that still distrusts most black people. Nobody won.

You are right, I've never been a black person but if the proper solution is to not interact because they might try to kill me out of misplaced anger then perhaps the source of their misplaced anger needs to be blamed instead of people unfortunate enough to interact with them!

Look at cobgobblers last description of who Martin was in the moment before he was shot!
Do we have to turn a blind eye to reality like he just did and ignore potentially lethal physical assault by black people because they have a chip on their shoulder that is 2 generations too late to be justified?!?Just turn the other side of your head and hope the brains don't spill out if the attacker is black but its ok to shoot the white ones after the first time your head hits concrete?!!

No, this bull★■◆● has gone way too far! It's time to demand a nation wide reality check. The way the excuses have been churned out has led us to this critical tipping point where the President of the US will help his AG churn up race riots where there was no racial component to the tragedy!

Attn: Black Americans! Yes slavery hurt your people. It was hell for your great grandparents. Its been a long hard road for your grandparents and still kind of hard for your parents. No you don't get to kill white people for looking at you like they think you are criminals!
And if the black people are disproportionately responsible for crimes in your surroundings you may get some of those looks even though you look like you could be the Presidents son. Find a non violent way to cope....think Dr. King not Rev. Al!

CobGobbler wrote:Clearly this is all moot...kinda boring to talk about anyways. Can't we go back to some topic where Obama killed Jesus and Democratic cuts to defense were the reason Bane was able to take over Gotham City?

very funny prose!

flip wrote:I guess the version of the story claiming that his reaction to being followed by a "creepy ass cracker" by pile-driving him in the snout, jumping on top of him and "slapping him MMA style" while banging his head on the ground while the guy screams for help holds no bearing at all to you? You must be a politician! Is it not interesting to note that the only wound martin received was the gunshot that took his life?

changed the word 'fact' to the part in red, which might be wordier, but FAR more accurate.

callmeslick wrote:

flip wrote:I guess the version of the story claiming that his reaction to being followed by a "creepy ass cracker" by pile-driving him in the snout, jumping on top of him and "slapping him MMA style" while banging his head on the ground while the guy screams for help holds no bearing at all to you? You must be a politician! Is it not interesting to note that the only wound martin received was the gunshot that took his life?

changed the word 'fact' to the part in red, which might be wordier, but FAR more accurate.

Ok, but if you are now abandoning fiction in search of reality in such a pedantic fashion shouldn't that red part say something like :

flip wrote:I guess the 'version of the story that is more likely and far better supported by evidence'....that his reaction to being followed by a "creepy ass cracker" by pile-driving him in the snout, jumping on top of him and "slapping him MMA style" while banging his head on the ground while the guy screams for help holds no bearing at all to you? You must be a politician! Is it not interesting to note that the only wound martin received was the gunshot that took his life?

once again, Will you stray from provable matters, to sheer opinion. As has been pointed out by no less than the damned jury members, no story seems 'more likely' the facts just aren't there.


On related news, this women is tying it neatly into religion......heck, I wonder why she is a religious studies professor if this is the best she could come up with:
http://now.msn.com/anthea-butler-univer ... d=ansnowex

Will Robinson wrote:b

Attn: Black Americans! Yes slavery hurt your people. It was hell for your great grandparents. Its been a long hard road for your grandparents and still kind of hard for your parents.

Hmmm...didn't a awful lot of creepy ass white northern boys die during the civil war so assholes like Jackson/Sharpton/Holder could blame whitey for all the problems the Negros have today?

of course, none of those people did any such thing, unless one is completely incapable of parsing moderate complexity English.

Will Robinson wrote:You are right, I've never been a black person but if the proper solution is to not interact because they might try to kill me out of misplaced anger then perhaps the source of their misplaced anger needs to be blamed instead of people unfortunate enough to interact with them!

Look at cobgobblers last description of who Martin was in the moment before he was shot!
Do we have to turn a blind eye to reality like he just did and ignore potentially lethal physical assault by black people because they have a chip on their shoulder that is 2 generations too late to be justified?!?Just turn the other side of your head and hope the brains don't spill out if the attacker is black but its ok to shoot the white ones after the first time your head hits concrete?!!

No, this **** has gone way too far! It's time to demand a nation wide reality check. The way the excuses have been churned out has led us to this critical tipping point where the President of the US will help his AG churn up race riots where there was no racial component to the tragedy!

Attn: Black Americans! Yes slavery hurt your people. It was hell for your great grandparents. Its been a long hard road for your grandparents and still kind of hard for your parents. No you don't get to kill white people for looking at you like they think you are criminals!
And if the black people are disproportionately responsible for crimes in your surroundings you may get some of those looks even though you look like you could be the Presidents son. Find a non violent way to cope....think Dr. King not Rev. Al!

Will, have you ever read the book, Black Like Me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Like_Me

Maybe you should. I had to read it in high school in the 1970's when the Civil Rights Movement was still fresh, painful and raw. It was something I needed to read back then and maybe you should too. As long as we have bitter and resentful white people like Rush Limbaugh stirring up the pot, things will never change between cultures.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... oo/277870/

Will Robinson's edit wrote:...'version of the story that is more likely and far better supported by evidence'.......

Will, you're still making assumptions. We have zero evidence (i.e. nothing more than testimony) about that part of the event (the beginning of the fight).

If you think it's "more likely" that Zimmerman did nothing to provoke the fight given the way it ended, that's your perogative. But yours is not the only interpretation, and again, there's no hard evidence for it.

[ To wit, my "most likely" scenario is one of Zimmerman confronting Martin, Martin reacting strongly, and Martin winning the physical fight before Zimmerman decides to use his gun to end it. ]

Note that my interpretation is no "more likely" or "less likely" than yours, simply because neither one of us have anything beyond subjective notions about character from indirect evidence.

Foil wrote:

Will Robinson's edit wrote:...'version of the story that is more likely and far better supported by evidence'.......

Will, you're still making assumptions. We have zero evidence (i.e. nothing more than testimony) about that part of the event (the beginning of the fight).

Foil I think you are not addressing the comment that was challenged and then re-characterized by Slick. It seems you are falling back to the overall case and then offering your view...

Here is what was being discussed:

Cobgobbler said:

CobGobbler wrote:..... Please continue your thread where you blame a kid walking down the street with nothing but a can of iced tea and a bag of skittles for getting shot..

Flip challenged that with:

flip wrote:I guess the fact that his reaction to being followed by a "creepy ass cracker" by pile-driving him in the snout, jumping on top of him and "slapping him MMA style" while banging his head on the ground while the guy screams for help holds no bearing at all to you? ...

I don't see how in the world you or slick can claim Cobgobblers version of a kid walks harmlessly down the street and is shot by Z' is more likely the truth than Flips version!!

There certainly is evidence that Travon brought much more to the event than Skittles and iced T!!

And that false narrative that Cob spouts is what is fueling racial tensions in the country right now. People in power validating that bull★■◆● version is dispicable! Innocent people are being beaten up daily because that bull★■◆● narrative is being repeated by people who know better and who's positions of power are being corrupted by their acts of race baiting!

The physical evidence supports the theory that Martin threw the first punch and was never hit by Z. Z's hands showed no sign of having struck anyone and M's body had no signs of being struck by Z. The testimony supports that scenario and that M proceeded to dominate the physical contact to very large degree. That is a strong case for "likely hood"!

Please show me actual testimony or evidence that shows it was more likely that M did nothing more than walk down the street with groceries and get shot!!

And Slick, the jury supports that assessment contrary to your claims.
They couldn't have found Z innocent of manslaughter without having reached that conclusion. You can't enter into willful combat and then claim self defense.... I believe only Stand Your Ground allows that and Z didn't take that as a defense...

Two things that are tearing up this country right now is pretending M didn't do anything to really hurt Z ( or in some cases that he did nothing violent at all, as was claimed here) and the second thing is people spreading the lie that M died because he was black.

This was a pretty clear cut self defense case between two minorities but the media and race mongers turned it into racial murderer escapes justice payday!,
Thanks a lot all of you who are helping keep that fire burning! Obama, Holder, that ★■◆● Corey, Sharpton, Jackson, and most liberals who fall lockstep behind their leaders. Thanks a bunch!
Lets hope you get your political payoff out of it without actually killing anyone...

I really really really wish I could drag someone in here who's competent enough to give Will a proper schooling on white privilege.

TG, I could spell it out for him very precisely, having grown up with it as an accepted way of life in VA. The problem is, Will wouldn't accept it.

callmeslick wrote:TG, I could spell it out for him very precisely, having grown up with it as an accepted way of life in VA. The problem is, Will wouldn't accept it.

I understand white privilege but all the various advantages white people have enjoyed compared to blacks don't justify the kind of exemptions from reality I'm pointing out.

There is no amount of suffering and lingering disadvantage that justifies the law being remade to allow exclusions for black people to commit crimes out of some sense of past injustices toward their ancestors. Nor for any current disadvantages, no good cause for demanding other people treat them with the kind of extreme caution that many of you are suggesting is due to their alleged low boiling point.

Just because you are sympathetic to their plight doesn't mean you should rationalize away the core structure of what makes equal justice a viable platform. We have allowed the self proclaimed civil rights leaders to twist the movement into a political weapon and like all politicians they wield their weapons with gross disregard for friendly casualties.

Race relations and justice are not served if you can convict Zimmerman because, although he broke no law, he offended the sensibilities of blacks by possibly profiling Martin based on race. Then again it was possibly because Martin was suspicious looking standing in the alleyway in the rain between the backs of the houses just looking about and at the time Zimmerman couldn't even tell the operator for certain what the suspects race was....
The elephant in the room there is, discovering Martin was black only increases the just cause for suspicion due to the fact that most of he crime in the area was carried out by young black males!

That uncomfortable reality can not be excluded from the thought process of any neighborhood watch person....it can not be excluded from the narrative if you are attempting in good faith to understand the events!
Yet that is the kind of foolish mechanism you are suggesting we build into our social conscious out of deference to black people.

It isn't right. It is counter productive to justice and to race relations and currently the people trying to hold up the absence of such a flawed thought process in the debate/verdict is causing millions of black people to sustain and build anger that is not justified!

You are fomenting severe civil and social strife by trying to champion such a foolish logic! No matter how bad it has been for blacks and how slow it has been for them to enjoy equal justice under the law the solution can not be to undermine the foundation of equal justice. Not for any reason....certainly not vengeance!

If there was no political advantage for one party to feed this fire many of the loudest voices shouting 'justice for Trayvon' wouldn't be shouting at all!

I wonder how many of the same people who are outraged with the Zimmerman verdict…were also outraged when OJ got away with bloody murder.

Some blacks have confessed they believed OJ was guilty, but wanted him to get away with it, due to some sort of twisted sense of justice.

All of this ★■◆● has to end, and I do believe the white enablers play a large part.

Spidey wrote:I wonder how many of the same people who are outraged with the Zimmerman verdict…were also outraged when OJ got away with bloody murder.

I was outraged at neither. Massive publicity plays into the defense, virtually every time. Other examples abound.

talk about 'making assumptions'....this loon is making it up as he goes:
http://thegrio.com/2013/07/15/ted-nugen ... a-wannabe/

Anyone who takes something that Ted Nugent says seriously is the true loon.

Ted Nugent only speaks for himself…who do Holder, Jackson, Rangel & Sharpton speak for?

And fortunately, he didn't carry out his little threat either.

Spidey wrote:Ted Nugent only speaks for himself…who do Holder, Jackson, Rangel & Sharpton speak for?

themselves, and what, pray tell, do they say that is so awful, at present(qualified because all but Holder have said some gawd-awful goofy crap in the past)?

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Ted Nugent only speaks for himself…who do Holder, Jackson, Rangel & Sharpton speak for?

themselves, and what, pray tell, do they say that is so awful, at present(qualified because all but Holder have said some gawd-awful goofy crap in the past)?

Holder speaks for the U.S. Justice Department and the President (as the President has said many times when dodging a question from the media that he wants to pass on). I think when he said white people can't be a victim of hate crimes, it only works the other way around was more than awful considering he is the Attorney General of the U.S.

but, Holder didn't say that, he merely gave what is the standard legal definition of a prosecutable offense under the US Civil Rights Act. That law defines the offense in question as a person being victimized solely or primarily because he/she was a member of a historically discriminated-against minority. That not only leaves out white people, but a lot of other people as well, but that is the gist of the wording, and the consistent legal precedent. He wasn't saying that white people cannot be victims of hate crimes, but merely that the Feds can't prosecute for that. While we're at it, let me get another thing out that's been annoying me: the suggestion that it is somehow dubious for the Justice dept to investigate the matter of Zimmerman committing a Federal Civil Rights violation. The justice dept gets thousands of such requests, and prosecutes very few. They DO however, investigate a large percentage, and that is how it should be. NOT INVESTIGATING racially motivated crime is where we were, as a nation 40 years ago.

Well it seems Holder is just as stupid (and politically motivated) as the prosecutor that brought the Zimmerman case to trial. Seems Holder wants all the evidence (as well as Zimmermans gun) from the trial held. I guess Holder thinks he can play the angles better than the Florida prosecutor can. Of course when you are a racist bigot, doing things like this to placate the black voter masses is just par for the course.

The Civil Rights code is just an excuse for legalized double jeopardy.

woodchip wrote:Well it seems Holder is just as stupid (and politically motivated) as the prosecutor that brought the Zimmerman case to trial. Seems Holder wants all the evidence (as well as Zimmermans gun) from the trial held. I guess Holder thinks he can play the angles better than the Florida prosecutor can. Of course when you are a racist bigot, doing things like this to placate the black voter masses is just par for the course.

it gets even better. the DOJ has put out a hotline for information showing racism by Zimmerman. this cannot go well

Witch hunt.

Oh and BTW...

Honest to god slick, I can’t even understand why some crazy rock and roller is even on your radar, want to hear some truly disturbing things musicians are saying…listen to what some of the “rappers” are saying.

Slick, it sounds like you are trying to imply Holder isn't responsible for the fact that whites aren't protected. As if his hands are tied and we shouldn't acuse him of taking that position.
The fact is he was a proponent for that legislation! He testified before Congress insupport of it. So when I say he said it....I mean he said it and he meant it....he supports it....he lives it and it sucks that our AG and President are only concerned with a special kind of 'equal justice'.

Under questioning, Attorney Gen. Holder was surprisingly forthright in admitting that the hate bill is not intended to protect everyone, or even the majority. He said only historically oppressed minorities were to benefit. This means Jews, blacks, homosexuals, women, etc. Holder made it clear that if a white Christian male, including a serviceman or police officer, was the victim of a violent hate crime by any minority he would have to find redress from traditional law. He could not avail himself of the triple penalties and rapid government/justice system response given a protected minority.

And as for his latest attempt to pose for pictures of him hunting the fearsome racist white guy hiding in hispanic Zimmermas body.... the FBI had already investigated the possibility that Zimmerman violated Martins civil rights and they determined there was no basis for charging Zimmerman for any kind of race based offense.

The current Justice Department investigation is nothing but another show trial in the making (that will probably never happen because he knows there is no way he can win). They just want to keep feeding the fire.

Will Robinson wrote:Slick, it sounds like you are trying to imply Holder isn't responsible for the fact that whites aren't protected. As if his hands are tied and we shouldn't acuse him of taking that position.

well, the fact that he didn't write the law should inform you. Yeesh.

The fact is he was a proponent for that legislation! He testified before Congress insupport of it. So when I say he said it....I mean he said it and he meant it....he supports it....he lives it and it sucks that our AG and President are only concerned with a special kind of 'equal justice'.

he testified for the Civil Rights Act? Really? He was what, 20 years old at the time?


and I repeat, in response to you loons, investigation is good, and routine in any of this type cases. PROSECUTION of Zimmerman would, IMO, be wrong, and I suspect the DOJ will agree.

Wow maybe you should read more if you would have read the quote you would have seen that he was talking about the hate crime laws.

Heretic wrote:Wow maybe you should read more if you would have read the quote you would have seen that he was talking about the hate crime laws.

Slick doesn't care about details, only party line defense...a little moving the goal posts...obfuscation...all in a good little democrats days work

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Slick, it sounds like you are trying to imply Holder isn't responsible for the fact that whites aren't protected. As if his hands are tied and we shouldn't acuse him of taking that position.

well, the fact that he didn't write the law should inform you. Yeesh.

The fact is he was a proponent for that legislation! He testified before Congress insupport of it. So when I say he said it....I mean he said it and he meant it....he supports it....he lives it and it sucks that our AG and President are only concerned with a special kind of 'equal justice'.

he testified for the Civil Rights Act? Really? He was what, 20 years old at the time?

Nice try....failed though.
See Heretics reply again if you have already begun to ignore it.

Lets cut right through your bullcrap ploy. Do you actually believe Holder would make all citizens equally protected under the law or do you realize he supports excluding white males?
Do you know that he has applied the 'blacks can't be racist' logic to other aspects of the law he is supposed to protect?


And if the investigation into Zimmermans possible racist motivations/inclinations is already done don't you think the Fed should stop spouting off about the investigation and pretending they might still be bringing charges when they know there is no evidence to support a case?

Why do you imply the DOJ isn't decided as to Zimmermans state of mind regarding race?

By continuing the narrative that Zimmerman is potentially guilty of civil rights offenses they/you promote the false narrative that Zimmerman escaped justice and fuel the racial tensioning in the country which is already far too intense thanks to all the underhanded attempts to railroad Zimmerman.

Gawd, it is perennially amazing that the same folks who decry 'low information voters' as the reason for their opponents success show such a complete lack of comprehension of real facts, and do so on a regular basis.
The Civil Rights Act(what Zimmerman would be potentially charged under) was passed in the 1960s and deals EXCLUSIVELY with racial crimes. Yes, the comment made was correct, insofar as it is a sort of 'double' prosecution, but was aimed at acquittals by all-white juries for aggregious offenses with ample facts for conviction. The Hate Crimes statutes, a product of the 90s, did NOTHING except expand such federal prosecution to religious and sexual orientation minorities. Thus, Holder was correct in stating that such things as black on white crimes would not be covered by the proposed bill which was made law. At no time, for no reason, did he suggest that whites couldn't be victims, he merely stated that such crimes couldn't be prosecuted under the Hate Crimes or Civil Rights act, as they would be thrown out of court.
Those are the facts, dance all you want, but nothing in there suggests that Eric Holder is doing anything WHATSOEVER that wouldn't be said and done by any competent Attorney General, which, by the way, we hadn't had for a while prior to his taking the job.

Will Robinson wrote:.

Lets cut right through your bullcrap ploy. Do you actually believe Holder would make all citizens equally protected under the law or do you realize he supports excluding white males?

I have no idea of what laws he would design, and neither do you.

Do you know that he has applied the 'blacks can't be racist' logic to other aspects of the law he is supposed to protect?

give an example, and PLEASE, do not cite the New Black Panthers, a case that was not brought because NO ONE in the district had evidence of any vote not being cast due to intimidation, and that the people who filed the claim didn't live in the district at all.

And if the investigation into Zimmermans possible racist motivations/inclinations is already done don't you think the Fed should stop spouting off about the investigation and pretending they might still be bringing charges when they know there is no evidence to support a case?

no one has 'spouted off' beyond stating that an investigation is ongoing, which happens all the time, at all levels. No one is pretending to do a damn thing, that is merely your creative imagination. Find me one official word implying otherwise, I dare you.

Why do you imply the DOJ isn't decided as to Zimmermans state of mind regarding race?

imply, hell, I'll state clearly that they haven't decided, officially, as there would be a final decision made.

By continuing the narrative that Zimmerman is potentially guilty of civil rights offenses they/you promote the false narrative that Zimmerman escaped justice and fuel the racial tensioning in the country which is already far too intense thanks to all the underhanded attempts to railroad Zimmerman.

railroad my ass. Someone died, and there should have been more aggressive investigation at the outset. That's water over the dam, at this point, but NO ONE at any official level is implying a damned thing about his guilt. All they are is acknowledging that they are investigating. This sort of announcement happens all the time. You just have your racist panties in a bunch because a black AJ is working for a black President and you don't like it. You've long ago shown your true colors on that subject. Now, you bolster your preassumed position with a bunch of suppositions and outright fabrications. Sorry, bunky, but that doesn't strengthen your case.

Obama/ Holder told the DOJ attorneys they wont prosecute the black panther members who were clearly intimidating voters...caught on film and eyewitness testimony abound! But since you have declared that example doesn't count because they...wait for it....didn't prosecute the case?!? Because a bunch of black guys at the poll entrance spouting anti white hate speech isn't intimidating if the witnesses are from a different district...if you can't show a vote not cast?!? Wow! Do you think a bunch of skinheads at a Philly precinct shouting 'niggers can't vote here'...etc. would have escaped Holders wrath if the witnesses were from another precinct?!? Would you be implying it didn't happen because of that?!?

Yea keep on moving the goal posts you are bound to score eventually.

And I love how you dismiss the rest of my points by pulling out the race card! You simply declare I'm a racist therefore you don't have to prove anything. Well done , you are indeed a trusted member of the good little democrat club.

Zimmerman was not charged initially but political pressure from Holder/Obama caused the local authorities to get a new prosecutor, fire the police chief, demote the lead detective because they, who knew the facts, were not behind the attempt to prosecute. The DOJ spent taxpayer funds to create the protests in Sanford that were then used to pressure the local authority to get with the DOJ program. They subsequently withheld evidence in the case.
The mainstream media edited photographs and audio tape to make Zimmerman appear to be unharmed in the assault and sound like he was citing race as the primary reason he was suspicious of Martin...

But no, according to slick there has been no railroading of Zimmerman....rriigghhhtttt....
Slick says move along nothing to see here