And you won't be sure, either, because you never asked, not even by implication. Your preference was to accuse me, albeit as gently as possible, of being a liar.
No. I was going to accuse you of either being an irrational racist motivated by emotional hate for white people or some irrational mouthbreather with a persecution complex who watches too much of what passes for "news" these days, but I decided against doing so (I even edited my post), not only out of a fear of being banned but also out of respect of the fact that I don't really know you enough to jump to those conclusions.
And no, I didn't ask, because where your ignorance comes from is irrelevant, and I don't care.
From that, I kind of have to assume you don't actually care whether I'm genuinely misinformed, because you'd rather treat me as an enemy to defeat in some crusade for...I don't know, let's say moral superiority. I don't suppose it matters to me either way what you think you're winning from such a fight.
So you're miffed that I made an unfounded accusation in "implying" that you were a liar, and then you overtly accuse me of going on a crusade to gain moral superiority over you. Congratulations on being the most blatant hypocrite I've ever seen.
I'm guessing from the rest of your post that you think I believe Trayvon Martin is the instigator of the fight, yet I still side with him because I think black people deserve to attack and possibly kill white(-ish) people for the crime of being white(-ish) because that's totally a thing sane people think. I'm not interested in dealing with that, so I won't.
Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant. Just don't spew your faith to others like it was fact.
He was the instigator of the attack when he decided to start pummeling Zimmerman's face in. Zimmerman could have spewed the most racist pejoratives ever to Martin's face; that doesn't justify the violent assault Martin committed whatsoever.
I wish I could convince you that I simply don't believe Zimmerman's self-serving recitation of events
Right, because it's not like there was a trial or anything where the prosecution failed to provide any meaningful evidence to the contrary or rebut basically any of Zimmerman's claims or disprove any of his evidence. The fact that you think there is even a question of doubt shows a lot about your willingness to self-delude.
but I just don't think it's possible for anyone but yourself to make you believe
Projection, much? I'm not the deluded one, here.
I think anything other than that Trayvon Martin was the instigator, a rabid dog in the shape of a man who attacked a human being without any provocation other than the evil voices in his head commanding him to kill in the name of the Beast whose mark is 666,
Blah blah blah blah...
I don't really care that you need an absurd strawman just to make your point coherent, just don't do it around me. It's pretty damn insulting that you think that will fly with me.
Y'know he was a drug addict, right? And in fact a fan of a particular cocktail called "Purple Drank" or "Lean" whose symptoms include psychotic breaks and paranoia, the kind that might make you lash out at a random passerby over a perceived harm? The ingredients to which he happened to be carrying with him at the time of the incident and had most likely gone to the store to purchase?
You know, also, that he had repeatedly violent altercations with people from school? Specifically for "snitching" on him?
I have no trouble believing that Trayvon Martin, in a drug-fueled rage, attacked a random passerby who he perceived as some kind of threat, given his history of substance abuse, the presence of drugs in his system, the ingredients for the drug cocktail he was addicted to located on his person, and his history of resorting to violence to solve his problems in the past. Meanwhile, I have considerable doubt that Zimmerman attacked Martin first or even ever threw a punch, given that Martin was on top of Zimmerman the entire time as evidenced by the state of Zimmermans clothes, and given the state of the injuries on Zimmerman's face and Martins knuckles (from beating on Martin) and the lack of any other injuries anywhere else on either person, and given the lack of any reason to believe how or why Zimmerman would even remotely consider attacking Martin. Given George Zimmerman's history of association with black people, I believe even less that he was some racist white supremacist who provoked a tall and well-built black teenager into attacking him just so he could have the pretext to shoot him literally seconds after calling the police to report suspicious activity, as some apparently are implying.
As such, since there is in fact overwhelming evidence leading to the conclusion that Martin attacked Zimmerman and in fact his actions led to serious and possibly life-threatening harm to Zimmerman, who was well within his legal and moral right to defend himself using lethal force. That is, I come to the same conclusion that the jury came to when they were presented with the above evidence.
What the fuck do you base your conclusion on other than speculation? And why ignore reality in order to speculate? What possible motivation do you have to deny what is in front of you? And you wonder why I'm suspicious here.
The amount of work to do so seems exhausting and beyond my capacity, though, so I'm out. So I guess "have fun with this" would be the tl;dr version of the post.
By all means, cop out. Post a half-assed reply disparaging me and my posts, but don't even give me the decency of an argument, why don't you.