Debbie Lass 
Member since Jul 20, 2013



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Recent Comments

Re: “NAACP leaders respond to Marley Lion/Trayvon Martin comparison

and tony you state that zimmerman was never told not to followTrayvon? hmm so when the 911 operator said "are you following him?" zimmerman: "yes" 911 operator " We dont need you to do that, your contention is that they were ok with and let him know he was ok following him? get a grasp of the english langauge would you please. Saying "we dont need you to do that, is in fact letting him know "DONT DO THAT". Unless of course your interpretation of "we dont need you to do that" means "go ahead and keep doing what youre doing". so where exactly is your proof of the statement" he was never told not to follow him" share the factual evidence of this......

Posted by Debbie Lass on July 21, 2013 at 2:44 AM

Re: “NAACP leaders respond to Marley Lion/Trayvon Martin comparison

The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted. A not guilty verdict doesnt mean they didnt commit the crime, it means the state didnt meet the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt and that now that they found not guilty they must, under the law, be treated as innocent of the charges...BY LAW not by society...the law says we have to treat a guilty man as innocent if found not guilty meaning we cant try them again for it...THATS doesnt say they didnt do the crime.....just that it wasnt proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they did.....yes some people found not guilty are in fact innocent of any wrong doing, others did wrong but merely got off due to poor case handling.....or even jurors who dont do their job right....oj simpson trial is a good example of this. oh wait, they found OJ not guilty...guess that means hes innocent by your view....

1 of 1 people like this.
Posted by Debbie Lass on July 21, 2013 at 2:37 AM

Re: “NAACP leaders respond to Marley Lion/Trayvon Martin comparison

jaxx, are you an angry hispanic man upset because you dont get treated equal to whites? because the way you claim utter bullshit with such definitive assuredness of factual knowing, i would assume you are a hispanic who feels they arent getting fair treatement.....if you are not hispanic, then your "utter bullshit" comment is moot.....

Posted by Debbie Lass on July 21, 2013 at 2:24 AM

Re: “NAACP leaders respond to Marley Lion/Trayvon Martin comparison

Tony italiano, seems to me you have the hate sir. The mere comment of saying "JESUS H" in anger shows you cant even hear someones differing view on something without getting enraged. now to address your comments.

" Just because something does not make him innocent, doesn't mean he isn't innocent."This line is ridiculous since the premise you and others have here is the fact that he was innocent and found not guilty. The statement i quoted you saying is basically implying he was found guilty when he may be innocent. That is not what occurred. he was found not guilty due to lack of good case presentation. yet people think a not guilty verdict means does means NOT PROVEN BEYOND A RESONABLE DOUBT.

Now you assume he is innocent. By what standards? he killed a man. Guilty of killing a man. The question that people debate is whether he was justified in doing so due to self defense or not. Now if one starts with analysis of the case at the time zimmerman follwed trayvon and a physical altercation ensued one could possibly make a case for self defense...depending who swung first. You commented that trayvon had no marks on him. yes and? zimmerman could have swung first and miss. after all, we see how bad a fighter he was. He could have taken out his gun not saying anything to trayvon and making trayvon fear for his life. He could have said to trayvon he would die that night....making trayvon feel threatened. If that were the case trayvon would have "stood his ground" and it wouldnt be self defense. But hes dead so we dont know. No eye witness or forensic info supports that trayvon started it and that nothing was done by zimmerman to instigate it.

now lets say for argument sake that trayvon did in fact swing first. If your mother wasbeing followed man a man in his car then on foot even when she was running for him and she came to the house yelling for you and telling you she was being followed. would you say, "well just answer his questions he has for you as he may be neighborhood watch? no your ass would be approaching the man for making your mom feel threatened.....funny how no one says trayvon had the right to stand your ground for being followed by a stranger with a weapon. That should clearly be a stand your ground case. But again trayvon is convenient he cant use the defense .......

tony, you bring up "innocent until proven guilty". EXACTLY. Trayvon was never given that same courtousy was he? Zimmerman in the 911 called proved this. he stated "he looks black. fucking punks/coons. they always get away with it. And he was aware of previous burglaries in the neighborhood. the fact he said "they always get away with it" when discussing trayvon and his whereabouts indicates he already had him guilty. and to not let him get away "like all the others who always get away with it" he was going to follow him and be sure he didnt get away. this goes tot he mindset being of vigilantism and not one of fear for his safety, thus it was NOT self defense. However, an innocent trayvon being followed and chased even running after him felt threatened and defended himself the only way he could, with his fists. Just because zimmerman is a crappy fighter doesnt mean self defense. the law doesnt say well you can start a fight but if you are losing the fight you can shoot in self defense.......yet by your arguments even if zimmerman through punch first, the fact that trayvon was winning gave zimmerman the right to shoot which caused a death.

seems i have the facts but that you pick which facts suit your personal belief and leave others the fact that trayvon also was protected by laws like self defense and stand your ground and yet you and others want to dismiss the fact that any normal perosn walking at night being followed then chased by soemone would make anyone feel threatened.....

1 of 1 people like this.
Posted by Debbie Lass on July 21, 2013 at 2:19 AM

Re: “NAACP leaders respond to Marley Lion/Trayvon Martin comparison

I sit here and read comment after comment and am astounded as to the lack of intellect, common sense, logic and compassion in these responses. I want to say bravo to Daiquiri rene Jones for a well thought out aticulate response that is dead on accurate.

This meme is nothing but inciteful. People bitch about the media doing such incitefulness but they only bitch about it when media is in favor of blacks or minorities. Here this is clearly media using a meme to incite and not one of the haters of media sensationalism and incitefulness have commented how this is one such example. but then I see a LOT of hypocrisy from the race haters and conservative extremists lately.

Bottom line. In both cases a young innocent man was dead. That is a tragedy and very sad regardless of color of skin. With that being said, it is simply moronic to compare a case of someone innocent and unarmed being killed merely because he was racially profiled versus a case in which a white youth was killed due to a commission of a crime. The difference between the begin the fact one occurred during the commission of a crime. The other was a result of poor judgement of a man racially profiling a youth who was doing no wrong and no crime. so absense of a crime in the death result is the BIGGEST difference to start, thus making this a stupid comparison.....we can oranges and apples are fruit as we can say both deaths are tragedies, but after that you cant compare apples and oranges......

The second HUGE difference between the two cases is how the cases were handled after the incident occurred. In one case, martin, the police KNEW who the killer was. The police did not arrest the known killer until there was public pressure to do so by the family of the person killed and the public. Had a black man killed soemone and claimed self desfense hed have been arrested and then had to prove otherwise. In the lion case the police didnt know the killer, they worked diligently to find them and once they found suspected killers arrested them immediately. You dont consider the fact that police knew the killers in both cases but the black men who killed were arrested immediately and the man who looks white was not? This among other type things shows the imbalance of fairness of our justice system towards blacks versus whites.

Now let me address the comments about zimmermans "whiteness" or lack there of. What you idiots who claim he isnt white dont get is this. In the black community the lightest of skins is treated with more favor than the darker of black skins. Why do they do this? because WE as a white society did it and indoctrinated it into them through our racism over the years. We as a society treat those with lighter skin better. Its been sociologically proven time and time again.So even when both are black,but ones skin is very light and the other extremely dark, their community favors lighter more in some cases. There is a human instinct in this country to accept one who looks white even if they technically are NOT white. So hispanics have more priviledge than blacks and therefore are "white". There is a book called how the Irish became white. It discussed how irish people in the 20's were treated like blacks in this country. They are white skinned but were treated like blacks. So when people say zimmerman is white...they arent really referring to color as much as they are to the fact that he gets treated white because his skin color is lighter and that in essence makes him white by priviledge stand point.

Now, as for the idiots who claim zimmerman had a right to follow a young man with a loaded weapon because he was a neighborhood watchman. Neighborhood watch is not a society of law enforcement. It is nothing more than a group of citizens keeping an eye out more in their community to REPORT SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY TO THE POLICE. if neighborhood watch was law enforcement with rights like them they wouldnt be calling the police. If they had lawful rights to do things the police departments would deputize them, let them carry guns and encourage them to approach. They do NOT want this. They want citizens to be vigilant, not vigilantes. Even police MUST identify themselves as police. So his being a neighborhood watchman gave him no more rights in this case to act as he did than you or me. in fact this picture of the neighborhood watch sign shows "we report all suspicious activity to police" it doesnt say we will follow you with a says WE REPORT SUSPICIOUS TO POLICE.…

Any citizen can, within reason, follow soemone and not break the law. one cant say you can just follow someone and its legal because there are stalking laws. so at some point it goes beyond reason and becomes illegal. This was not an illegal case here, however, if a stranger is following you for awhile by car, then gets out and pursues you on foot, even after you run....I think all of you would feel "threatened". if female i KNOW you in fact would. If you had a daughter who was being followed in this manner would you claim"oh hes just neighborhood watch he has a right to do this" .

Fact, martin was NOT commiting a crime or doing anything illegal when zimmerman chose to follow him. Zimmermans suspiciousness because of previous activities in neighborhood isnt justification to make another feel threatened.Had he seen him commiting a crime(crawl out of a home window) then hed have justification to follow to see where he went. This was NOT the case. this was mere racial profiling. YES RACE WAS AN ISSUE because clearly in the 911 call when asked what he looked like Zimmerman said "he looks black" so his perception was, trayvon was black, burglaries in neighborhood before were by black youth, thus he pursued him. this isnt rocket science haters, get an education if you dont understand that point.

Zimmerman was found not guilty by a jury of his peers and the country has to live with that verdict. Not guilty does NOT make him INNOCENT. otherwise then you have to say charles manson, who was found not guilty by reason of insanity is "innocent". Sometimes not guilty verdicts are given because they have to be by the guidelines of law. this isnt the same as innocence because many were convicted and later found not guilty due to dna tests....there are flaws in our system. Some guilty go free on technicalities, evidence thrown out, evidence not legally obtained, confessions not good because not mirandized correctly....and not guilty verdicts because the dead man isnt alive to refute zimmermans account that the dead guy attacked first. NOT ONE PESON saw trayvon attack first. Just because zimmerman is a pansie(thus why he carries a gun) and lost a fist fight, so shot a kid dead, doesnt mean his statement about trayvon being the aggressor first, is true. He had a motivation to lie....because had zimmerman been proven to be the aggressor first it wouldnt have been allowed to be called self defense. So not guilty due to not enough evidence, doesnt mean innocent.

last comment, a black woman who was in domestic violence situation, fired a warning shot to her abuser, no one was harmed and she got 20 years under florida law. The argument is, well she had time to go to her car to get her gun and went back in the house with the gun knowing the man who could harm her was in the house so she cant claim self defense. HMMMM and zimmerman was 1.) told not to follow 2.) got out of his truck but could have stayed in and yet people claim he acted in self a black woman had an opportunity to walk away from a suspicious situation with an abuser and didnt and they claim no self defense...zimmerman who did his duties as neighborhood watch by claling the police had time to then walk away and leave, but instead chose to pursue a suspicious suspect that by his own admission appeared to"have something wrong with him" and people say he acted in self defense....two almost exact scenarios regarding opportunity to leave a situation that was dangerous and the black woman cant use self defense but the man who looks white can.

3 of 4 people like this.
Posted by Debbie Lass on July 20, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Powered by Foundation   © Copyright 2016, Charleston City Paper   RSS