Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
No, it makes no 'sense.' If Race X person kills Race Y person because of their race, then maybe you would have a point. Maybe. It would be debatable.

But when a half Race X person kills Race Y person because Race Y person is attacking him, with absolutely no racial component to the killing at all. Then no, your answer does not fly. And Emmett Till comparisons are wrong in every way.

The true explanation for this kind of thing is that there are despicable people who prefer to stir up racial animosity for political purposes (and in the case of some of the worst hucksters, for personal/professional as well as political reasons).
You got bogged down by trying to make this specifically relate to the case of Trayvon Martin. Even if you go the route of wondering how a man who is half-Race X/half-Race Z (Zimmerman's half-white, half-Hispanic), we both just agreed there may be "a point" to wondering about historicity/context when a member of Race X (which historically oppressed Race Y) kills a member of Race Y.

All your other references to Till and racial hucksters were not part of my original argument. And it's distracting for you to bring them up because I actually do agree with you that there are important differences between the Martin and Till cases and that far too often the media makes an event about race, which is a low-hanging fruit that sells papers.