Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

[MEGATRON]

Agreed.  Did you mean to say portraying a 17 year old as a bad person?   Trayvon was pretty much an average kid making pretty average mistakes, i.e. his school suspension which has happened to many people in their youth and today.  Not to mention messing with weed.  I grew up in the sixties and frankly almost everyone I knew would be losers today if we were to question their use of MJ, including those who didn't inhale.  lol

While his character was not an issue in the trial (nor should it have been as Zimmerman was not aware of it), painting Martin as an average kid is a little untruthful.  He may have not been a bad seed but he was not far from it.  Again, that does not matter ultimately.

[peestandingup]

GZ/TM is a non-story if GZ is locked away behind bars for manslaughter.  He's no different from the drunk driver doing time for killing an innocent pedestrian or someone on the Southside of Chicago getting arrested for murder. Right or wrong, the way things went down (jury finds killer not guilty), makes it another sad chapter in what one segment of the population deems as a list of injustices (especially, since the Florida law allows such an event to legally take place).  Just goes to show, things aren't all peaches and cream despite some trying to paint our picture in that light.

I see your point, but I still think most aren't concentrating on the relevant issues. And let's not kid ourselves. You & I both know there are TONS of these very same injustices when it comes to black on black crime. They may not be televised, except for a small on air mention or blurb in a paper somewhere, but they're there & it ends up being another forgotten statistic. No outcry, no protests, no bumper stickers, no network news channels milking it for everything's its worth. Nothing.

So I think we all need to stop pretending this wasn't people taking the race bait & running with it.

[thelakelander]

Seems like the poor actual victim (especially viewed from their perspective of the same situation) literally has no right to defend themselves.  That should be a concern with the interpretation of such policies as described.

Do you think its ok that "victim" threw the first punch? Should that not come into play, thus calling into question the character of the victim?

If you were in this situation, would you have gone home and called the police, or would you have confronted, and attacked the person following you, without regard to if that person is armed or not?

I am not asking this as a legal question. This is a question of common
ense and self preservation.

You'd be a prime candidate to get mugged or get your entire family shot up.  When looking from the victim's perspective of the situation, the story line would go something like this:

1. It's dark and raining and some creepy guy is obviously following me.  I'm going to speed up (this is validated in the conversation with the girlfriend and GZ's 911 call of the victim starting to run).

2. You've increased your speed and creepy guy who you don't know continues in pursuit of you.  Creepy guy is obviously going to attempt to rob me.

3. For those who say run home and call 911, why would you want to show the mugger where you live and expose them to your little brother who's at home alone?  If creepy mugger guy is in hot pursuit of you, what good is it going to do you then to call 911, when dude is obviously seconds away?

4. You need to make a split decision here to keep from being mugged by creepy guy (remember, TM has no idea that GZ is over zealous neighborhood vigilante). You don't want creepy guy following you all the way home and you don't want him to catch up to you from behind and catch you off guard.

In this situation, you are provoked and in fear.  One of your logical options is to go on the defensive and attempt to turn the tables on creepy mugger guy by fighting for your life. With that said, no one has a real idea of who threw the first punch (doesn't mean it had to land), what was said, etc. during that physical confrontation except GZ.  Everything else is educated guesses and assumptions.  All we really know is TM was a better fighter than GZ, causing GZ (in fear of course) shot the victim in self defense of a situation GZ initiated.

With that being said, the flawed part on TM's decision to fight for his life, instead of letting the mugger attack him at home (remember GZ obviously up to no good from the victim's perspective), is that people legally pack heat these days.  Back in the old days, GZ would have taken a good whipping, but both would have lived and moved on. These days a lot of crazy people can legally pack heat, shot you for conflicts they generate and legally get away with it, if the victim starts getting the best of them.

[thelakelander]

Agreed.  Did you mean to say portraying a 17 year old as a bad person?   Trayvon was pretty much an average kid making pretty average mistakes, i.e. his school suspension which has happened to many people in their youth and today.  Not to mention messing with weed.  I grew up in the sixties and frankly almost everyone I knew would be losers today if we were to question their use of MJ, including those who didn't inhale.  lol

While his character was not an issue in the trial (nor should it have been as Zimmerman was not aware of it), painting Martin as an average kid is a little untruthful.  He may have not been a bad seed but he was not far from it.  Again, that does not matter ultimately.

Go sleep with a 17-year-old girl in this state and see what happens to you. He was an average kid. Nothing has been presented to suggest otherwise.

[Cheshire Cat]

Agreed.  Did you mean to say portraying a 17 year old as a bad person?   Trayvon was pretty much an average kid making pretty average mistakes, i.e. his school suspension which has happened to many people in their youth and today.  Not to mention messing with weed.  I grew up in the sixties and frankly almost everyone I knew would be losers today if we were to question their use of MJ, including those who didn't inhale.  lol

While his character was not an issue in the trial (nor should it have been as Zimmerman was not aware of it), painting Martin as an average kid is a little untruthful.  He may have not been a bad seed but he was not far from it.  Again, that does not matter ultimately.

Agree about the background being unimportant to Zimmerman but do you have information that the rest of the world doesn't that Trayvon was not far from being a bad seed as opposed to kid acting out?  (I always feel compelled to put a disclaimer that this is not a challenge, just wanting to know the basis by which you came to you conclusion about his character.)

On another note, there will be a civil trial as such all of the issues of background and character will come out with regard to both Zimmerman and Trayvon. 

[sheclown]

Agreed.  Did you mean to say portraying a 17 year old as a bad person?   Trayvon was pretty much an average kid making pretty average mistakes, i.e. his school suspension which has happened to many people in their youth and today.  Not to mention messing with weed.  I grew up in the sixties and frankly almost everyone I knew would be losers today if we were to question their use of MJ, including those who didn't inhale.  lol

While his character was not an issue in the trial (nor should it have been as Zimmerman was not aware of it), painting Martin as an average kid is a little untruthful.  He may have not been a bad seed but he was not far from it.  Again, that does not matter ultimately.

Go sleep with a 17-year-old girl in this state and see what happens to you. He was an average kid. Nothing has been presented to suggest otherwise.

+1

[thelakelander]

George Zimmerman has been found Not Guilty what has to happen to George for YOU to move on?

For you guys to stop vilifying the deceased.  He didn't deserve what happened to him and it wasn't his fault GZ started the chain of events that led to his death.  The rest (the real life cases and fallout to come) will happen on their own as the issue runs its course through the system.

[Cheshire Cat]

Seems like the poor actual victim (especially viewed from their perspective of the same situation) literally has no right to defend themselves.  That should be a concern with the interpretation of such policies as described.

Do you think its ok that "victim" threw the first punch? Should that not come into play, thus calling into question the character of the victim?

If you were in this situation, would you have gone home and called the police, or would you have confronted, and attacked the person following you, without regard to if that person is armed or not?

I am not asking this as a legal question. This is a question of common
ense and self preservation.

You'd be a prime candidate to get mugged or get your entire family shot up.  When looking from the victim's perspective of the situation, the story line would go something like this:

1. It's dark and raining and some creepy guy is obviously following me.  I'm going to speed up (this is validated in the conversation with the girlfriend and GZ's 911 call of the victim starting to run).

2. You've increased your speed and creepy guy who you don't know continues in pursuit of you.  Creepy guy is obviously going to attempt to rob me.

3. For those who say run home and call 911, why would you want to show the mugger where you live and expose them to your little brother who's at home alone?  If creepy mugger guy is in hot pursuit of you, what good is it going to do you then to call 911, when dude is obviously seconds away?

4. You need to make a split decision here to keep from being mugged by creepy guy (remember, TM has no idea that GZ is over zealous neighborhood vigilante). You don't want creepy guy following you all the way home and you don't want him to catch up to you from behind and catch you off guard.

In this situation, you are provoked and in fear.  One of your logical options is to go on the defensive and attempt to turn the tables on creepy mugger guy by fighting for your life. With that said, no one has a real idea of who threw the first punch (doesn't mean it had to land), what was said, etc. during that physical confrontation except GZ.  Everything else is educated guesses and assumptions.  All we really know is TM was a better fighter than GZ, causing GZ (in fear of course) shot the victim in self defense of a situation GZ initiated.

With that being said, the flawed part on TM's decision to fight for his life, instead of letting the mugger attack him at home (remember GZ obviously up to no good from the victim's perspective), is that people legally pack heat these days.  Back in the old days, GZ would have taken a good whipping, but both would have lived and moved on. These days a lot of crazy people can legally pack heat, shot you for conflicts they generate and legally get away with it, if the victim starts getting the best of them.

The young lady was on CNN last night on one of their evening programs.  She said she had suggested to Trayvon that the guy following him was likely a rapist which is why he ran.

Seems like the poor actual victim (especially viewed from their perspective of the same situation) literally has no right to defend themselves.  That should be a concern with the interpretation of such policies as described.

Do you think its ok that "victim" threw the first punch? Should that not come into play, thus calling into question the character of the victim?

If you were in this situation, would you have gone home and called the police, or would you have confronted, and attacked the person following you, without regard to if that person is armed or not?

I am not asking this as a legal question. This is a question of common
ense and self preservation.

You'd be a prime candidate to get mugged or get your entire family shot up.  When looking from the victim's perspective of the situation, the story line would go something like this:

1. It's dark and raining and some creepy guy is obviously following me.  I'm going to speed up (this is validated in the conversation with the girlfriend and GZ's 911 call of the victim starting to run).

2. You've increased your speed and creepy guy who you don't know continues in pursuit of you.  Creepy guy is obviously going to attempt to rob me.

3. For those who say run home and call 911, why would you want to show the mugger where you live and expose them to your little brother who's at home alone?  If creepy mugger guy is in hot pursuit of you, what good is it going to do you then to call 911, when dude is obviously seconds away?

4. You need to make a split decision here to keep from being mugged by creepy guy (remember, TM has no idea that GZ is over zealous neighborhood vigilante). You don't want creepy guy following you all the way home and you don't want him to catch up to you from behind and catch you off guard.

In this situation, you are provoked and in fear.  One of your logical options is to go on the defensive and attempt to turn the tables on creepy mugger guy by fighting for your life. With that said, no one has a real idea of who threw the first punch (doesn't mean it had to land), what was said, etc. during that physical confrontation except GZ.  Everything else is educated guesses and assumptions.  All we really know is TM was a better fighter than GZ, causing GZ (in fear of course) shot the victim in self defense of a situation GZ initiated.

With that being said, the flawed part on TM's decision to fight for his life, instead of letting the mugger attack him at home (remember GZ obviously up to no good from the victim's perspective), is that people legally pack heat these days.  Back in the old days, GZ would have taken a good whipping, but both would have lived and moved on. These days a lot of crazy people can legally pack heat, shot you for conflicts they generate and legally get away with it, if the victim starts getting the best of them.

George Zimmerman has been found Not Guilty what has to happen to George for YOU to move on?

Because this is a conversation to get underneath why this case has gotten the attention it has.  Only by hearing everyone's perspectives and talking them through can we begin to understand why some see this as connected to race and others don't.  It's important for society to understand so that we can change laws, idea's and whatever else we need to evolve above.  Many people are trying to come to terms with what all of this means I do believe.

[thelakelander]

^Same for white on white crime. Small blurbs here or there but no protests, bumper stickers, networks and news channels.   

In both situations and others, people typically end up being arrested.  The only reason this particular issue is all over news channels and really going mainstream is that the guy who started and ended the entire thing legally walked.  That's the major difference from typical shootings, killings, etc. (regardless of race) where the murder is identified and tried in court.

Unfortunately, sometimes it takes events like this to get discussion going on the larger issue at hand.  Just look at MJ the past few days.  Everyone knows Jax is a city struggling with racial divide.  Yet we've never really dived into it on this forum.  Now there's rapidly growing threads on similar topics all over this site.

[sheclown]

If we cannot see the role racism played in this -- if we are unwilling to talk about it due to denial or discomfort -- we stand ZERO chance of making significant change and, ultimately,  will play out the same scenario until the end of our days.

[peestandingup]

^Same for white on white crime. Small blurbs here or there but no protests, bumper stickers, networks and news channels.   

In both situations and others, people typically end up being arrested.  The only reason this particular issue is all over news channels and really going mainstream is that the guy who started and ended the entire thing legally walked.  That's the major difference from typical shootings, killings, etc. (regardless of race) where the murder is identified and tried in court.

Unfortunately, sometimes it takes events like this to get discussion going on the larger issue at hand.  Just look at MJ the past few days.  Everyone knows Jax is a city struggling with racial divide.  Yet we've never really dived into it on this forum.  Now there's rapidly growing threads on similar topics all over this site.

Of course. So what does it all mean? That we're all looking out for our "own kind" only if a member of the "other kind" kills one of "ours"?? And that the media only pushes forward these juicy stories, while leaving others in the dust, because they know we'll all lap it up?? I don't know. But like we both said, there's bigger things at play here that I honestly don't think the general population is really talking about, or even acknowledging.

[sheclown]

How can there be "moving on?"  It is inconceivable.

[Cheshire Cat]

Gloria, can you share why it is your view this is all about race and that those who refuse to draw the same conclusion are in denial or discomfort?  What in your mind makes you sure that race was the driving factor in the unfortunate incident that ended with the death of Trayvon?

[Cheshire Cat]

^Same for white on white crime. Small blurbs here or there but no protests, bumper stickers, networks and news channels.   

In both situations and others, people typically end up being arrested.  The only reason this particular issue is all over news channels and really going mainstream is that the guy who started and ended the entire thing legally walked.  That's the major difference from typical shootings, killings, etc. (regardless of race) where the murder is identified and tried in court.

Unfortunately, sometimes it takes events like this to get discussion going on the larger issue at hand.  Just look at MJ the past few days.  Everyone knows Jax is a city struggling with racial divide.  Yet we've never really dived into it on this forum.  Now there's rapidly growing threads on similar topics all over this site.

Ennis the truth is that many people guilty of crimes including murder walk because there is not enough proof of their guilt.  I think this case became the media sensation it has is because media decided to make it about race.

I agree this discussion needs to be had.  As trying and emotionally draining as it is, the issue of race needs to be completely aired. 

[Cheshire Cat]

^Same for white on white crime. Small blurbs here or there but no protests, bumper stickers, networks and news channels.   

In both situations and others, people typically end up being arrested.  The only reason this particular issue is all over news channels and really going mainstream is that the guy who started and ended the entire thing legally walked.  That's the major difference from typical shootings, killings, etc. (regardless of race) where the murder is identified and tried in court.

Unfortunately, sometimes it takes events like this to get discussion going on the larger issue at hand.  Just look at MJ the past few days.  Everyone knows Jax is a city struggling with racial divide.  Yet we've never really dived into it on this forum.  Now there's rapidly growing threads on similar topics all over this site.

Of course. So what does it all mean? That we're all looking out for our "own kind" only if a member of the "other kind" kills one of "ours"?? And that the media only pushes forward these juicy stories, while leaving others in the dust, because they know we'll all lap it up?? I don't know. But like we both said, there's bigger things at play here that I honestly don't think the general population is really talking about, or even acknowledging.

I think we are working toward that "bigger thing" in the conversations going on in various threads right now.  In my opinion regardless of what drove the Martin/Zimmerman tragedy to be viewed as a racial confrontation it has created an in your face wake up call that deeply felt ideas and emotions about race still exist today and they need to be addressed and so far on this forum we are doing our best to do that.