The justice system at work "Zimmerman Verdict Reached: NOT GUILTY"
Coming from a young black male perspective, kind of crazy and disappointing. I fear for my sons and nephews as they get older and are profiled. System may have worked as structured but I don't believe justice was served. Like Rosa Parks, perhaps this case leads to change. Time will tell.
Disappointed is an understatement. Not shocked at all. Didn't even bother watching any of it. I don't even have a reaction to it at this point. Same shit, different toilet. Im sure MLK is rolling over in his grave right now.
^Kind of how I viewed the entire event. Disappointing but not surprising. I pretty much tuned it out over the last few weeks. My belief in the term, there's nothing new under the sun applies to a lot more than just urban planning.
Not surprised. But very disturbed by the message this sends.
It is possible to be sad that Trayvon Martin is dead and happy that George Zimmerman is not guilty. Not all tragedies are crimes.
Guys, it all comes down to something police officers, public defenders, prosecutors, judges, and every other facet
of our criminal, civil and legal professions. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK HAPPENED, THE RULE OF LAW HAS BEEN MADE. According to the evidence presented the man was not guilty. Does that mean Zimmerman did or did not profile Martin? Zimmerman wasn't a law enforcement officer and in spite of the media hype, WAS NOT WHITE. The man is Hispanic, who profiled who? This and lots of other details will probably never be known but when the court is in session - only the evidence presented matters. All of our opinions, fears and wishes are either proved or disproved in a court of law. I'm not downplaying what you might feel, just saying. For example, OJ and the infamous murders and trial - did I think he was guilty? Guilty as sin, but the court says he wasn't - thus he wasn't. The same system that worked for OJ worked for Zimmerman, END OF STORY.
I will try to be rational.
I believe both parties shared some guilt. It is likely Trayvon was not as sweet and innocent as he appears in the photos but I don't think G Zimmerman is either.
But ultimately George Zimmerman believed he was a big guy with a gun. He believed, in my opinion, that he could take the law into his own hands and instead of being rational and letting the police do their job he followed a young guy who got angry and intended to defend himself. At that point GZ felt forced to use his gun.
Ultimately GZ caused this death. I would, even with the evidence, have found him guilty of manslaughter.
As much as people hate this, a gun was at fault. I don't think GZ would have followed this kid if he had not been carrying a gun.
And the ridiculous Stand Your Ground law will produce many more cases as tragic and needless as this. (I know that Stand Your Ground has nothing to do with this but I had to add my two cents.)
Ock, i don't think those who are disappointed need lectures about what they think and what the laws are. My issue revolves around precedence, the message sent and potential of future conflicts generating similar confrontations like this. Because I've been in situations like this growing up, my personal perspective may be a little different. Nevertheless, I hope this case at least leads to a movement that results in the modification of certain laws and legal interpretations. No one should die from a confrontation generated from being followed in the dark by an armed stranger.
And GZ should have stayed in his car. He was directed to do so. Had he stayed in his car Trayvon Martin would be alive.
Also, what's with the mention of Zimmerman being called white and OJ getting off? Who cares about GZ's race and trial 20 years ago? No one white, black, yellow or green should be shot down 70 feet from their front door by an armed neighborhood vigilante, who then walks based on the interpretation of our state laws. Such a situation suggests some laws may need to change to keep this type of situation from happening on a routine basis.
Zimmerman wasn't "directed" to stay in his car. If you find a child drowning in the St.Johns river and call 911 the dispatcher would tell you to stand back because they would be legally liable.
Martin could've said "Fuck off, I live with my father down the street" and it would've diffused the situation.
Instead Zimmerman followed Martin on a public street, Martin verbally accosted Zimmerman, followed by Martin punching Zimmerman, pinning him to the ground, and telling him he would "die tonight motherfucker."
Also, no matter the truth in the Zimmerman case, a lady in Jax got sentenced today to 20 years for firing warning shots off at her abusive husband. I don't care which way you go on the Zimmerman case, if you don't agree that this incident (warning shots) was a proper Stand your Ground case and that she should be freed then you probably shouldn't be allowed to have opinions on firearm defense laws.
Huge distaste for the way the media, politicians and self described "spokespeople" have been twisting this since the beginning. Instead of just being patient and let the evidence be presented in court.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bF-Ax5E8EJc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bF-Ax5E8EJc)
Disgusting end to a heartbreaking case.
- Moron profiles black youths for weeks.
- Moron calls to report Trayvon Martin walking through the neighborhood.
- Moron is told to stay in his car and to not pursue Martin.
- Moron decides to disregard instructions and take the law into his own hands.
- Confrontation ensues.
- Moron shoots Martin dead.
Because of George Zimmerman, a 17-year-old kid is dead. If GZ had listened to what he was told or waited for the police to arrive, none of this would have ever happened.
I don't care who started the physical confrontation, but you can be damn sure that if someone twice my size was following me in the dark, I'd be ready to defend myself, even if it meant throwing the first punch.
Even under the most liberal interpretation of the law, I don't see how in the universe this guy walked away with anything less than manslaughter.
All that said, I don't envy that jury one bit. It all comes down to the trial, and from what others who have had the time to watch the whole thing have told me, the defense ate the prosecution for breakfast. Sucks to see a scumbag with blood on his hands go free, but I guess that's the sacrifice we make for "beyond reasonable doubt."
Fortunately, I don't see this ending as badly as most. There may be some scattered violence in the next day or two, but the news cycle moves so much faster than it did even 20 years ago post-Rodney King trial that it will sadly just end up a blip on the radar.
Quote from: KenFSU on July 14, 2013, 12:36:42 AM
Disgusting end to a heartbreaking case.
- Moron profiles black youths for weeks.
- Moron calls to report Trayvon Martin walking through the neighborhood.
- Moron is told to stay in his car and to not pursue Martin.
- Moron decides to disregard instructions and take the law into his own hands.
- Confrontation ensues.
- Moron shoots Martin dead.
Because of George Zimmerman, a 17-year-old kid is dead. If GZ had listened to what he was told or waited for the police to arrive, none of this would have ever happened.
I don't care who started the physical confrontation, but you can be damn sure that if someone twice my size was following me in the dark, I'd be ready to defend myself, even if it meant throwing the first punch.
Even under the most liberal interpretation of the law, I don't see how in the universe this guy walked away with anything less than manslaughter.
All that said, I don't envy that jury one bit. It all comes down to the trial, and from what others who have had the time to watch the whole thing have told me, the defense ate the prosecution for breakfast. Sucks to see a scumbag with blood on his hands go free, but I guess that's the sacrifice we make for "beyond reasonable doubt."
Fortunately, I don't see this ending as badly as most. There may be some scattered violence in the next day or two, but the news cycle moves so much faster than it did even 20 years ago post-Rodney King trial that it will sadly just end up a blip on the radar.
I completely agree with 100%. I was not going to talk about this at all, but I feel comfortable with metrojax. I was just telling someone as an adult, if I was been followed by a car while walking my neighborhood, and this person jumped out the car at me, I would have defended myself and kicked his ass, and I'm an adult. He should not have gotten out of the car period. And I also agree I dont think there will be a huge rash of violence, but Im more concerned of the long term effects. Speaking as a professional African American male, I know how it is to be profiled just because of my color. I know what its like to stopped by police for no reason and be labeled as thug. I know how it is to get followed in the Gucci store just because I'm black and my friend has dreads. I have a 15 year old nephew that walks to the store on a regular basis. To imagine that we allow things of this nature makes me worry like hell about him. I wont even lie, I feel oppressed right now. Makes me feel like we are back in 50's all over again.
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 12:43:33 AM
wonder what the outcome would have been if Trayvon had shot Zimmerman dead and then tried to defend himself with "stand your ground'?
+1000
Verdict has already been bumped from the Breaking News section of many sites to report that the kid from Glee was found dead in his hotel room. Such is the world we live in...
Not surprised, didn't bother following.
Quote from: FSBA on July 14, 2013, 12:31:36 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bF-Ax5E8EJc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bF-Ax5E8EJc)
Thanks for that info. I'm just really glad that this mess is over, but unfortunately the real tragedies are gonna be the upcoming sparks of violence throughout the US, all for nothing IMO. First I fell for the medias biased lies concerning this case with the twelve year old pics of TM etc; Then I did my homework a long time ago without seeing any 'colors'. Bottomline, the Georgia Satellites sung this song called "Keep Your Hands to Yourself" and if Trayvon would have followed that advice, he would still be alive today. I'm not a conspiracy theorist type, but I really believe that people in higher places in the media have interest (financially) to break this country apart; Sadly people are falling for it hook, line, and sinker. Wanna know when I'll be outraged? Wake me up if Micheal Dunn is acquitted (don't think that he'll be).
Quote from: thelakelander on July 13, 2013, 11:27:39 PM
Ock, i don't think those who are disappointed need lectures about what they think and what the laws are. My issue revolves around precedence, the message sent and potential of future conflicts generating similar confrontations like this. Because I've been in situations like this growing up, my personal perspective may be a little different. Nevertheless, I hope this case at least leads to a movement that results in the modification of certain laws and legal interpretations. No one should die from a confrontation generated from being followed in the dark by an armed stranger.
+1
I-10, I'd say the focus on media is a red herring. For me, everything really boils down to this... if no one is followed, there's no confrontation, Martin is alive and GZ could have still had his dream of becoming a police officer alive. Now a kid is dead and his killer (the guy who started the entire thing) gets to go on with his life.
The act of a random armed man following someone in the dark would seem like an initial act of aggression. The fact that our laws don't see that this way could be considered as a reason that it may be time to challenge and work to modify some of our laws.
I don't think this is over by a long shot. However, I also think it's silly to think people are going to result in violence across the country because of the verdict. It's the 21st century. There's a much easier way to push and get change that saves lives in the future.
Regardless of what I personally think about the trial, I followed it closely and the fact is the State did not present a solid case. Unfortunately most of what the media presents is assumptions and opinion and not fact, they convicted him before he was even charged. If you'll remember the original States Attorney said there wasn't enough evidence to charge him, then responding to public outcry we got a dog as pony show that turned up the exact same result. Tax dollars at work I guess.
I find it interesting all the posts about this of those whom are upset or feel the "system" let them down, yet not one thread mentioned a young girl being abducted and murdered on the northside weeks ago. They aren't connected, it just seems to prove that we react to media and personality before fact.
I think what this should do is initiate the wave to call for a reform of Florida's gun laws. The right to carry is not the right to kill and Stand Your Ground, though logical on paper, will only cause more such incidents. At the end of the day it comes down to the letter of the law, a loophole has been found so now it needs to be closed.
Blaming it all on "he shouldn't have followed" is just blowing smoke. In the heat of the moment anyone might act same way. If you want to change laws to include that, include charging bartenders with every DUI and every doctor that prescribes pills to someone who then sells them. No law was broken by him following. Did he escalate the situation? Yes. Don't we all learn in kindergarten to turn the other cheek? Yes. Does the law require me to stop following someone whom I just had words with? No. If you believe otherwise, then I hope you're ready with a plan to house all those arrested because they called the cops to report a suspicious person in the neighborhood and kept tabs on them til police arrived or those who follow drunk drivers until police arrive.
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 12:43:33 AM
wonder what the outcome would have been if Trayvon had shot Zimmerman dead and then tried to defend himself with "stand your ground'?
+1
http://www.youtube.com/v/Web007rzSOI
Quote from: JayBird on July 14, 2013, 08:19:23 AM
Regardless of what I personally think about the trial, I followed it closely and the fact is the State did not present a solid case.
True. I think it's important that a verdict of not guilty is not the same as being innocent. The defense presented a better case than the State did on what was being charged.
QuoteI find it interesting all the posts about this of those whom are upset or feel the "system" let them down, yet not one thread mentioned a young girl being abducted and murdered on the northside weeks ago. They aren't connected, it just seems to prove that we react to media and personality before fact.
I think everyone is on the same page that the freak who killed that little girl needs to fry. Many will also fault her mother and perhaps that's why she no longer has custody of the other kids. Not sure that has anything to do with this issue.
QuoteI think what this should do is initiate the wave to call for a reform of Florida's gun laws. The right to carry is not the right to kill and Stand Your Ground, though logical on paper, will only cause more such incidents. At the end of the day it comes down to the letter of the law, a loophole has been found so now it needs to be closed.
Yes, this is where I've been going. I don't fault the jury. I find fault in a law that has already and will easily lead to more unnecessary deaths of innocent people who are simply minding their own business.
QuoteBlaming it all on "he shouldn't have followed" is just blowing smoke. In the heat of the moment anyone might act same way.
Cause and effect. There's no confrontation if there's no following. Most likely, there's no following if he's not packing.
QuoteIf you want to change laws to include that, include charging bartenders with every DUI and every doctor that prescribes pills to someone who then sells them.
I don't think GZ intended to go out and murder this kid. I also don't think someone getting toasted up at the bar intends to go out and kill someone behind the wheel. Nevertheless, such an unintentional act will typically get you hit with something like manslaughter. If you want things to change, you work to take out the loopholes in the law.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2013, 08:41:20 AM
Quote from: JayBird on July 14, 2013, 08:19:23 AM
Regardless of what I personally think about the trial, I followed it closely and the fact is the State did not present a solid case.
True. I think it's important that a verdict of not guilty is not the same as being innocent. The defense presented a better case than the State did on what was being charged.
I fully agree.
QuoteI find it interesting all the posts about this of those whom are upset or feel the "system" let them down, yet not one thread mentioned a young girl being abducted and murdered on the northside weeks ago. They aren't connected, it just seems to prove that we react to media and personality before fact.
I think everyone is on the same page that the freak who killed that little girl needs to fry. Many will also fault her mother and perhaps that's why she no longer has custody of the other kids. Not sure that has anything to do with this issue.
I am among the camp whom assigns blame to the mother, and feel there is more to the story the police have yet to release until trial, as it should be. I was just pointing out how most of our reactions are based upon what the media presents in a two minute blurb, not what was presented over a lengthy trial. Which is why I made it a point to say "they aren't connected"
QuoteI think what this should do is initiate the wave to call for a reform of Florida's gun laws. The right to carry is not the right to kill and Stand Your Ground, though logical on paper, will only cause more such incidents. At the end of the day it comes down to the letter of the law, a loophole has been found so now it needs to be closed.
Yes, this is where I've been going. I don't fault the jury. I find fault in a law that has already and will easily lead to more unnecessary deaths of innocent people who are simply minding their own business.
Though I am a proponent of Right to Carry, I do not believe in Stand Your Ground. A study done by a Tampa newspaper proves its faults outweighs its benefits IMO. http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133 (http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133)
QuoteBlaming it all on "he shouldn't have followed" is just blowing smoke. In the heat of the moment anyone might act same way.
Cause and effect. There's no confrontation if there's no following. Most likely, there's no following if he's not packing.
I don't fully believe he followed because he was armed, based upon character witnesses and his past I imagine he would follow anyway. He had a Super Hero complex and was not going to let some kid make him feel inferior. I honesty believe he intended to initiate an altercation, and then be the hero holding him down for the cops and the situation got out of his control.
QuoteIf you want to change laws to include that, include charging bartenders with every DUI and every doctor that prescribes pills to someone who then sells them.
I don't think GZ intended to go out and murder this kid. I also don't think someone getting toasted up at the bar intends to go out and kill someone behind the wheel. Nevertheless, such an unintentional act typically get hit with something like manslaughter. If you want things to change, you work to take out the loopholes in the law.
Very true, but this goes back to the beginning where the burden rested on the State and they just didn't come through. I mean the jury even came back out asked the judge to explain the parameters of a manslaughter conviction so I feel it came down to the wording of the law and the presentation of evidence.
And why are young black males profiled? Because we live in a racist society or because young black males commit a disproportionate amount of crime?
Old ladies, Asians and hasidic jews are rarely profiled. Why is that? A racist system that favors them? Or because they don't commit a lot of crime?
I would wager that if young black males stopped committing crime at a rate somewhere around 8 to 1 compared to other racial groups within a year there would be no more profiling.
Maybe it's time to stop blaming racism, the system, the man for targeting a specific group and start trying to change a culture that seems to embrace violence and thuggery?
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Maybe it's it's time to start working on character?
Quote from: thelakelander on July 13, 2013, 10:37:15 PM
Coming from a young black male perspective, kind of crazy and disappointing. I fear for my sons and nephews as they get older and are profiled. System may have worked as structured but I don't believe justice was served. Like Rosa Parks, perhaps this case leads to change. Time will tell.
Before reading any of the other posts I have more to add from my comments earlier. Although I think GZ is responsible for TM's death you cannot convict someone for disobeying a 911 operator. There is not a law for that. It's apparent that GZ did not follow TM with the intention of shooting him. But had he remained in his car TM would likely be alive today. The evidence obviously proved killing TM was not his intent. And one of the important things to remember is GZ is Hispanic, not white, but unfortunately racism knows no boundaries. So I guess it's possible that GZ profiled TM. But I'm not saying this was racially motivated either. If TM had been white and dressed the same way, as many young white guys do, I think GZ would have done the same thing.
Quote from: MuffinTop on July 14, 2013, 09:03:14 AM
And why are young black males profiled? Because we live in a racist society or because young black males commit a disproportionate amount of crime?
Old ladies, Asians and hasidic jews are rarely profiled. Why is that? A racist system that favors them? Or because they don't commit a lot of crime?
I would wager that if young black males stopped committing crime at a rate somewhere around 8 to 1 compared to other racial groups within a year there would be no more profiling.
Maybe it's time to stop blaming racism, the system, the man for targeting a specific group and start trying to change a culture that seems to embrace violence and thuggery?
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Maybe it's it's time to start working on character?
Quote from: thelakelander on July 13, 2013, 10:37:15 PM
Coming from a young black male perspective, kind of crazy and disappointing. I fear for my sons and nephews as they get older and are profiled. System may have worked as structured but I don't believe justice was served. Like Rosa Parks, perhaps this case leads to change. Time will tell.
^oooo those pesky messy cans of worms again.
Good points muffintop, though I don't fully agree with them, welcome to MJ.
Quote from: avonjax on July 14, 2013, 09:06:42 AM
If TM had been white and dressed the same way, as many young white guys do, I think GZ would have done the same thing.
+100
Watching the trial I was very surprised the State did not spend much time on the mental state and psychosis of GZ that night.
Quote from: MuffinTop on July 14, 2013, 09:03:14 AM
And why are young black males profiled? Because we live in a racist society or because young black males commit a disproportionate amount of crime?
Old ladies, Asians and hasidic jews are rarely profiled. Why is that? A racist system that favors them? Or because they don't commit a lot of crime?
I would wager that if young black males stopped committing crime at a rate somewhere around 8 to 1 compared to other racial groups within a year there would be no more profiling.
Maybe it's time to stop blaming racism, the system, the man for targeting a specific group and start trying to change a culture that seems to embrace violence and thuggery?
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Maybe it's it's time to start working on character?
Quote from: thelakelander on July 13, 2013, 10:37:15 PM
Coming from a young black male perspective, kind of crazy and disappointing. I fear for my sons and nephews as they get older and are profiled. System may have worked as structured but I don't believe justice was served. Like Rosa Parks, perhaps this case leads to change. Time will tell.
I work in a large retail establishment and we profile, deliberate or not, young guys who look, dress and act a certain way because they are very often the ones who steal. Most of our theft fits into this category of people. But guess what, we do the same to whites and Hispanics not just black guys who fit into this category. I'm not saying it's right or that normal looking people don't steal but very often young men are our biggest problems. Wearing hoodies doesn't make you bad, but it also makes you look suspicious at times. Some of our thieves, both black and white, try to hide their identity from our security cameras by wearing them. But I can promise you we are equal opportunity profiles. Race and sex mean nothing.
The crime of murder requires certain specifically described elements in order to make a case. It didn't seem like the prosecution did that.
Quote from: MuffinTop on July 14, 2013, 09:03:14 AM
And why are young black males profiled? Because we live in a racist society or because young black males commit a disproportionate amount of crime?
Old ladies, Asians and hasidic jews are rarely profiled. Why is that? A racist system that favors them? Or because they don't commit a lot of crime?
I would wager that if young black males stopped committing crime at a rate somewhere around 8 to 1 compared to other racial groups within a year there would be no more profiling.
Maybe it's time to stop blaming racism, the system, the man for targeting a specific group and start trying to change a culture that seems to embrace violence and thuggery?
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Maybe it's it's time to start working on character?
Quote from: thelakelander on July 13, 2013, 10:37:15 PM
Coming from a young black male perspective, kind of crazy and disappointing. I fear for my sons and nephews as they get older and are profiled. System may have worked as structured but I don't believe justice was served. Like Rosa Parks, perhaps this case leads to change. Time will tell.
I just saw a pretty detailed exhibition on Race: Are We So Different at a museum in Birmingham three days ago. There's a lot more to this than the perspective you've just presented. I'll have to provide a detailed post later because it's going to require me to dig up some statistical data and links and I won't have that type of time to invest in a post until I get back to Jax.
Quote from: avonjax on July 14, 2013, 09:06:42 AM
If TM had been white and dressed the same way, as many young white guys do, I think GZ would have done the same thing.
I don't. Evidently, there were 45 previous 911 calls GZ had made concerning black youths he thought were suspicious over a short time period. His intentions may not have been racial but there could have been some cultural ignorance involved that was a part of his profiling. I'm sure some of this stuff will come to light when the civil case pops up.
Quote from: FSBA on July 14, 2013, 12:13:41 AM
Zimmerman wasn't "directed" to stay in his car. If you find a child drowning in the St.Johns river and call 911 the dispatcher would tell you to stand back because they would be legally liable.
Martin could've said "Fuck off, I live with my father down the street" and it would've diffused the situation.
Instead Zimmerman followed Martin on a public street, Martin verbally accosted Zimmerman, followed by Martin punching Zimmerman, pinning him to the ground, and telling him he would "die tonight motherfucker."
According to my understanding he was told to wait in his car for the police to arrive. He thought he was a "big man" because he had a gun. How did he know TM didn't have a gun? That is my point. Don't think you have the power unless you have no other choice. If being followed by a stranger i think MOST people who have responded similarly to TM.
Stay in your car and the kid lives. Be a big shot and a kid dies. TM may have been the biggest THUG in Sanford but GZ instigated the event. I bet without that gun he would have stayed in his car and waited for the police. I believe at the time of the shooting that GZ was protecting himself, but it didn't have to get to the point.
Quote from: avonjax on July 14, 2013, 09:15:22 AM
Wearing hoodies doesn't make you bad, but it also makes you look suspicious at times.
To be fair to the dead, the kid was killed on a rainy night in winter. If there is ever an appropriate time to wear a hoodie, it was the night GZ shot TM.
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 09:24:51 AM
Quote from: MuffinTop on July 14, 2013, 09:03:14 AM
And why are young black males profiled? Because we live in a racist society or because young black males commit a disproportionate amount of crime?
Old ladies, Asians and hasidic jews are rarely profiled. Why is that? A racist system that favors them? Or because they don't commit a lot of crime?
I would wager that if young black males stopped committing crime at a rate somewhere around 8 to 1 compared to other racial groups within a year there would be no more profiling.
Maybe it's time to stop blaming racism, the system, the man for targeting a specific group and start trying to change a culture that seems to embrace violence and thuggery?
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Maybe it's it's time to start working on character?
Quote from: thelakelander on July 13, 2013, 10:37:15 PM
Coming from a young black male perspective, kind of crazy and disappointing. I fear for my sons and nephews as they get older and are profiled. System may have worked as structured but I don't believe justice was served. Like Rosa Parks, perhaps this case leads to change. Time will tell.
Um. yeah. Utter bullshit.
There is no difference, really, between the races when it comes to crime or character. Just who is more likely to get charged, arrested and convicted.
Maybe the one who should be working on character is the type of person who still believes otherwise---despite all the available current information and statistics.
The exhibit I attended pretty much presented this case with a ton of statistical data and historical relationships to our political structure. The key relationship focuses on economic level, not race.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2013, 09:32:55 AM
Quote from: avonjax on July 14, 2013, 09:06:42 AM
If TM had been white and dressed the same way, as many young white guys do, I think GZ would have done the same thing.
I don't. Evidently, there were 45 previous 911 calls GZ had made concerning black youths he thought were suspicious over a short time period. His intentions may not have been racial but there could have been some cultural ignorance involved that was a part of his profiling. I'm sure some of this stuff will come to light when the civil case pops up.
I think what I meant is GZ would assume he was black if he was wearing a hoodie and he couldn't determine if he was black or not. Believe me a lot of young white guys wear hoodies too and it's hard to tell the difference. He is probably a racist.
Gotcha. I misunderstood.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2013, 09:37:08 AM
Quote from: avonjax on July 14, 2013, 09:15:22 AM
Wearing hoodies doesn't make you bad, but it also makes you look suspicious at times.
To be fair to the dead, the kid was killed on a rainy night in winter. If there is ever an appropriate time to wear a hoodie, it was the night GZ shot TM.
Your are correct but I swear some young guys of both races come into where I work even in summer wearing them. I guess what I'm saying it draws undue attention to them.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2013, 09:44:14 AM
Gotcha. I misunderstood.
Thanks
I just don't want ANYONE to think that I think the death of TM was justified. Even if he was a terrible young man GZ caused his death for NO reason. It's sad he goes unpunished.
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 09:47:29 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2013, 09:39:21 AM
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 09:24:51 AM
Quote from: MuffinTop on July 14, 2013, 09:03:14 AM
And why are young black males profiled? Because we live in a racist society or because young black males commit a disproportionate amount of crime?
Old ladies, Asians and hasidic jews are rarely profiled. Why is that? A racist system that favors them? Or because they don't commit a lot of crime?
I would wager that if young black males stopped committing crime at a rate somewhere around 8 to 1 compared to other racial groups within a year there would be no more profiling.
Maybe it's time to stop blaming racism, the system, the man for targeting a specific group and start trying to change a culture that seems to embrace violence and thuggery?
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Maybe it's it's time to start working on character?
Quote from: thelakelander on July 13, 2013, 10:37:15 PM
Coming from a young black male perspective, kind of crazy and disappointing. I fear for my sons and nephews as they get older and are profiled. System may have worked as structured but I don't believe justice was served. Like Rosa Parks, perhaps this case leads to change. Time will tell.
Um. yeah. Utter bullshit.
There is no difference, really, between the races when it comes to crime or character. Just who is more likely to get charged, arrested and convicted.
Maybe the one who should be working on character is the type of person who still believes otherwise---despite all the available current information and statistics.
The exhibit I attended pretty much presented this case with a ton of statistical data and historical relationships to our political structure. The key relationship focuses on economic level, not race.
poverty has always been the real difference, lake.
anybody with white trash cousins in the south (and we all have them) can tell you the crime stories.
Its the same as old Bill's crazy opinions on black people and food stamps. 68% of food stamp recipients are single white women living in poverty.
The statistical reality just doesnt penetrate the stereotypes.
Amen Stephen
It angers me when Southern white rednecks infer that all food stamp and welfare abuse is black. I know as many whites on both, probably more.
Of course there are lazy bums of both races taking advantage of government assistance, but so may white people want to blame the abuse on blacks.
Those programs are sad necessities and most of the people who use them are in real need. But we have become such a greedy selfish society we resent our tax dollars going to help them.
The wealthy abuse the system just as much as the poor, yet they never get called out.
What are we if we can't help our neighbors in need? We don't mind our tax dollars being used to kill men, women in children in foreign lands, but we don't care if people in our own country are starving.
The GZ/TM horror show is a prime example of the abuse of guns, power and the disrespect of human life.
My rant on Social programs and how much so many people hate them, for me, is another example of our disrespect of human life.
I was brought up in a household that taught respect for EVERYONE. Young, old, rich, poor, mentally or physically disabled, black, white, Hispanic, Mexican and so on. I was taught to obey the law and especially in a volatile situation, let the police do their job. I was taught to work and work hard and give your employer your best. Not to resent people better off than you.
I was also taught that it was not evil if due to circumstances beyond your control you had to take advantage of programs designed for this purpose. And by no means resent others who also had no choice.
For me this horrible tragedy is just another example of where we are at this point in time and our misguided view of fellow humans of every race.
The 2nd degree murder charge was overreach. If they had gone with manslaughter or negligent homicide (I'm not sure of the difference) the chances of a guilty verdict would have been much stronger. Trying to prove "malice" just undermined the credibility of their whole case even if manslaughter was added at the last minute.
I don't fully believe he followed because he was armed, based upon character witnesses and his past I imagine he would follow anyway. He had a Super Hero complex and was not going to let some kid make him feel inferior. I honesty believe he intended to initiate an altercation, and then be the hero holding him down for the cops and the situation got out of his control.
Then he needed help with his "Super Hero Complex," not a gun.
His fantasy finally caught up with him and ended in a death.
(This is not an attack on your view.)
One guy was minding his own business, one guy had his gun and injected himself into someone else's life. This is a loophole that Zimmerman exploited if you can't see that it calls your morals and intelligence into question.
Quote from: avonjax on July 14, 2013, 10:31:11 AM
I don't fully believe he followed because he was armed, based upon character witnesses and his past I imagine he would follow anyway. He had a Super Hero complex and was not going to let some kid make him feel inferior. I honesty believe he intended to initiate an altercation, and then be the hero holding him down for the cops and the situation got out of his control.
Then he needed help with his "Super Hero Complex," not a gun.
His fantasy finally caught up with him and ended in a death.
(This is not an attack on your view.)
Fully agree, and if they had focused on that the out one may have been different. Maybe not prison, however some sort of mental health help. From the beginning of the trial my co-workers and I were amazed of the personality similarities between his actions and thought process and that of someone whom sparks a fire only to save the people trapped inside. That is a problem.
I didn't follow the case on a daily basis. In dealing with the confrontation, how was it determined that TM attacked GZ first? How did they come up with a timeline of punches thrown? Did someone other than GZ actually see the fight or was the chain of events that led to the shooting GZ's version of the story? I know he got his ass kicked but all that means is the kid was a better fighter.
So with these questions in mind, can you get physically dominated in a fist fight you start, shoot the victim and get off on self defense?
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 14, 2013, 10:34:38 AM
One guy was minding his own business, one guy had his gun and injected himself into someone else's life. This is a loophole that Zimmerman exploited if you can't see that it calls your morals and intelligence into question.
Not 100% accurate. It wasn't as though TM was just walking down the street minding his own business. However, GZ should've stopped pursuing him and agitating the matter. The blame lies on the both of them, unfortunately only one survived.
This is a somewhat complex case. It seems that the lack of clear evidence as to exactly what happened is the reason that Zimmerman was set free. It is a tragedy, as a life was lost, and suffering must be endured by relatives and friends.
To punish an individual by imprisonment, without clear evidence giving cause for, and validation for, that punishment, would also be a tragedy. Perhaps I've missed some key points of evidence. Does anyone believe that the evidence is clear as to exactly what happened? Otherwise, all this controversy, including the civil rights aspect, is really about something other than the specifics of this case.
It is not complex a guy got away with murder via a loophole.
TM was minding his own business.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2013, 10:38:38 AM
So with these questions in mind, can you get physically dominated in a fist fight you start, shoot the victim and get off on self defense?
The way the law is written, if you are in legal possession of a firearm, yes. Case law exists that shows people being ago in the back, another with two people shot and killed, and both times the defendant claimed Stand Your Ground, they feared for their life and walked.
I am also surprised at how many Florida politicians are chiming in on Twitter about this, guess it is easier to provoke more hate than to rewrite laws. Shame.
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 10:44:44 AM
Maybe the Feds will step in and put an end to this nonsense.
I wouldnt be surprised if "Stand Your Ground" laws, (which were promoted and passed by ALEC around the country---not just florida incidentally) arent the actual reason that the Feds finally ban handguns.
If all the consequences are going to be stripped away from gun murders in multiple states, the only public safety response is to ban the weapons themselves.
That circumvents this kind of free pass for murder.
I believe a federal action is what it will take. Unfortunately many more may perish before any action is taken.
QuoteIn the United States, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first. The concept sometimes exists in statutory law and sometimes through common law precedents. One key distinction is whether the concept only applies to defending a home or vehicle, or whether it applies to all lawfully occupied locations. Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the "stand your ground" law would be a defense or immunity to criminal charges and civil suit. The difference between immunity and a defense is that an immunity bars suit, charges, detention and arrest. A defense, such as an affirmative defense, permits a plaintiff or the state to seek civil damages or a criminal conviction but may offer mitigating circumstances that justify the accused's conduct.
"Stand your ground" governs U.S. federal case law in which right of self-defense is asserted against a charge of criminal homicide. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Beard v. U.S. (158 U.S. 550 (1895)) that a man who was "on his premises" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground."
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared in Brown v. United States (1921) (256 U.S. 335, 343 (16 May 1921)), a case that upheld the "no duty to retreat" maxim, that "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife".
Many states have some form of Stand Your Ground law. Alabama, Alaska,Arizona,California,Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa,Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,Maine, Massachusetts,Michigan,Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,New Hampshire,North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,Pennsylvania , Rhode Island,South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,Texas,Utah,West Virginia, and Wyoming have adopted Castle Doctrine statutes, and other states (Iowa,Virginia,and Washington) have considered "Stand Your Ground" laws of their own.
In Florida, the law has resulted in self-defense claims tripling. The law's critics argue that Florida's law makes it very difficult to prosecute cases against people who shoot others and then claim self-defense. The shooter can argue that he felt threatened, and in most cases, the only witness who could have argued otherwise is the victim who was shot and killed. Before passage of the law, Miami police chief John F. Timoney called the law unnecessary and dangerous in that "[w]hether it's trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn't want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house, you're encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn't be used."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law)
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 10:54:41 AM
Quote from: ronchamblin on July 14, 2013, 10:51:44 AM
This is a somewhat complex case. It seems that the lack of clear evidence as to exactly what happened is the reason that Zimmerman was set free. It is a tragedy, as a life was lost, and suffering must be endured by relatives and friends.
To punish an individual by imprisonment, without clear evidence giving cause for, and validation for, that punishment, would also be a tragedy. Perhaps I've missed some key points of evidence. Does anyone believe that the evidence is clear as to exactly what happened? Otherwise, all this controversy, including the civil rights aspect, is really about something other than the specifics of this case.
unarmed dead boy.
armed man who says he shot him.
its pretty clear ron.
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 14, 2013, 10:55:01 AM
It is not complex a guy got away with murder via a loophole.
TM was minding his own business.
Yes, TM was not armed with a gun. But he was armed with his fists, knees, and hands .. which can be quite frightening, and even deadly -- and in any case, giving a victim reason to fear for his or her life.
So.... where is the clarity? I'm referring to the clarity as to exactly what happened. It seems that there is no clear evidence as to exactly what happened. Therefore, to imprison Zimmerman, based on assumptions?
Was it really murder? How does anyone know at this point? Perhaps TM was initially minding his own business. But what happened ..... really?
Quote
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/07/02/5539380/zimmerman-prosecutor-angela-corey.html (http://www.sacbee.com/2013/07/02/5539380/zimmerman-prosecutor-angela-corey.html)
OCALA, Fla. /PRNewswire/ -- Florida State's Attorney Angela Corey has been indicted by a citizens' grand jury, convening in Ocala, Florida, over the alleged falsification of the arrest warrant and complaint that lead to George Zimmerman being charged with the second degree murder of African-American teenager Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida.
The indictment of Corey, which was handed down last week (see www.citizensgrandjury.com), charges Corey with intentionally withholding photographic evidence of the injuries to George Zimmerman's head in the warrant she allegedly rushed to issue under oath, in an effort to boost her reelection prospects. At the outset of this case, black activists such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who whipped up wrath against Zimmerman, demanded that he be charged with murder, after local police had thus far declined to arrest him pending investigation.
Following Corey's criminal complaint charging Zimmerman, legal experts such as Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz condemned her for falsely signing an arrest affidavit under oath, which intentionally omitted exculpatory evidence consisting of the photographs showing the injuries Zimmerman sustained, and rushing to charge him with second degree murder under political pressure. Dershowitz called her actions unethical and themselves crimes http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drop-george-zimmerman-murder-charge-article-1.1080161 (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drop-george-zimmerman-murder-charge-article-1.1080161)
This only makes me think of the quote "who watches the watchers?"
Not utter bullshit. Indisputable fact.
FBI Murder stats by race: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3
White murderers: 4,729
Black murderers: 5,486
Whites represent 72% of the population
Blacks represent 12% of the population
If you do the math on a per-capita basis black people murder 7 to 1 vs white people.
This isn't racist. It's math. Police officers know this stat because they live it.
Thats why they profile young african males and the don't profile equally brown young men from India.
You can bury your head in the sand and surround yourself with people that will further support the version of reality you want to believe. Or you can look at things in an unemotional objective way and understand things for the way they really are.
Only be choosing the latter can you address and fix a real problem that exists.
I'm very relieved that the law supported self defense with deadly force. I feel that it's a basic human right to be able to defend yourself.
Quote from: ronchamblin on July 14, 2013, 11:05:13 AM
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 10:54:41 AM
Quote from: ronchamblin on July 14, 2013, 10:51:44 AM
This is a somewhat complex case. It seems that the lack of clear evidence as to exactly what happened is the reason that Zimmerman was set free. It is a tragedy, as a life was lost, and suffering must be endured by relatives and friends.
To punish an individual by imprisonment, without clear evidence giving cause for, and validation for, that punishment, would also be a tragedy. Perhaps I've missed some key points of evidence. Does anyone believe that the evidence is clear as to exactly what happened? Otherwise, all this controversy, including the civil rights aspect, is really about something other than the specifics of this case.
unarmed dead boy.
armed man who says he shot him.
its pretty clear ron.
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 14, 2013, 10:55:01 AM
It is not complex a guy got away with murder via a loophole.
TM was minding his own business.
Yes, TM was not armed with a gun. But he was armed with his fists, knees, and hands .. which can be quite frightening, and even deadly -- and in any case, giving a victim reason to fear for his or her life.
So.... where is the clarity? I'm referring to the clarity as to exactly what happened. It seems that there is no clear evidence as to exactly what happened. Therefore, to imprison Zimmerman, based on assumptions?
Was it really murder? How does anyone know at this point? Perhaps TM was initially minding his own business. But what happened ..... really?
^was it really necessary to start new account just for that?
I screwed up my account or password or something. It was easier to create a new account that un-cluster whatever I screwed up.
Quote from: JayBird on July 14, 2013, 11:22:20 AM
^was it really necessary to start new account just for that?
Yes. If a more youthful - but also larger and stronger person is attacking me it makes me happy that the law recognizes my basic human right of self defense.
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 12:03:10 PM
Quote from: AngryMuffin on July 14, 2013, 11:15:37 AM
I'm very relieved that the law supported self defense with deadly force. I feel that it's a basic human right to be able to defend yourself.
Quote from: ronchamblin on July 14, 2013, 11:05:13 AM
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 10:54:41 AM
Quote from: ronchamblin on July 14, 2013, 10:51:44 AM
This is a somewhat complex case. It seems that the lack of clear evidence as to exactly what happened is the reason that Zimmerman was set free. It is a tragedy, as a life was lost, and suffering must be endured by relatives and friends.
To punish an individual by imprisonment, without clear evidence giving cause for, and validation for, that punishment, would also be a tragedy. Perhaps I've missed some key points of evidence. Does anyone believe that the evidence is clear as to exactly what happened? Otherwise, all this controversy, including the civil rights aspect, is really about something other than the specifics of this case.
unarmed dead boy.
armed man who says he shot him.
its pretty clear ron.
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 14, 2013, 10:55:01 AM
It is not complex a guy got away with murder via a loophole.
TM was minding his own business.
Yes, TM was not armed with a gun. But he was armed with his fists, knees, and hands .. which can be quite frightening, and even deadly -- and in any case, giving a victim reason to fear for his or her life.
So.... where is the clarity? I'm referring to the clarity as to exactly what happened. It seems that there is no clear evidence as to exactly what happened. Therefore, to imprison Zimmerman, based on assumptions?
Was it really murder? How does anyone know at this point? Perhaps TM was initially minding his own business. But what happened ..... really?
Yeah, nothing like preemptively defending yourself by murdering a child armed with skittles.
Its a proud day for all of us.
No I was responding to a previous poster who referenced racial profiling with the underling narrative that it is racist.
I am simply supporting the face that racial profiling has more to do with the behavior of the people being profiled than it does the color of their skin. I used indisputable FBI murder statistics by race and population percentage.
Now we have indisputable fact that a specific group of people murder at an astonishingly higher rate than other groups of people. Which is why they are being profiled. Stop the crime and the profiling will also stop.
Let me give you a real world example of this in action.
In 1941 the Japanese bombed Hawaii. The Japanese at the time built a very aggressive culture of conquest and preemptive war. They were assholes. The majority of most American's toward Japan and the Japanese was negative. Why was it negative toward the Japanese and not the Swiss? Because the Swiss didn't do anything to American and the Japanese were running around the globe killing and the swiss were not. We judged them based on their behavior.
Fast forward a bit and the Japanese change their culture to one of industry, technology and peaceful co-existence with other countries and what is the general attitude toward the Japanese? I'd say good to great. Why did it change? Their behavior - they stopped killing everyone in their path and attacking their neighbors.
Young black males commit more crime per capita than any other racial group. Fact. Thats why they are profiled. It's not racist. It's math. If middle age Amish men perpetrated most of the crime they would receive the most profiling. But they don't so they aren't.
You can't make this very straightforward connection between cause and effect?
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 12:06:41 PM
Quote from: AngryMuffin on July 14, 2013, 11:12:50 AM
Not utter bullshit. Indisputable fact.
FBI Murder stats by race: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3
White murderers: 4,729
Black murderers: 5,486
Whites represent 72% of the population
Blacks represent 12% of the population
If you do the math on a per-capita basis black people murder 7 to 1 vs white people.
This isn't racist. It's math. Police officers know this stat because they live it.
Thats why they profile young african males and the don't profile equally brown young men from India.
You can bury your head in the sand and surround yourself with people that will further support the version of reality you want to believe. Or you can look at things in an unemotional objective way and understand things for the way they really are.
Only be choosing the latter can you address and fix a real problem that exists.
So we just watched a non black person get away with murder, and part of his defense was that he was scared of the black kid, and you are trying to contradict the idea that black people are more likely to get charged, arrested and convicted than other races?
Well ok.
If you don't see the basic problem with your argument, then talking it through is probably not going to help you.
It's not racism it's math. And it's math that you can't dispute which is why you yell racism. It's easier to yell and label than it is to discuss esp when the facts support the other guy's argument.
Black youths are killing each other at an astonishing rate every day in America. This is a fact. It's not debatable. Why is this happening? What is the cause? What can we do to reduce it?
I want to stop the senseless killing of young men - and that makes me a racist?
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 12:17:40 PM
By the way muffin top, thanks for injecting the racism into a thread about gun laws.
Its interesting that for you, the murder of this child is about how all these blacks keep killing people because of the blacks and their lack of character.
and by 'interesting', i pretty much mean 'stomach churning'.
Well you can thank Angela Corey for the decision to overcharge (her normal M.O.) murder, which is what actually got this fellow acquitted. The system didn't fail, the prosecution simply failed to prove their case.
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 12:03:10 PM
Quote from: AngryMuffin on July 14, 2013, 11:15:37 AM
I'm very relieved that the law supported self defense with deadly force. I feel that it's a basic human right to be able to defend yourself.
Quote from: ronchamblin on July 14, 2013, 11:05:13 AM
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 10:54:41 AM
Quote from: ronchamblin on July 14, 2013, 10:51:44 AM
This is a somewhat complex case. It seems that the lack of clear evidence as to exactly what happened is the reason that Zimmerman was set free. It is a tragedy, as a life was lost, and suffering must be endured by relatives and friends.
To punish an individual by imprisonment, without clear evidence giving cause for, and validation for, that punishment, would also be a tragedy. Perhaps I've missed some key points of evidence. Does anyone believe that the evidence is clear as to exactly what happened? Otherwise, all this controversy, including the civil rights aspect, is really about something other than the specifics of this case.
unarmed dead boy.
armed man who says he shot him.
its pretty clear ron.
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 14, 2013, 10:55:01 AM
It is not complex a guy got away with murder via a loophole.
TM was minding his own business.
Yes, TM was not armed with a gun. But he was armed with his fists, knees, and hands .. which can be quite frightening, and even deadly -- and in any case, giving a victim reason to fear for his or her life.
So.... where is the clarity? I'm referring to the clarity as to exactly what happened. It seems that there is no clear evidence as to exactly what happened. Therefore, to imprison Zimmerman, based on assumptions?
Was it really murder? How does anyone know at this point? Perhaps TM was initially minding his own business. But what happened ..... really?
Yeah, nothing like preemptively defending yourself by murdering a child armed with skittles.
Its a proud day for all of us.
Again.... did Zimmerman murder TM? If you say so, how do you know of this? Do you have clear evidence as to what happened ... so that you can feel confident that it was murder? Were you there? Did you see something nobody else saw?
How can a man be sent to jail on assumptions that something happened, something about which there is no clear evidence?
This is the kind of thinking which allows some to believe in heaven. They believe without evidence to support the belief. Do you believe that Zimmerman murdered TM, even though you have no evidence of it... no proof of it?
TM was killed. Without evidence as to exactly what happened, that's all anyone can say about it. Anything else is from someone's imagination. You don't put people in jail as a result of imagining events.
All the discussion here on this forum, and in the media, should have nothing to do with whether or not Zimmerman is guilty or not-guilty. It's over. At this point, until clear evidence arrives to support a murder, he cannot be proven guilty. He is free to go.
The discussion now might focus on the fundamental causes of the tragedy ... which has absolutely nothing to do with Zimmerman's guilt.
The two fellows were in a situation which had the potential to become confrontational. Some people tend to escalate potential situations, forcing to hostile confrontations -- other people tend to avoid escalating, giving... backing down to avoid hostility. The former don't live as long as the latter.
Both Zimmerman and TM made the decision to escalate, to confront, to become physical, with the result that one killed the other. If only "one" of them had run or avoided escalating the situation, they would both be alive. Unfortunately, both made the mistake of escalating the situation into a violent physical confrontation. They were both stupid. One died because of their stupidity. End of story.
One more thought on profiling and racism. I believe profiling is race neutral and based on crime stats.
-- Most serial murderers are middle age white men generally loners. The weirder and more sexual the more likely it seems to be a white guy in his 40s. And the cops will usually start the search with middle age white guys. This must be racist. The cops clearly hate middle age white guys.
-- Most infant abductions are perpetrated by childless females. Thats why the cops never look for older black men for these types of crimes.
-- An Amish man has never hijacked or attempted to hijack a commercial airliner. Which is why they never profile the Amish? But they do profile middle eastern men. Because the FBI is racist? Or the FBI knows that middle eastern men do most of the hijacking?
This has nothing to do with race and everything to do with statistical probabilities and past behavior of specific groups of people.
.
[/quote]
Hmm. Most criminal money launderers and banking fraud perpetrators are white men.
So perhaps white people shouldnt be allowed to handle money.
And if they threaten to handle it, maybe we should shoot them.
I see your line of reasoning muffintop.
I wonder if you do.
I will never attack someone so this shouldn't be a problem.
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 01:36:09 PM
Quote from: AngryMuffin on July 14, 2013, 12:25:43 PM
Yes. If a more youthful - but also larger and stronger person is attacking me it makes me happy that the law recognizes my basic human right of self defense.
Wonderful.
Perhaps a public spirited octagenarian will shoot you to death at some point.
Give Chamblin a year or so.
You haven't made one substantial argument for your point of view. Thats because you brought skittles to a gunfight.
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 01:33:26 PM
Quote from: ronchamblin on July 14, 2013, 01:30:32 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 12:03:10 PM
Quote from: AngryMuffin on July 14, 2013, 11:15:37 AM
I'm very relieved that the law supported self defense with deadly force. I feel that it's a basic human right to be able to defend yourself.
Quote from: ronchamblin on July 14, 2013, 11:05:13 AM
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 10:54:41 AM
Quote from: ronchamblin on July 14, 2013, 10:51:44 AM
This is a somewhat complex case. It seems that the lack of clear evidence as to exactly what happened is the reason that Zimmerman was set free. It is a tragedy, as a life was lost, and suffering must be endured by relatives and friends.
To punish an individual by imprisonment, without clear evidence giving cause for, and validation for, that punishment, would also be a tragedy. Perhaps I've missed some key points of evidence. Does anyone believe that the evidence is clear as to exactly what happened? Otherwise, all this controversy, including the civil rights aspect, is really about something other than the specifics of this case.
unarmed dead boy.
armed man who says he shot him.
its pretty clear ron.
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 14, 2013, 10:55:01 AM
It is not complex a guy got away with murder via a loophole.
TM was minding his own business.
Yes, TM was not armed with a gun. But he was armed with his fists, knees, and hands .. which can be quite frightening, and even deadly -- and in any case, giving a victim reason to fear for his or her life.
So.... where is the clarity? I'm referring to the clarity as to exactly what happened. It seems that there is no clear evidence as to exactly what happened. Therefore, to imprison Zimmerman, based on assumptions?
Was it really murder? How does anyone know at this point? Perhaps TM was initially minding his own business. But what happened ..... really?
Yeah, nothing like preemptively defending yourself by murdering a child armed with skittles.
Its a proud day for all of us.
Again.... did Zimmerman murder TM? If you say so, how do you know of this? Do you have clear evidence as to what happened ... so that you can feel confident that it was murder? Were you there? Did you see something nobody else saw?
How can a man be sent to jail on assumptions that something happened, something about which there is no clear evidence?
This is the kind of thinking which allows some to believe in heaven. They believe without evidence to support the belief. Do you believe that Zimmerman murdered TM, even though you have no evidence of it... no proof of it?
TM was killed. Without evidence as to exactly what happened, that's all anyone can say about it. Anything else is from someone's imagination. You don't put people in jail as a result of imagining events.
All the discussion here on this forum, and in the media, should have nothing to do with whether or not Zimmerman is guilty or not-guilty. It's over. At this point, until clear evidence arrives to support a murder, he cannot be proven guilty. He is free to go.
The discussion now might focus on the fundamental causes of the tragedy ... which has absolutely nothing to do with Zimmerman's guilt.
The two fellows were in a situation which had the potential to become confrontational. Some people tend to escalate potential situations, forcing to hostile confrontations -- other people tend to avoid escalating, giving... backing down to avoid hostility. The former don't live as long as the latter.
Both Zimmerman and TM made the decision to escalate, to confront, to become physical, with the result that one killed the other. If only "one" of them had run or avoided escalating the situation, they would both be alive. Unfortunately, both made the mistake of escalating the situation into a violent physical confrontation. They were both stupid. One died because of their stupidity. End of story.
yawn. do you promise its the end of your story?
My opinion is based in indisputable fact - fact which you disagree with - but can't dispute.
That fact is young black males murder at a rate of 7 to 1 vs whites. That indisputable fact is why they are profiled. If old Asian women were doing most of the killing then the police would profile old Asian women.
It is literally that simple.
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 01:30:52 PM
Quote from: AngryMuffin on July 14, 2013, 01:07:59 PM
I want to stop the senseless killing of young men - and that makes me a racist?
Im sure I cant tell you what makes you a racist.
But you sure are using this child's murder to air your half baked opinions about black people.
I have and either you're wrong or you lack the mental horsepower to refute me. Or both.
You've resorted to name calling. I've used real world examples and crime stats.
There really isn't much left to say. Unless you'd like to offer up an opposing point of view that isn't a personal insult.
I need to get some stuff done in the real world. This is entertaining but not productive. If you can come up with a well reasoned point of view we'll continue this later.
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 01:48:28 PM
Quote from: AngryMuffin on July 14, 2013, 01:45:32 PM
You haven't made one substantial argument for your point of view. Thats because you brought skittles to a gunfight.
I havent had anything substantial to argue against, is the clear reason.
And besides, what else would you bring juveniles in the middle of trying to think of cool ways to get away with murder besides candy?
So, why not put the plastic squirt guns away, kids?
The loser of Internet arguments will choose one (or both of these courses);
-- Personal insults
-- Critique of spelling and grammar
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 01:51:34 PM
Quote from: AngryMuffin on July 14, 2013, 01:49:57 PM
It is literally that simple.
Well we can definitely agree that you are that simple.
^AM, why do you think those crime statistics are what you claim they are? Do you care?
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2013, 02:09:51 PM
^AM, why do you think those crime statistics are what you claim they are? Do you care?
The statistics might be true Lake, but there is a whole discussion waiting, as to why they are as they are. There are definitely some structured... institutionally based social forces and habits which perpetuate the fundamental causes of those statistics. But that's a whole discussion in itself.
It amazes me that some people seem to be blind to these fundamental forces or structures in society which maintains the statistics. They seem to be comfortable in their ignorance. Why gain knowledge and improve one's perception if one is comfortable in ignorance and apathy?
(from Stephene Dare .. to Ron) yawn. do you promise its the end of your story?
Stephen, your tendency to avoid constructive contributions to a challenging discussion is showing again. As I've often said.... you descend to denigrating comments when things get over your head. Well... let's see, what will be your next effort to lower the quality of this forum? I'm will wait patiently for some additional nonsense from you.
Quote from: ronchamblin on July 14, 2013, 11:05:13 AM
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 10:54:41 AM
Quote from: ronchamblin on July 14, 2013, 10:51:44 AM
This is a somewhat complex case. It seems that the lack of clear evidence as to exactly what happened is the reason that Zimmerman was set free. It is a tragedy, as a life was lost, and suffering must be endured by relatives and friends.
To punish an individual by imprisonment, without clear evidence giving cause for, and validation for, that punishment, would also be a tragedy. Perhaps I've missed some key points of evidence. Does anyone believe that the evidence is clear as to exactly what happened? Otherwise, all this controversy, including the civil rights aspect, is really about something other than the specifics of this case.
unarmed dead boy.
armed man who says he shot him.
its pretty clear ron.
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 14, 2013, 10:55:01 AM
It is not complex a guy got away with murder via a loophole.
TM was minding his own business.
Yes, TM was not armed with a gun. But he was armed with his fists, knees, and hands .. which can be quite frightening, and even deadly -- and in any case, giving a victim reason to fear for his or her life.
So.... where is the clarity? I'm referring to the clarity as to exactly what happened. It seems that there is no clear evidence as to exactly what happened. Therefore, to imprison Zimmerman, based on assumptions?
There's no conflict if an armed GZ doesn't stalk/provoke TM. The fact that a random guy can carry a firearm, provoke an altercation, shoot the victim when the victim starts to kick his ass, and walk away free from doing any prison time is a problem, IMO. This doesn't mean the system is broken or the jury didn't make the right decision based on what they were tasked to do. However, it does indicate that we may need to change some of the laws on our books that allow morons to get away with acts like this on innocent people minding their own business.
QuoteWas it really murder? How does anyone know at this point? Perhaps TM was initially minding his own business. But what happened ..... really?
If TM is initially minding his own business (which the facts prove), who starts the acts that lead to a conflict, which ultimately leads to the death of a kid that was out to get skittles and an iced tea? It shouldn't matter what happened in the actual fight. The guy starting the entire thing shouldn't be painted as a victim who gets to walk away free for killing someone when he provoked the entire altercation. If that isn't manslaughter, I don't know what is.
Provoked....? There lays a pivotal thing that needs to be proven, not assumed.
Quote from: AKIRA on July 14, 2013, 03:30:42 PM
Provoked....? There lays a pivotal thing that needs to be proven, not assumed.
It was proven that GZ stalked/followed the kid. Maybe it's just me and the experience of growing up as a black male in a different environment that many of our readers may not be familiar with...but if someone you don't know (who clearly isn't a police officer), follows you in the dark, you're being provoked and being put in a situation where you're on the defensive. If not, in typical circumstances, your ass is as good as mugged, jumped or whatever.
Quote from: ronchamblin on July 14, 2013, 02:51:24 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2013, 02:09:51 PM
^AM, why do you think those crime statistics are what you claim they are? Do you care?
The statistics might be true Lake, but there is a whole discussion waiting, as to why they are as they are. There are definitely some structured... institutionally based social forces and habits which perpetuate the fundamental causes of those statistics. But that's a whole discussion in itself.
It amazes me that some people seem to be blind to these fundamental forces or structures in society which maintains the statistics. They seem to be comfortable in their ignorance. Why gain knowledge and improve one's perception if one is comfortable in ignorance and apathy?
This is pretty much where I was going with Muffin's skewed statistical data. There's a much bigger story out there and random numbers don't mean crap if you don't understand or care how they are being generated.
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 14, 2013, 03:43:34 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2013, 03:37:19 PM
Quote from: AKIRA on July 14, 2013, 03:30:42 PM
Provoked....? There lays a pivotal thing that needs to be proven, not assumed.
It was proven that GZ stalked/followed the kid. Maybe it's just me and the experience of growing up as a black male in a different environment that many of our readers may not be familiar with...but if someone you don't know (who clearly isn't a police officer), follows you in the dark, you're being provoked and being put in a situation where you're on the defensive. If not, in typical circumstances, your ass is as good as mugged, jumped or whatever.
Why didn't TM call the Police himself? There seems to have been time for him to do just that. Why didn't TM run to the home he was staying at? Look overall this case is over the Jury has spoken Not Guilty!
Call the police and get mugged while on the phone? Try to run home, get shot in the ass and then mugged? Wow, there's a huge gulf of cultural and environmental ignorance in this thread.
Anyway, I agree the jury has spoken. However, the ultimate impact of this night may just be beginning. The jury also spoke when Emmett Till was lynched in 1955. The momentum generated from that injustice ultimately resulted in Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. This case may have just turned TM into a martyr.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2013, 03:51:29 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 14, 2013, 03:43:34 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2013, 03:37:19 PM
Quote from: AKIRA on July 14, 2013, 03:30:42 PM
Provoked....? There lays a pivotal thing that needs to be proven, not assumed.
It was proven that GZ stalked/followed the kid. Maybe it's just me and the experience of growing up as a black male in a different environment that many of our readers may not be familiar with...but if someone you don't know (who clearly isn't a police officer), follows you in the dark, you're being provoked and being put in a situation where you're on the defensive. If not, in typical circumstances, your ass is as good as mugged, jumped or whatever.
Why didn't TM call the Police himself? There seems to have been time for him to do just that. Why didn't TM run to the home he was staying at? Look overall this case is over the Jury has spoken Not Guilty!
Call the police and get mugged while on the phone? Try to run home, get shot in the ass and then mugged? Wow, there's a huge gulf of cultural and environmental ignorance in this thread.
Anyway, I agree the jury has spoken. However, the ultimate impact of this night may just be beginning. The jury also spoke when Emmett Till was lynched in 1955. The momentum generated from that injustice ultimately resulted in Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. This case may have just turned TM into a martyr.
Indeed.
Quote(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/Trayvon-Martin-Protest-2013.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/Trayvon-Martin-Protest-2013.jpg.html)
#ProtestTheVerdict: List of Protests in NYC, D.C., Boston, Austin, Chicago + More
As we transition from the shock of George Zimmerman being found not guilty on Saturday, diverse crowds of peaceful protesters are hitting the streets all over the country in Trayvon Martin's honor.
As we enter into Sunday, even more demonstrations are being planned for the afternoon and we'll do our best to list as many as we can. There's also this cool map of events that has been created. Bring your signs, hoodies, and your voice!
Send additional locations/info to lanae[at]sinuousmag.com or hit us up on Twitter @SinuousMag.
If you can't make it, you can still lend your signature to this petition.
http://www.sinuousmag.com/2013/07/protest-the-verdict/
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2013, 03:37:19 PM
Quote from: AKIRA on July 14, 2013, 03:30:42 PM
Provoked....? There lays a pivotal thing that needs to be proven, not assumed.
It was proven that GZ stalked/followed the kid. Maybe it's just me and the experience of growing up as a black male in a different environment that many of our readers may not be familiar with...but if someone you don't know (who clearly isn't a police officer), follows you in the dark, you're being provoked and being put in a situation where you're on the defensive. If not, in typical circumstances, your ass is as good as mugged, jumped or whatever.
...and sometimes (in jacksonville) if it is a police officer -- just sayin'
Just sayin' what? You are inferring something sinister. Just say it.
This has never been a "stand your ground" case. Martin was the only participant that could have conceivably claimed "stand your ground". Zimmerman's case rested on self defense. He had to prove that he was in a place that he was legally able to be, and feared for his life or serious injury.
Without dragging though pages of BS arguments, I'll just state my thoughts. The gun didn't cause this. The right to self defense (a concept of citizenry that goes back literally hundreds of years) is not at fault. The feds will never (I hope) be allowed to disregard the United States Constitution. While Muffin's stat's are true and he makes a point in the larger sense, I don't think it allows for the actions followed by Mr. Zimmerman. I agree that this case is a tragic story that has been used by several different camps to set their own agenda. I will continue to pay no attention to unattributed character assassination of either Mr. Zimmerman or Mr. Martin. Such behavior is worse than the assigned "racism" charges from all sides.
Like Lake, I have not followed the day to day testimony, so I am not as familiar with the specifics as some of you may be. It seems that the likely crime was always "manslaughter" based on what evidence was available. Mr. Zimmerman's pursuit of Mr. Martin was negligent in its initiation and its length. I am not aware of how this was presented in trial. The jury has answered and we now all have to live with the verdict. I can name literally hundreds of verdicts that I did not agree with in addition to this one. The Martin family will have their civil trial.
I see that the personal insults continue to fly in this forum. No civil discussion can be had when posters ideas are not discussed, but instead personal insults and demeaning attacks are thrown at them. We should be able to analyze this case in an intelligent manner and exchange our opinions without malice. But, as usual, that appears to be impossible here. I am sorry for the Martin family. I am sorry that Mr. Zimmerman will live the rest of his life with this stigma. I wish that I could say something positive had come out of this, but I don't see it as of yet.
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 05:35:03 PM
Quote from: NotNow on July 14, 2013, 05:32:57 PM
Just sayin' what? You are inferring something sinister. Just say it.
Kiko Battles. Lets start there.
If you would do your usual and start another thread on the Battles incident, I would be happy to discuss it. But I think it would be insulting to the Martin family to link Battles to their son, don't you? Let's not do this in this thread. Start a new one.
Quote from: AKIRA on July 14, 2013, 03:30:42 PM
Provoked....? There lays a pivotal thing that needs to be proven, not assumed.
Well Zimmerman said in the 911 call "He's running" . So Zimmerman knows definitively that TM's fight or flight instinct has taken effect and the TM has chosen to avoid conflict. However unsatisfied with just terrifying the young man Zimmerman chooses to stay in pursuit. I think we can assume provocation proven.
Don't get your hopes up Stephen. That is just some CYA on the Justice departments part.
From 2007... http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/nyregion/23trial.html?_r=3&
Man Convicted for Shooting Teenager
A Suffolk County jury on Saturday night found a black man guilty of manslaughter for shooting of an unarmed white (white and puerto rican) teenager outside the man's house last year, ending a racially charged trial.
Quote from: NotNow on July 14, 2013, 05:56:52 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 05:35:03 PM
Quote from: NotNow on July 14, 2013, 05:32:57 PM
Just sayin' what? You are inferring something sinister. Just say it.
Kiko Battles. Lets start there.
If you would do your usual and start another thread on the Battles incident, I would be happy to discuss it. But I think it would be insulting to the Martin family to link Battles to their son, don't you? Let's not do this in this thread. Start a new one.
Not Now, I've missed you. I was hoping I'd see you in the stalking thread.
That being said, I'll do as I please, of course.
QuoteAppeals for calm in the wake of such a verdict raise the question of what calm there can possibly be in a place where such a verdict is possible. Parents of black boys are not likely to feel calm. Partners of black men are not likely to feel calm. Children with black fathers are not likely to feel calm. Those who now fear violent social disorder must ask themselves whose interests are served by a violent social order in which young black men can be thus slain and discarded.
There's no calm to be had in this.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/martinprotest.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/martinprotest.jpg.html)
To Ron Chamblin.
Im sorry, I just find your posts boring and nonsensical most of the time.
Im sure thats reciprocal, but I doubt I will ever have anything to add to your stunning grasp of the world as it was understood in 1950.
Sorry to bore you so much Stephen. I'll try to simplify my posts so that you can grasp the essence of them.
If you do indeed find my posts boring, it is probably related to the same phenomenon wherein an individual unfamiliar with.. say... the calculus, becomes bored while looking at a group of formulas simply because it means nothing. In other words, if an individual has no understanding of the Russian language, wouldn't he or she become bored after gazing upon it for a while?
Just as an individual will become bored with any subject about which he or she is too ignorant, the same condition of being bored will occur if he or she lacks the mental capacity to understand enough of the subject at hand.
An idiot sees absolutely nothing when he or she views a complex physics problem. And just as they become bored, so do you when you fail to comprehend what I've posted.
And of course, as one confesses ignorance, and is not able to comprehend because of certain mental limitations, then one might accuse others of being nonsensical. If you consider my posts as being nonsensical, perhaps you are admitting your inability to understand, and not my inability to make good sense.
And as I've said before, your habit, upon discovering that you are found to be either ignorant or stupid, is to simply insult the individual who exposes your limitations. A review of your many posts will find many references to things like.... "your passing gas"... etc etc etc etc.
But no... I don't find your posting nonsensical. Some of your posts make good sense, but they too often descend to insulting someone. So, yes, I do lose interest in reading them, as I do while reading any childish posts.
What's so bad about the 1950's thinking? Certainly you don't believe that any decade has a claim to being the most enlightened, or the most deficient in mentality. If any decade is lacking in general good sense, I would point to the current population as being in need of increasing it.
^You have to understand a little American history from the black perspective and be willing to attempt to understand the environment TM was placed in to truly get that post. Nevertheless, why place the burden on the innocent kid, who ended up losing his right to life for absolutely nothing? Do you place any responsibility on the armed grown man who initiated the entire conflict? Your comments are reflected in the Gawker article copied a few posts back.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2013, 07:25:59 PM
^You have to understand a little American history from the black perspective and be willing to attempt to understand the environment TM was placed in to truly get that post. Nevertheless, why place the burden on the innocent kid, who ended up losing his right to life for absolutely nothing? Do you place any responsibility on the armed grown man who initiated the entire conflict? Your comments are reflected in the Gawker article copied a few posts back.
+1
Can everyone stop tweaking each other over this issue and speak with reason as opposed to instigating conversational flare ups or diluting Trayvon's death and Zimmermans prosecution with incidents from the past at this time? You called me this and I called you that etc. etc. etc. is taking this dialog nowhere.
Clearly there is a very important conversation to be had in our society regarding race relations, the legal system and gun control to name a few issues but that conversation has to be reasonable. I have found that reasonable people can have reasonably different perceptions about anything in life and that has been proved out more recently as a result of the death of Trayvon Martin, the reactions to his death and Zimmerman's trial. I think all of the varying discussion can only be had in a mature and respectful way and if it can't then the conversation should end here as there is noting productive to be had of further confrontation in words.
I think the way to walk through this discussion is to begin with the trial itself and why Zimmerman was not convicted of the murder 2 charge Angela Corey went with in this trial. What unfolded in the trial and was shown by the the not guilty verdict is not a continuation of racism but rather evidences problematic laws in our state, how they are administered and the types of verdicts they end up with after trial by jury. Clearly many persons think the system failed Trayvon. If that is the case, the appropriate course of action is to change the laws and how they are administered. We can legislate race crimes but we can't legislate what is in a bigots heart and bigots come in all shapes, sizes and colors. That is a separate conversation waiting to be had
A "not guilty" verdict for Zimmerman does not mean he is without "guilt". It means that the prosecution led by Angela Corey failed to make their case. I watched most of the trial and heard a good deal of the testimony and legal instructions. The State failed Trayvon and that was because they failed to make a fact based case that was "free of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", they just did. They also failed to properly prepare their witnesses both civilian and expert as well.
We all know that Trayvon would still be alive if Zimmerman had kept his rear end planted in his car. The reality is that he did not and the situation went downhill from the moment he left his car. However leaving his car and following Trayvon in spite of an officer telling him "We don't need you to do that" was not legally a criminal act. His actions were incredibly foolish and self serving in more ways than one but they were not illegal. The trial was also not about the "stand your ground" law but rather focused on the idea of self defense. So in order to deal with the aftermath of the Zimmerman not guilty verdict we have to understand why it was rendered.
Agree with Cheshire, the state failed to prove its case. Be made at the state or the law, but not the jury or anything else.
This should not be an argument about gun laws at this time. A gun was what physically killed Trayvon, but not the reason he was pursued and ended up dead. The state and federal law discussion about guns was and is bigger than this case. If Sandyhook didn't change perceptions, Trayvon's death by single gunshot won't either. This issues surrounding this case are multiple.
Quote from: fsquid on July 14, 2013, 07:50:17 PM
Agree with Cheshire, the state failed to prove its case. Be made at the state or the law, but not the jury or anything else.
Thank you fsquid. I think this is the conversation that needs to be had first, one specifically about the trial and the verdict. Only then can people reasonably wade into all the "other" very deep issues attached to this young man's death.
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 14, 2013, 07:53:49 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 14, 2013, 07:44:09 PM
Can everyone stop tweaking each other over this issue and speak with reason as opposed to instigating conversational flare ups or diluting Trayvon's death and Zimmermans prosecution with incidents from the past at this time? You called me this and I called you that etc. etc. etc. is taking this dialog nowhere.
Clearly there is a very important conversation to be had in our society regarding race relations, the legal system and gun control to name a few issues but that conversation has to be reasonable. I have found that reasonable people can have reasonably different perceptions about anything in life and that has been proved out more recently as a result of the death of Trayvon Martin, the reactions to his death and Zimmerman's trial. I think all of the varying discussion can only be had in a mature and respectful way and if it can't then the conversation should end here as there is noting productive to be had of further confrontation in words.
I think the way to walk through this discussion is to begin with the trial itself and why Zimmerman was not convicted of the murder 2 charge Angela Corey went with in this trial. What unfolded in the trial and was shown by the the not guilty verdict is not a continuation of racism but rather evidences problematic laws in our state, how they are administered and the types of verdicts they end up with after trial by jury. Clearly many persons think the system failed Trayvon. If that is the case, the appropriate course of action is to change the laws and how they are administered. We can legislate race crimes but we can't legislate what is in a bigots heart and bigots come in all shapes, sizes and colors. That is a separate conversation waiting to be had
A "not guilty" verdict for Zimmerman does not mean he is without "guilt". It means that the prosecution led by Angela Corey failed to make their case. I watched most of the trial and heard a good deal of the testimony and legal instructions. The State failed Trayvon and that was because they failed to make a fact based case that was free of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt", they just did. They also failed to properly prepare their witnesses both civilian and expert as well.
We all know that Trayvon would still be alive if Zimmerman had kept his rear end planted in his car. The reality is that he did not and the situation went downhill from the moment he left his car. However leaving his car and following Trayvon in spite of an officer telling him "We don't need you to do that was not legally a criminal act. His actions were incredibly foolish and self serving in more ways than one but they were not illegal. The trial was also not about the "stand your ground" law but rather focused on the idea of self defense. So in order to deal with the aftermath of the Zimmerman not guilty verdict we have to understand why it was rendered.
(So in order to deal with the aftermath of the Zimmerman not guilty verdict we have to understand why it was rendered.) Because Mark O'mara was a much better Attorney!
Mark O'mara is a skilled attorney but he did not come up with the failed murder 2 charge, Angela Corey did and by doing so knew she was putting her prosecutors in the difficult position of proving that charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Not only did she fail doing so, but she also instructed "evidence" held by the prosecution be illegally withheld from the defense. Her own staff member pointed this out to her and of course was fired for daring to call this inappropriate action to her attention. She and her team are now facing serious sanctions as complaints have already been filed.
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 14, 2013, 07:58:01 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 14, 2013, 07:54:46 PM
Quote from: fsquid on July 14, 2013, 07:50:17 PM
Agree with Cheshire, the state failed to prove its case. Be made at the state or the law, but not the jury or anything else.
Thank you fsquid. I think this is the conversation that needs to be had first, one specifically about the trial and the verdict. Only then can people reasonably wade into all the "other" very deep issues attached to this young man's death.
So Cheshire Cat if the State of Florida did a better job in the courtroom everybody the State felt was Guilty would be found Guilty ???
No, that is inaccurate. The truth of the matter is that the State should only go for charges that they know they can prove. In this case Corey overcharged using a murder 2. Had the state gone with a manslaughter charge, had prepared their witnesses and had more competent expert testimony, they may have gotten a conviction. But they did not and in fact they failed to prove malice of any sort when Corey proclaimed this incident was "never about race". In doing so she sidestepped the truth in the minds and hearts of many and as a result her team failed to prove that Zimmerman had hatred, ill will or malice in his heart when he shot Trayvon. Angela overcharged in this case as she has often done in the past. This time that tendency to overreach turned around and bit her on the backside.
What happened to the staff member who spoke out against Corey holding back info from the defense.
Quote
State Attorney Angela Corey fired her office's information technology director Friday after he testified last month about being concerned prosecutors did not turn over information to George Zimmerman's defense team in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.
On the same day attorneys finished their closing arguments in that nationally watched trial, a state attorney investigator went to Ben Kruidbos' home about 7:30 a.m. to hand-deliver a letter stating Kruidbos "can never again be trusted to step foot in this office."
The letter contended Kruibos did a poor job overseeing the information technology department, violated public records law for retaining documents, and noted he was questioned in March when the office was trying to determine who had leaked personnel information obtained through a computer breach.
In an interview Friday, Kruidbos denied the allegations in the letter, which was written by Cheryl Peek, the managing director of the State Attorney's Office.
He said he had acted in good faith about "genuine concerns." He said he had been proud to work at the State Attorney's Office and feared the letter would cripple his chances at finding another job to support his family, including a 4-month-old son
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-07-13/story/state-attorney-angela-corey-fires-information-technology-director-who#ixzz2Z4IW2kT2
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 14, 2013, 07:35:40 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2013, 07:25:59 PM
^You have to understand a little American history from the black perspective and be willing to attempt to understand the environment TM was placed in to truly get that post. Nevertheless, why place the burden on the innocent kid, who ended up losing his right to life for absolutely nothing? Do you place any responsibility on the armed grown man who initiated the entire conflict? Your comments are reflected in the Gawker article copied a few posts back.
Look George Zimmerman was stupid in a lot of ways. Sure George should have waited for the police or at best just gone about his way. But should Have, would have or could have will not change what did happen in this case.
Have you been reading any of my previous posts? While disappointed, I'm not surprised and I have no problems with the jury or the system. I have a problem with the law. I'm hoping this case leads to a change so future lives won't be lost because of this type of nonsense.
Understood. In any event, I have no problem with the jury or system. It was clear that the state did not prove murder 2 without reasonable doubt.
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 14, 2013, 08:34:29 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2013, 08:18:23 PM
Understood. In any event, I have no problem with the jury or system. It was clear that the state did not prove murder 2 without reasonable doubt.
Well then as Cheshire Cat said "Angela overcharged in this case as she has often done in the past." But it wasn't even Murder in the second degree that was the problem the jury didn't even go with manslaughter? And the Judge had to throw out "third-degree murder based on child abuse?" So if Angela would have started with Manslaughter then aggravated assault or something lower I guess George could have been convicted?
Re read post 140 above. Had the case be charged differently and handed more competently, a manslaughter charge would have been possible depending upon the level of the charge and lawful requirements of proof.
I'm no attorney but manslaughter appears pretty evident to me. At the end of the day, a kid was killed and the instigator/shooter gets off. Nevertheless, I don't think this situation is over. Things are just beginning and hopefully, the result is a positive one for all that saves lives.
Maybe Al Sharpton should focus a little bit of his time addressing the black and black violence with demonstrations in places like Chicago instead of the 100% effort in bringing down the big bad Purple People Eater George Zimmerman; Although that Trayvon case brought alot of loot to MSNBC, so who can blame him....
Zimmerman may be legally free but he will never experience freedom the way he once knew it. He will now always feel the way Trayvon did, threatened, scared and pursued. He will live a life in the shadow of his actions and be looking over his shoulder everywhere he goes likely for the rest of his life. In some way he will now be made to walk in Trayvon's shoes and see first hand what it is like to be viewed with distrust and suspicion.
Quote from: I-10east on July 14, 2013, 09:14:26 PM
Maybe Al Sharpton should focus a little bit of his time addressing the black and black violence with demonstrations in places like Chicago instead of the 100% effort in bringing down the big bad Purple People Eater George Zimmerman; Although that Trayvon case brought alot of loot to MSNBC, so who can blame him....
Al Sharpton is a side issue to this trial as is Black on Black crime. This trial was about Trayvon's death and the fact that Zimmerman was charged with his murder. As a side note it is important to realize that there are many ongoing efforts via churches and organizations that are aimed at understanding and stopping Black on Black crime. MADDADS here in Jacksonville has been at the forefront of that issue for many years now.
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 14, 2013, 09:12:01 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2013, 08:54:05 PM
I'm no attorney but manslaughter appears pretty evident to me. At the end of the day, a kid was killed and the instigator/shooter gets off. Nevertheless, I don't think this situation is over. Things are just beginning and hopefully, the result is a positive one for all that saves lives.
Lets say TM would have found GZ's gun and shot GZ could TM have used this same defense that GZ was found Not Guilty with?
Why go there? Let's say GZ never followed TM. No conflict or death happens and everyone goes on with their lives.
^^^You don't have to agree with what GZ did, but technically he wasn't breaking the law. All of the 911 dispatcher non-order, should've stayed in the car, and did he indirectly follow him arguments is irrelevant IMO. No one wants to address the actual felony assault by Martin which is ludicrous. A six year old kid could follow you from behind; Whatcha gonna do, blast him in the face? I bet that he wasn't all that close to Martin either. Not to mention the 4 minute time frame that Martin should've been home already.
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 14, 2013, 09:39:28 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 14, 2013, 09:16:04 PM
Zimmerman may be legally free but he will never experience freedom the way he once knew it. He will now always feel the way Trayvon did, threatened, scared and pursued. He will live a life in the shadow of his actions and be looking over his shoulder everywhere he goes likely for the rest of his life. In some way he will now be made to walk in Trayvon's shoes and see first hand what it is like to be viewed with distrust and suspicion.
Cheshire Cat you are so sure of George Zimmerman's Guilt? I heard the 911 tape when the mothers of both GZ and TM said it was their Son? And we really don't know what TM felt do we? Because if the State of Florida would have put on a better case then GZ would be in jail today? I'm sorry what happen to both TM & GZ but you nor I was there Jesus! God forbid if GZ is killed by someone over the next year will you cry for GZ? Or will you think Justice for TM has been served? :o
How do you get I am sure of GZ's guilt from what I said? There has never been a debate about the fact that Zimmerman shot Trayvon and that shot is what took Trayvon's life. Regardless of what Zimmerman was feeling when he shot Trayvon, anger or fear, he will carry the burden of having pulled that trigger for the rest of his life. Zimmermans brother has already publicly spoken to the fact that his older brother has been deeply changed by this experience. He is now somber, afraid and worried for his own life and that of his family. What I am sure about is the fact that if Zimmerman had stayed in his car and let the police do their job, Trayvon would still be alive. So in that way, his lousy choice is what put him in a place where a confrontation occurred. There is no getting away from that fact.
My Mother a wise old gal often said, 'None is so blind as one who WILL NOT SEE.' These people know what is going on they just refuse to see truth. The fight between Trayvon and Zimmerman didn't start on the ground it started when Zimmerman decided to follow him, because he was a black young man. That trash Ock was talking is just that trash. Every attorney who spoke last night made a point to say they respected the Jury's verdict well I don't. I may not be able to change it but I know because of Zimmerman's decision a young man is dead.
When I was a younger black man I was profiled all the time. Driving my own car, with no warrants, police would stop me with guns drawn. I had a friend, white, who lived on Seminole Road in Atlantic Beach. Almost every time I took him home I was stopped by police even parked in his driveway. My friend couldn't believe this he even told one police officer to get out of his yard. I use to be Trayvon. The bottom line is this, GEORGE ZIMMERMAN HAD NO RIGHT TO FOLLOW THIS KID. END OF F ING SUBJECT.
Quote from: I-10east on July 14, 2013, 09:38:35 PM
^^^You don't have to agree with what GZ did, but technically he wasn't breaking the law. All of the 911 dispatcher non-order, should've stayed in the car, and did he indirectly follow him arguments is irrelevant IMO. No one wants to address the actual felony assault by Martin which is ludicrous. A six year old kid could follow you from behind; Whatcha gonna do, blast him in the face? I bet that he wasn't all that close to Martin either. Not to mention the 4 minute time frame that Martin should've been home already.
Did you watch the trial? A very large part of the testimony both civilian and professional revolved around the physical altercation between Trayvon and Zimmerman. So to say no one want's to talk about it is patently false. In fact it was the altercation that led to discussion of Zimmerman's state of mind when he shot Trayvon. The jury concluded that there was reasonable doubt that Zimmerman shot because of malice but rather because at that moment he was afraid. That is what led to the "not guilty verdict".
My opinion - no factual crime stats. The majority of the problem is with the disproportionate number of absent fathers. The lack of a strong upstanding male role model to keep young men on track when they stray. I think there is also an undercurrent of respect for thug life where life doesn't appear to have much value and education has even less value.
Contrast that with Asian and Indian immigrants who value raising their kids and put a huge emphasis on education. They also stick together and help each other as a tight community. They put an emphasis on using the English language correctly - that is huge. It's the language of business and if you can't speak it, read it and write it you're going to be left out.
Basically I believe the same stuff that Bill Cosby got into trouble for saying.
What do you think is causing it? Maybe you have a different point of view?
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2013, 02:09:51 PM
^AM, why do you think those crime statistics are what you claim they are? Do you care?
Quote from: Seraphs on July 14, 2013, 09:49:04 PM
My Mother a wise old gal often said, 'None is so blind as one who WILL NOT SEE.' These people know what is going on they just refuse to see truth. The fight between Travon and Zimmerman didn't start on the ground it started when Zimmerman decided to follow him, because he was a black young man. That trash Ock was talking is just that trash. Every attorney who spoke last night made a point to say they respected the Jury's verdict well I don't. I may not be able to change it but I know because of Zimmerman's decision a young man is dead.
When I was a younger black man I was profiled all the time. Driving my own car, with no warrants, police would stop me with guns drawn. I had a friend, white, who lived on Seminole Road in Atlantic Beach. Almost every time I took him home I was stopped by police even parked in his driveway. My friend couldn't believe this he even told one police officer to get out of his yard. I use to be Travon. The bottom line is this, GEORGE ZIMMERMAN HAD NO RIGHT TO FOLLOW THIS KID. END OF F ING SUBJECT.
I hear you loud and clear. Again, everyone understands that Zimmerman chose to follow Trayvon and that led to his death. No one is arguing that. But your response has emotion overriding what the law actually is. As stupid as it was for Zimmerman to follow Trayvon, he was not breaking the law. That's simply the facts and there are many individuals who have been stalked over extensive periods of time, even years and the laws as written make stopping stalking difficult. It has to do with the right to move freely, which was sadly denied Trayvon by Zimmerman, but freedom of movement is a closely held American value. So when we say no one has a right to follow we are talking about basic freedoms. Of course people can demand that the laws be changed to prevent people from following each other, but are we ready for a world in which someone who is paranoid can accuse another of following them and that person be thrown into a legal battle for their own freedom because we created yet another law that would be impossible to enforce fairly? This type of legislation cuts both ways. On another note, no need to use hyphenated vulgarities to make your point Seraph. I think most understand your position and agree with it. But what to do to change things is not a story that has ended but one that is just beginning.
Quote from: I-10east on July 14, 2013, 09:38:35 PM
^^^You don't have to agree with what GZ did, but technically he wasn't breaking the law. All of the 911 dispatcher non-order, should've stayed in the car, and did he indirectly follow him arguments is irrelevant IMO. No one wants to address the actual felony assault by Martin which is ludicrous. A six year old kid could follow you from behind; Whatcha gonna do, blast him in the face? I bet that he wasn't all that close to Martin either. Not to mention the 4 minute time frame that Martin should've been home already.
For no one to have witnessed the start of the physical altercation, you're making a huge assumption. All we have is GZ's side of the story because his victim isn't alive to share his. So I'm not sure one can say TM was breaking the law in defending himself. All I do know is that if the kid isn't followed, no altercation happens.
AM, how do your stats break down along economic levels?
I didn't skew anything. I took the data from the 2011 FBI crime stats and the 2010 USA census.
If you look at the FBI numbers there is a huge murder bubble for black males between 18 and 30 that blows everything else out of the water. As black males get past the age of 30 they seem to calm down.
If you look at the NYC numbers they are even worse for black people than the national numbers. In rough numbers black people murder at a rate in the range of 15 to 1 vs white people. And mostly it's black people killing other black people. Why isn't Sharpton and Jesse Jackson marching for this? This is the biggest threat to black people right now.
Anyone looking at this would have to come to the conclusion that there is a problem here that needs to be addressed.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2013, 03:40:26 PM
Quote from: ronchamblin on July 14, 2013, 02:51:24 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2013, 02:09:51 PM
^AM, why do you think those crime statistics are what you claim they are? Do you care?
The statistics might be true Lake, but there is a whole discussion waiting, as to why they are as they are. There are definitely some structured... institutionally based social forces and habits which perpetuate the fundamental causes of those statistics. But that's a whole discussion in itself.
It amazes me that some people seem to be blind to these fundamental forces or structures in society which maintains the statistics. They seem to be comfortable in their ignorance. Why gain knowledge and improve one's perception if one is comfortable in ignorance and apathy?
This is pretty much where I was going with Muffin's skewed statistical data. There's a much bigger story out there and random numbers don't mean crap if you don't understand or care how they are being generated.
Quote from: AngryMuffin on July 14, 2013, 09:58:04 PM
My opinion - no factual crime stats. The majority of the problem is with the disproportionate number of absent fathers. The lack of a strong upstanding male role model to keep young men on track when they stray. I think there is also an undercurrent of respect for thug life where life doesn't appear to have much value and education has even less value.
Contrast that with Asian and Indian immigrants who value raising their kids and put a huge emphasis on education. They also stick together and help each other as a tight community. They put an emphasis on using the English language correctly - that is huge. It's the language of business and if you can't speak it, read it and write it you're going to be left out.
Basically I believe the same stuff that Bill Cosby got into trouble for saying.
What do you think is causing it? Maybe you have a different point of view?
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2013, 02:09:51 PM
^AM, why do you think those crime statistics are what you claim they are? Do you care?
I don't know if we can say "the majority" of the problem is absent fathers although it is pretty much understood that a positive father figure in the life of any young man is a good thing. Broken families unfortunately is an issue for families of all racial backgrounds with a divorce rate of over 50% of American households.
This is the first rational thing I've seen you post.
Here is the thing white poor people don't kill each other at the rate that black poor people kill each other. Look it up. Thats the great thing about the Internet all of this information is out there ready to enlighten you if you just take the time to access it.
My stats came directly from the FBI website and the 2010 US census. They aren't psudo-anything. They are facts.
Say my numbers are skewed how do you explain the NYC black vs white murder rate? National is 7 to 1. NYC is 15 to 1. Just go to Google and type in "NYC black murder rate" and you will be enlightened.
This is what makes no sense to me about people like you. You get outraged by this one case while you completely ignore the dozen black kids that killed each other on the South side of Chicago this past week. That is the travesty here. Thats what we all need to be outraged about. Not this one case. Hundreds of black people are going to kill hundreds of other black people this year in just one city. But you focus on this case missing the bigger picture.
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 03:44:18 PM
not to mention how drastically the numbers change when you view them through different lenses.
For example. The statistics also show that more poor people are convicted murderers than wealthy people. By serious margins so large that they make the racial differences seem insignificant.
And if you add in the true number of killers, vs 'murderers' at least by gun violence the racial numbers get very lopsided. Of course such a count includes shootings by policemen, and no one ever seems to want to mention that.
But of course, in this case, a murderer is found not guilty, and so he will only be a 'killer' and not included in muffin tops absurd psuedo statistics.
Quote from: AngryMuffin on July 14, 2013, 10:18:30 PM
This is the first rational thing I've seen you post.
Here is the thing white poor people don't kill each other at the rate that black poor people kill each other. Look it up. Thats the great thing about the Internet all of this information is out there ready to enlighten you if you just take the time to access it.
My stats came directly from the FBI website and the 2010 US census. They aren't psudo-anything. They are facts.
Say my numbers are skewed how do you explain the NYC black vs white murder rate? National is 7 to 1. NYC is 15 to 1. Just go to Google and type in "NYC black murder rate" and you will be enlightened.
This is what makes no sense to me about people like you. You get outraged by this one case while you completely ignore the dozen black kids that killed each other on the South side of Chicago this past week. That is the travesty here. Thats what we all need to be outraged about. Not this one case. Hundreds of black people are going to kill hundreds of other black people this year in just one city. But you focus on this case missing the bigger picture.
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 03:44:18 PM
not to mention how drastically the numbers change when you view them through different lenses.
For example. The statistics also show that more poor people are convicted murderers than wealthy people. By serious margins so large that they make the racial differences seem insignificant.
And if you add in the true number of killers, vs 'murderers' at least by gun violence the racial numbers get very lopsided. Of course such a count includes shootings by policemen, and no one ever seems to want to mention that.
But of course, in this case, a murderer is found not guilty, and so he will only be a 'killer' and not included in muffin tops absurd psuedo statistics.
Perhaps you can make your points without the "people like you" statement? There are very few people who are like yourself in individual thought and action and that's okay. We are all different as are our life experiences.
No there is no money in that or camera time. Of course it's a bigger problem 400 vs 1. But Al isn't into solving problems. He is about media whoring and making money.
Quote from: I-10east on July 14, 2013, 09:14:26 PM
Maybe Al Sharpton should focus a little bit of his time addressing the black and black violence with demonstrations in places like Chicago instead of the 100% effort in bringing down the big bad Purple People Eater George Zimmerman; Although that Trayvon case brought alot of loot to MSNBC, so who can blame him....
I'm still waiting on old Al to apologize to the Duke lacrosse players.
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 10:36:53 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 14, 2013, 07:47:05 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 07:38:42 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 14, 2013, 07:35:40 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2013, 07:25:59 PM
^You have to understand a little American history from the black perspective and be willing to attempt to understand the environment TM was placed in to truly get that post. Nevertheless, why place the burden on the innocent kid, who ended up losing his right to life for absolutely nothing? Do you place any responsibility on the armed grown man who initiated the entire conflict? Your comments are reflected in the Gawker article copied a few posts back.
Look George Zimmerman was stupid in a lot of ways. Sure George should have waited for the police or at best just gone about his way. But should Have, would have or could have will not change what did happen in this case.
Then why are you arguing about it? And While it wont change what happened in the limited arena of Florida's prosecution against Zimmerman, there will probably be a Federal case.
And talking about this case is really more about talking about what kind of a country we want in the future.
A nation of child murderers toting guns? Or a place where we look at ways to kill fewer people, not more?
Stephen you know that you will not be able to remove guns in America so why argue that point till your blue in the face?
Well I suppose we shall see what happens.
Im not going to argue with moral cripples about their racist viewpoints on murder (not addressing you here IILY)
My involvement was because an idiot poster, using no references and citing no sources is explaining why its a good thing that a child murderer just got off because he thinks my nephews are criminals.
I missed this part of the conversation. There was a mention of your nephews?
I don't have that info. Just personal observation. I'm sure poorer people commit more crime and I know that black people tend to be poorer than white people on average.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2013, 10:07:26 PM
AM, how do your stats break down along economic levels?
Something is going horribly wrong to cause this level of violence. I wish for a few minutes that we would all drop the racial bullshit and sensitivity and admit there is a huge problem, identify the cause and start working toward mitigating it.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 14, 2013, 10:12:33 PM
Quote from: AngryMuffin on July 14, 2013, 09:58:04 PM
My opinion - no factual crime stats. The majority of the problem is with the disproportionate number of absent fathers. The lack of a strong upstanding male role model to keep young men on track when they stray. I think there is also an undercurrent of respect for thug life where life doesn't appear to have much value and education has even less value.
Contrast that with Asian and Indian immigrants who value raising their kids and put a huge emphasis on education. They also stick together and help each other as a tight community. They put an emphasis on using the English language correctly - that is huge. It's the language of business and if you can't speak it, read it and write it you're going to be left out.
Basically I believe the same stuff that Bill Cosby got into trouble for saying.
What do you think is causing it? Maybe you have a different point of view?
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2013, 02:09:51 PM
^AM, why do you think those crime statistics are what you claim they are? Do you care?
I don't know if we can say "the majority" of the problem is absent fathers although it is pretty much understood that a positive father figure in the life of any young man is a good thing. Broken families unfortunately is an issue for families of all racial backgrounds with a divorce rate of over 50% of American households.
You won't address it because you can't win the argument. You can't win the argument because you are wrong and a few hours ago - completely uninformed. Now you are more informed but still not processing the information.
You're bright enough to know not to engage but you're not bright enough to successfully argue your point.
I'd try to avoid a fight with a stronger opponent too.
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 10:36:53 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 14, 2013, 07:47:05 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 07:38:42 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 14, 2013, 07:35:40 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2013, 07:25:59 PM
^You have to understand a little American history from the black perspective and be willing to attempt to understand the environment TM was placed in to truly get that post. Nevertheless, why place the burden on the innocent kid, who ended up losing his right to life for absolutely nothing? Do you place any responsibility on the armed grown man who initiated the entire conflict? Your comments are reflected in the Gawker article copied a few posts back.
Look George Zimmerman was stupid in a lot of ways. Sure George should have waited for the police or at best just gone about his way. But should Have, would have or could have will not change what did happen in this case.
Then why are you arguing about it? And While it wont change what happened in the limited arena of Florida's prosecution against Zimmerman, there will probably be a Federal case.
And talking about this case is really more about talking about what kind of a country we want in the future.
A nation of child murderers toting guns? Or a place where we look at ways to kill fewer people, not more?
Stephen you know that you will not be able to remove guns in America so why argue that point till your blue in the face?
Well I suppose we shall see what happens.
Im not going to argue with moral cripples about their racist viewpoints on murder (not addressing you here IILY)
My involvement was because an idiot poster, using no references and citing no sources is explaining why its a good thing that a child murderer just got off because he thinks my nephews are criminals.
This is a totally different subject that has nothing to do with the Sanford case, outside of GZ profiling TM. Nevertheless, I have a few questions and comments since you keep bringing it up.
Quote from: AngryMuffin on July 14, 2013, 09:58:04 PM
My opinion - no factual crime stats. The majority of the problem is with the disproportionate number of absent fathers. The lack of a strong upstanding male role model to keep young men on track when they stray.
Why is this? Could it be the long term result of an environment and political system that has slowly ripped apart the black family structure, resulted in huge discrepancies in family wealth, and limited overall educational opportunity for more than a century after the ending of the Civil War? Could a problem be access to birth control for those with lower household incomes? Could closing neighborhood schools and libraries in poverty stricken areas result in decreased access to educational amenities for that general population? Does that decreased access at an early childhood level lead to higher crime at some point?
Or is it simply only black fathers out of all races who have chosen to abandon their families? Is there an environmental cause and effect situation at play that multiples the numbers quoted?
QuoteI think there is also an undercurrent of respect for thug life where life doesn't appear to have much value and education has even less value.
Last time I checked, I'm black and still have my male parts and there's no undercurrent or respect for thug life in my household. Is this undercurrent you speak of based along economic lines? If so, is there a similar undercurrent spread among different races where the population lives in the same economic conditions?
QuoteContrast that with Asian and Indian immigrants who value raising their kids and put a huge emphasis on education. They also stick together and help each other as a tight community. They put an emphasis on using the English language correctly - that is huge. It's the language of business and if you can't speak it, read it and write it you're going to be left out.
Again, I'd challenge you to look at economic levels before putting people into groups by color. We're all the same. Our colors are various shades because we have ancestors who's skin adapted to exposure to sunlight in various parts of the globe. There's no black vs white, green or yellow person blood type, finger prints, bone structure, etc. Give America another hundred years or so and you'll see more shades of color develop.
What we have on our hands is a centuries old economic system where hierocracy has been based largely upon skin color. Place a group of people in a bad environment and bad things will happen. Change the environment and you'll change the result.
QuoteBasically I believe the same stuff that Bill Cosby got into trouble for saying.
I think Bill Cosby caught a lot of flack for the same reason Ock did at the beginning of this thread. Focusing on a specific point in time and lecturing people when you may not be wearing the shoes they are walking in isn't going to help the situation. Figuring out and altering the cause is how you impact the result.
QuoteWhat do you think is causing it? Maybe you have a different point of view?
I believe things revolve around economics and environment. Since WWII, I can offer up countless examples of taxpayer backed programs that have created an economic gulf between races in America, such as the GI Bill or many of the urban renewal programs of the late 20th century. For example, the taxpayer subsidized G.I. Bill directly led to sprawling suburban areas like Levittown. However, many minorities were prohibited from this federal handout. On the flip end, we grouped those in living in poverty to the central cities with the development off projects. We also ripped apart several of those neighborhoods with expressways to provide access for those being subsidized to flee the city. Then we wonder why areas like the Northside became havens of crime? Simple cause and effect.
If you want to dig into prison statistics, you can look at laws that result in certain populations getting more prison time than others. Heck, you can even start getting into profiling tendencies. Even the idea of GZ shooting TM and walking away free, but a 21 year old weed smoker going to prison should be a cause for concern.
For me, lecturing others on issues, one has no earthly idea of what they are talking about, by offering up skewed statistics doesn't resolve anything. It only leads to more division. The real issues revolve around economics and environment. Change those and you'll end up will different results, no matter what the person's skin pigmentation is.
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 14, 2013, 11:06:48 PM
(The real issues revolve around economics and environment. Change those and you'll end up will different results, no matter what the person's skin pigmentation is.) True but the Very rich will never let this happen this is the way they control us all. Why is it even in 2013 a Woman makes less money then a Man in a lot of jobs?
^Just goes to show that everything is not peaches and cream. We still have some work to do.
Incorrect. Link to the FBI murder stats I posted earlier:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3
2011 - murder stats by race
You make this so easy.
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 10:45:42 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 14, 2013, 10:42:29 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 10:36:53 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 14, 2013, 07:47:05 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 07:38:42 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 14, 2013, 07:35:40 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2013, 07:25:59 PM
^You have to understand a little American history from the black perspective and be willing to attempt to understand the environment TM was placed in to truly get that post. Nevertheless, why place the burden on the innocent kid, who ended up losing his right to life for absolutely nothing? Do you place any responsibility on the armed grown man who initiated the entire conflict? Your comments are reflected in the Gawker article copied a few posts back.
Look George Zimmerman was stupid in a lot of ways. Sure George should have waited for the police or at best just gone about his way. But should Have, would have or could have will not change what did happen in this case.
Then why are you arguing about it? And While it wont change what happened in the limited arena of Florida's prosecution against Zimmerman, there will probably be a Federal case.
And talking about this case is really more about talking about what kind of a country we want in the future.
A nation of child murderers toting guns? Or a place where we look at ways to kill fewer people, not more?
Stephen you know that you will not be able to remove guns in America so why argue that point till your blue in the face?
Well I suppose we shall see what happens.
Im not going to argue with moral cripples about their racist viewpoints on murder (not addressing you here IILY)
My involvement was because an idiot poster, using no references and citing no sources is explaining why its a good thing that a child murderer just got off because he thinks my nephews are criminals.
I missed this part of the conversation. There was a mention of your nephews?
Certainly. They are young black males, after all. And Muffintop seems to think that we need to have discussions with them about 'character' so that some fat racist pretending to be a cop doesnt shoot them to death. Because, you know: crime.
^What's the murder rate by economic status? We all know that in America, we struggle with a system that has been built on economic hierarchy based on skin color. Cause and effect. Change the environment, change the results.
No I'm not a troll. This is my point of view. It's my point of view in reference to an original post that profiling is unfair and racist. My claim is that profiling exists because of the actions of the people being profiled.
You've not been able to refute a single one of my points - not one. You've only been able to call me names and insult me. I use statistics - you deflect. I try to discuss problem like an adult you finger point and act childish.
You're not very good at this game. One more post and I'm done. Saving the best for last.
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 11:07:52 PM
Quote from: AngryMuffin on July 14, 2013, 10:58:13 PM
You won't address it because you can't win the argument. You can't win the argument because you are wrong and a few hours ago - completely uninformed. Now you are more informed but still not processing the information.
You're bright enough to know not to engage but you're not bright enough to successfully argue your point.
I'd try to avoid a fight with a stronger opponent too.
Actually. I don't address the arguments of trolls.
You are a racist troll, and you are using the murder of a black child to launch your pretty pathetic discussion about black criminality.
Never mind the disrespect and lack of common decency to accuse the victim of a murder for his murderers crime.
You havent really advanced an 'argument'. youve simply made an unverified claim about a racial group. Not very impressive.
So I don't know what you think can be 'won', except that you win by further engaging people in your racist chatter.
But Im sure you must be right about me fearing your towering (and unsourced) intellect. Im a shrinking violet when it comes to things like that.
Quote from: AngryMuffin on July 14, 2013, 11:18:05 PM
No I'm not a troll. This is my point of view. It's my point of view in reference to an original post that profiling is unfair and racist. My claim is that profiling exists because of the actions of the people being profiled.
You've not been able to refute a single one of my points - not one. You've only been able to call me names and insult me. I use statistics - you deflect. I try to discuss problem like an adult you finger point and act childish.
You're not very good at this game. One more post and I'm done. Saving the best for last.
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 11:07:52 PM
Quote from: AngryMuffin on July 14, 2013, 10:58:13 PM
You won't address it because you can't win the argument. You can't win the argument because you are wrong and a few hours ago - completely uninformed. Now you are more informed but still not processing the information.
You're bright enough to know not to engage but you're not bright enough to successfully argue your point.
I'd try to avoid a fight with a stronger opponent too.
Actually. I don't address the arguments of trolls.
You are a racist troll, and you are using the murder of a black child to launch your pretty pathetic discussion about black criminality.
Never mind the disrespect and lack of common decency to accuse the victim of a murder for his murderers crime.
You havent really advanced an 'argument'. youve simply made an unverified claim about a racial group. Not very impressive.
So I don't know what you think can be 'won', except that you win by further engaging people in your racist chatter.
But Im sure you must be right about me fearing your towering (and unsourced) intellect. Im a shrinking violet when it comes to things like that.
AngryMuffin when they call you Troll it's because you have gotten under their skin?
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 11:26:51 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 14, 2013, 11:24:48 PM
AngryMuffin when they call you Troll it's because you have gotten under their skin?
1. no. it has an actual meaning.
2. while its true there isnt a great appetite for 'stupid' around here, it doesnt mean you are trolling.
Stephen why don't you spell check what you post?
I am going to lobby for a bill that expressly gives people the right to flee danger. As a provision following people who are fearfully fleeing you will constitute harassment and of course any gun use in the commitment of that crime (harassment ) will in no way be justifiable.
You ought to be able to try and avoid trouble without it taking its gun and pursuing you.
Oh boy. Not so good at math are you? Who cares what unknown is. Say it's 50 / 50.
At 50 / 50.
White : 6767
Black : 7524
Population white / black 72% vs 12%
That would change the result to 6.74 black murders per 1 white murder.
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 11:23:13 PM
Well Lake, it turns out that the first line of his own link shows his interpretation to be complete bullshit.
Total for 2011 14,548
Sex of offender:
Male 9,485
Female: 1,138
Unknown Gender: 3,925
Race of offender:
White: 4,729
Black: 5,486
Other: 256
Unknown: 4,077
32% vs 37% black v. white respectively, except there is the huge problem presented by the 'unknown' category. 28%. Considering that there is no information on his link which shows the racial breakdown of the 'unknown', any conclusions would be kind of stupid to make. It is possible that all 4,077 of the unknown murderers are white, They could all be "Other". Who knows?
And so on the basis of this very thin and non conclusive data, you would like us to stop noticing that a child murder was committed by a guy (whose family describes him as a racist) and talk about your racist theories instead?
Well awesome. But it still doesnt cover your underlying problem with dancing around the difference between 'killers' and 'murderers'. Your point was about social violence and killing, but youve narrowed it to the category of people who have been found guilty of murder instead.
And even then, your own citations don't back up your little fantasy.
They call me a troll because I'm much brighter and more informed than they are and I'm showing them to be mental weaklings.
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 14, 2013, 11:24:48 PM
Quote from: AngryMuffin on July 14, 2013, 11:18:05 PM
No I'm not a troll. This is my point of view. It's my point of view in reference to an original post that profiling is unfair and racist. My claim is that profiling exists because of the actions of the people being profiled.
You've not been able to refute a single one of my points - not one. You've only been able to call me names and insult me. I use statistics - you deflect. I try to discuss problem like an adult you finger point and act childish.
You're not very good at this game. One more post and I'm done. Saving the best for last.
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 11:07:52 PM
Quote from: AngryMuffin on July 14, 2013, 10:58:13 PM
You won't address it because you can't win the argument. You can't win the argument because you are wrong and a few hours ago - completely uninformed. Now you are more informed but still not processing the information.
You're bright enough to know not to engage but you're not bright enough to successfully argue your point.
I'd try to avoid a fight with a stronger opponent too.
Actually. I don't address the arguments of trolls.
You are a racist troll, and you are using the murder of a black child to launch your pretty pathetic discussion about black criminality.
Never mind the disrespect and lack of common decency to accuse the victim of a murder for his murderers crime.
You havent really advanced an 'argument'. youve simply made an unverified claim about a racial group. Not very impressive.
So I don't know what you think can be 'won', except that you win by further engaging people in your racist chatter.
But Im sure you must be right about me fearing your towering (and unsourced) intellect. Im a shrinking violet when it comes to things like that.
AngryMuffin when they call you Troll it's because you have gotten under their skin?
And Steve for my checkmate. I remember a nice interview and glowing writeup that you did a while back. Lucky guy to get the opportunity to talk to Bill Cosby. You clearly showed him the reverence and respect that he deserved.
Here is the part that sucks for you. He agrees with everything I've been saying on this thread:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itWCvkK44lE
Your interview of Bill:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2012-apr-stephen-dare-interviews-bill-cosby
My work here is done. Hope you're better prepared for the next time.
Good night.
Well it would be nice if you were good at math. You don't have a talent for debate.
How about some unambiguous numbers from the NYC 2012 crime stats with 99% of the perp race known?
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/2012_year_end_enforcement_report.pdf
15 to 1 in the NYC report.
But I'm sure thats just because of all of the racist cops in NYC.
If you don't admit there is the problem - you can't address the problem.
I haven't referred to anyone as a troll. There's also been no response to my post on what I believe to be heavily skewed statistics. Any comments? With that said, none of this stuff deals with the topic at hand, which is a kid losing losing his life for absolutely nothing and the instigator/shooter doing no time for it.
Lake .... I agree totally with your post No. 178 wherein you discuss the fundamental causes of the problems endured by the black community ... oppressive and discriminatory conditions which have been around since the civil war. The U. S. has come a certain way toward resolving these economic, social, and political pressures which have perpetuated the lack of real opportunities for the black population, but anyone observing the continued problems will know that there is much to be done.
Societal momentums and habits, along with the continued existence of enough individuals prone to racist behavior and decisions, ensure that times will continue to be bleak, even desperate, for the majority of black men and boys. Hopefully, as more individuals become schooled in the subtle causes of discrimination, the American population will have a greater percentage of movers and shakers who will have a genuine desire to make solid changes favoring the minorities who've suffered for many decades. The black man has endured over many decades what we might call institutional racism, which originates in the operation of established and respected forces in our society, and thus receives little public condemnation. Shame on American whites, the comfortable and complacent, for allowing continued discrimination and oppression, however subtle it may be.
As for Zimmerman and Martin ... without clear evidence as to what happened, I don't see how Zimmerman can be found guilty of anything close to manslaughter or murder. He certainly should not have initiated a scenario with the potential to escalate to violence, which he did by following Martin too close, and for too long. If it was murder .... and if there is enough evidence to it, then by all means we should convict and punish. But given the lack of clear evidence, how does one convict on a murder or manslaughter charge?
What jury is going to put a man in jail based on assumptions of what actually happened? Martin's death is a tragedy, but that doesn't change the fact that there is too little evidence for conviction.
It reminds me of the O.J. Simpson case. Surely O. J. was guilty of the killings. But the jury process did not convict. Ridiculous. Thank goodness he was made to suffer via other means. Although Zimmerman's actions are not so clear as that of Simpson's, perhaps further evidence will allow for proper punishment for Zimmerman via the federal or civil actions.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 15, 2013, 12:03:39 AM
I haven't referred to anyone as a troll. There's also been no response to my post on what I believe to be heavily skewed statistics. Any comments? With that said, none of this stuff deals with the topic at hand, which is a kid losing losing his life for absolutely nothing and the instigator/shooter doing no time for it.
And this is the long and short of it. Nothing else matters.
Quote from: ronchamblin on July 15, 2013, 02:28:48 AM
As for Zimmerman and Martin ... without clear evidence as to what happened, I don't see how Zimmerman can be found guilty of anything close to manslaughter or murder. He certainly should not have initiated a scenario with the potential to escalate to violence, which he did by following Martin too close, and for too long. If it was murder .... and if there is enough evidence to it, then by all means we should convict and punish. But given the lack of clear evidence, how does one convict on a murder or manslaughter charge?
What jury is going to put a man in jail based on assumptions of what actually happened? Martin's death is a tragedy, but that doesn't change the fact that there is too little evidence for conviction.
It reminds me of the O.J. Simpson case. Surely O. J. was guilty of the killings. But the jury process did not convict. Ridiculous. Thank goodness he was made to suffer via other means. Although Zimmerman's actions are not so clear as that of Simpson's, perhaps further evidence will allow for proper punishment for Zimmerman via the federal or civil actions.
It seems the evidence is there for manslaughter and certainly the kid's civil rights were violated. As I've continued to state, I don't think this is over by a long shot. Nevertheless, we can't raise TM from the dead but we can work to save other innocent people from similar fates.
Whatever is wrong, needs to be fixed. And needs to be fixed quickly. We cannot live in a world where this is allowed to happen.
The message sent is more than alarming.
go here to sign a petition.
QuoteOpen a civil rights case against George Zimmmerman
A jury has acquitted George Zimmerman, but we are not done demanding justice for Trayvon. Sign our petition to the Department of Justice today.
Attorney General Eric Holder,
The Department of Justice has closely monitored the State of Florida's prosecution of the case against George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin murder since it began. Today, with the acquittal of George Zimmerman, it is time for the Department of Justice to act.
The most fundamental of civil rights — the right to life — was violated the night George Zimmerman stalked and then took the life of Trayvon Martin. We ask that the Department of Justice file civil rights charges against Mr. Zimmerman for this egregious violation.
Please address the travesties of the tragic death of Trayvon Martin by acting today.
Thank you.
http://www.naacp.org/page/s/doj-civil-rights-petition
If her son is not safe...
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/martin.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/martin.jpg.html)
no mother's son is safe.
bottom line.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 15, 2013, 07:32:08 AM
It seems the evidence is there for manslaughter and certainly the kid's civil rights were violated. As I've continued to state, I don't think this is over by a long shot. Nevertheless, we can't raise TM from the dead but we can work to save other innocent people from similar fates.
What civil right was violated?
Quote from: sheclown on July 15, 2013, 07:36:57 AM
Whatever is wrong, needs to be fixed. And needs to be fixed quickly. We cannot live in a world where this is allowed to happen.
The message sent is more than alarming.
What was the message?
Quote from: FSBA on July 15, 2013, 08:28:10 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 15, 2013, 07:32:08 AM
It seems the evidence is there for manslaughter and certainly the kid's civil rights were violated. As I've continued to state, I don't think this is over by a long shot. Nevertheless, we can't raise TM from the dead but we can work to save other innocent people from similar fates.
What civil right was violated?
I think your right there isn't an implicit right. That is why I think we need to enact a law that expresses the right to flee danger without continuing harassment. Certainly if we are allowed to use deadly force for just believing we are in danger we ought to be able to flee if we believe we are in danger.
IMO Zimmerman's continued pursuit, after he noted in the 911 call that TM was running, should constituent harassment (not stating that as law). If we make it law then his weapon would have been used in the act of a crime and not justifiable by self defense.
Quote from: FSBA on July 15, 2013, 08:28:10 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 15, 2013, 07:32:08 AM
It seems the evidence is there for manslaughter and certainly the kid's civil rights were violated. As I've continued to state, I don't think this is over by a long shot. Nevertheless, we can't raise TM from the dead but we can work to save other innocent people from similar fates.
What civil right was violated?
I'm no attorney but many are saying his right to live is one. I guess we'll see in upcoming months.
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 15, 2013, 09:29:27 AM
Quote from: FSBA on July 15, 2013, 08:28:10 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 15, 2013, 07:32:08 AM
It seems the evidence is there for manslaughter and certainly the kid's civil rights were violated. As I've continued to state, I don't think this is over by a long shot. Nevertheless, we can't raise TM from the dead but we can work to save other innocent people from similar fates.
What civil right was violated?
I think your right there isn't an implicit right. That is why I think we need to enact a law that expresses the right to flee danger without continuing harassment. Certainly if we are allowed to use deadly force for just believing we are in danger we ought to be able to flee if we believe we are in danger.
IMO Zimmerman's continued pursuit, after he noted in the 911 call that TM was running, should constituent harassment (not stating that as law). If we make it law then his weapon would have been used in the act of a crime and not justifiable by self defense.
Lots of folks trying to oversimplify this case by stating: "A 17 year old is dead, and that's all that needs to be said." Unfortunately, its not that simple. Zimmerman had to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and the jury could not get to that level of certainty.
Yeah, it's not that simple. That's why I don't believe everything ends with this decision. Things are just beginning.
Quote from: MEGATRON on July 15, 2013, 09:52:48 AM
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 15, 2013, 09:29:27 AM
Quote from: FSBA on July 15, 2013, 08:28:10 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 15, 2013, 07:32:08 AM
It seems the evidence is there for manslaughter and certainly the kid's civil rights were violated. As I've continued to state, I don't think this is over by a long shot. Nevertheless, we can't raise TM from the dead but we can work to save other innocent people from similar fates.
What civil right was violated?
I think your right there isn't an implicit right. That is why I think we need to enact a law that expresses the right to flee danger without continuing harassment. Certainly if we are allowed to use deadly force for just believing we are in danger we ought to be able to flee if we believe we are in danger.
IMO Zimmerman's continued pursuit, after he noted in the 911 call that TM was running, should constituent harassment (not stating that as law). If we make it law then his weapon would have been used in the act of a crime and not justifiable by self defense.
Lots of folks trying to oversimplify this case by stating: "A 17 year old is dead, and that's all that needs to be said." Unfortunately, its not that simple. Zimmerman had to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and the jury could not get to that level of certainty.
Agree, I think the jury made the right call according to the law. I think the law should be changed so the when the skittles toting teenager runs from the gun toting block captain it frees the teen from having to further deal with whoever it is he feels he needs to flee.
Seems to me running issues a pretty strong statement that I would feel safer with some distance from who I am running from. That statement seems like a reasonable request. Do you not think bird dogging someone who flees from you is a kind of harassment?
Quote from: sheclown on July 15, 2013, 08:18:08 AM
go here to sign a petition.
QuoteOpen a civil rights case against George Zimmmerman
A jury has acquitted George Zimmerman, but we are not done demanding justice for Trayvon. Sign our petition to the Department of Justice today.
Attorney General Eric Holder,
The Department of Justice has closely monitored the State of Florida's prosecution of the case against George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin murder since it began. Today, with the acquittal of George Zimmerman, it is time for the Department of Justice to act.
The most fundamental of civil rights — the right to life — was violated the night George Zimmerman stalked and then took the life of Trayvon Martin. We ask that the Department of Justice file civil rights charges against Mr. Zimmerman for this egregious violation.
Please address the travesties of the tragic death of Trayvon Martin by acting today.
Thank you.
http://www.naacp.org/page/s/doj-civil-rights-petition
If her son is not safe...
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/martin.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/martin.jpg.html)
no mother's son is safe.
bottom line.
When was her son safe? No one's children are safe today, they weren't safe in the days, weeks, years before Trayvon died. Murderers, kidnappers and rapists have been stealing our children yet few people have shown the outrage they are showing over this case.
This was a terrible tragedy, and there are terrible tragedies every day just ask Robert Sutton.
Until we take on the issues that Lake has mentioned in this thread, there are many more dangers for our children than a fluke like the GZ incident.
Murder and manslaughter are State charges. I am not aware of any ability by the federal government to charge citizens with violation of any "civil right to live". The Police Officers in the Rodney King case were charged with civil rights violations because they were acting under color of law, or under their authority as Police. I will defer to an attorney who is familiar with this area of law, but I don't see it.
In any event, this would appear to be a violation of double jeapordy. There may yet be some legal action at the state level, and the parents of Martin will file a civil lawsuit.
I agree that manslaughter was the appropriate charge, but it was an included charge in the trial and apparently, at least in the eyes of the jury, it was not proved in trial. Zimmerman has been tried and aquitted. It is certainly not a perfect system, but it is the best we have.
It is my understanding, correct me if I am wrong, that Zimmerman testified that he lost sight of Martin, and then upon exitin his truck he was pysically attacked by Martin without warning. I don't know if there were witnesses to that beyond Mr. Zimmerman. I did hear a witness testifying that he saw what appeared to be Mr. Martin on top of Mr. Zimmerman striking him. This was apparently enough for the jury not to assign guilt to Mr. Zimmerman. So it appears to me that it was not the Zimmermans testimony of "fleeing" that caused the jury to come back with their verdict, but his testimony of a sudden physical attack without warning.
This is a judgement call in my opinion. A tough one for the jury. Mr. Martin is dead and could not present his own testament as to what happened. All the jury had was the evidence that was presented.
I don't see what laws should be changed. We live in an imperfect world. Of course no one's son is safe. No one is completely safe. Giving up liberties to chase "security" is a false hope. Your actions have consequences. Both Zimmerman and Martin's actions that night had consequences. A different choice at any stage leads to different results. This tragic case has been hijacked by others to be used for their own purposes. I see the language being repeated here... "wanna be cop", "wanna be thug", "twice his size", etc. and even worse. I don't believe there is a lot more to this other than a civil trial, which will award any monetary profit from this circus to the Martin family.
Govt going after Zimmerman sets a dangerous precedent that will assuredly do more harm than good.
Quote from: fsquid on July 15, 2013, 10:41:18 AM
Govt going after Zimmerman sets a dangerous precedent that will assuredly do more harm than good.
Agreed
As I have previously stated, I would have thought that a manslaughter conviction was appropriate in this case. The jury did not agree.
What other "security guy shooting a teenager to death" cases are you speaking of?
I do not see adding a law that explicitly states one right to flee without harassment as giving up liberty. I do not think it was relevant in this case under current law but Zimmerman said he's running in the 911 call. He should have been allowed to avoid Zimmerman by Fleeing IMO.
I think an educational effort after a "You are protected if you run law" would teach people to watch their homes and neighborhoods without harassing people who do something like ("he look's like he's on drugs just walking while it's raining"GZ).
Fight or Flight instinct is real and when you take away the flight option you shouldn't get cover when the fight instinct takes over.
Quote from: fsquid on July 15, 2013, 10:41:18 AM
Govt going after Zimmerman sets a dangerous precedent that will assuredly do more harm than good.
BS if this wasn't a politically charged case just a simple child murder we would all want the government to pursue every legal means to take the child killer off the street.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 15, 2013, 09:35:54 AM
Quote from: FSBA on July 15, 2013, 08:28:10 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 15, 2013, 07:32:08 AM
It seems the evidence is there for manslaughter and certainly the kid's civil rights were violated. As I've continued to state, I don't think this is over by a long shot. Nevertheless, we can't raise TM from the dead but we can work to save other innocent people from similar fates.
What civil right was violated?
I'm no attorney but many are saying his right to live is one. I guess we'll see in upcoming months.
so anyone found not guilty of murder can then be charged on a civil rights law?
Quote from: duvalbill on July 15, 2013, 09:20:01 AM
Quote from: sheclown on July 15, 2013, 07:36:57 AM
Whatever is wrong, needs to be fixed. And needs to be fixed quickly. We cannot live in a world where this is allowed to happen.
The message sent is more than alarming
What was the message?
Well. Open season on young black men for one Easy targets. No protection
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 15, 2013, 10:53:39 AM
I do not see adding a law that explicitly states one right to flee without harassment as giving up liberty. I do not think it was relevant in this case under current law but Zimmerman said he's running in the 911 call. He should have been allowed to avoid Zimmerman by Fleeing IMO.
I think an educational effort after a "You are protected if you run law" would teach people to watch their homes and neighborhoods without harassing people who do something like ("he look's like he's on drugs just walking while it's raining"GZ).
Fight or Flight instinct is real and when you take away the flight option you shouldn't get cover when the fight instinct takes over.
It is my understanding that the testimony claimed that Martin attacked Zimmerman without warning after Zimmerman got out of his truck. With no evidence to contradict that testimony, then any "fleeing" law would not apply. Current law would protect any citizen who is attempting to flee danger. Had there been any evidence that Zimmerman "caught up to" Martin and attacked him then I am sure there would have been a conviction.
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 11:34:19 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 14, 2013, 11:31:12 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 11:26:51 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 14, 2013, 11:24:48 PM
AngryMuffin when they call you Troll it's because you have gotten under their skin?
1. no. it has an actual meaning.
2. while its true there isnt a great appetite for 'stupid' around here, it doesnt mean you are trolling.
Stephen why don't you spell check what you post?
I often forget, especially when I am actually watching television. In reality I don't ever use spell check. Its usually lazy typing or autocorrect. Predictably I was a spelling bee champion throughout my youth, and Im pretty accurate in a few languages. But sometimes I type faster than I read.
sorry.
I just ran spell check and it says that I didn't add a contraction mark in the word "isn't".
I hope that it didn't completely distort my meaning.
It didn't it just looks better. Thank You
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 15, 2013, 10:54:48 AM
Quote from: fsquid on July 15, 2013, 10:41:18 AM
Govt going after Zimmerman sets a dangerous precedent that will assuredly do more harm than good.
BS if this wasn't a politically charged case just a simple child murder we would all want the government to pursue every legal means to take the child killer off the street.
he was tried and found not guilty, that is the system. Do you want the Feds getting involved in every case where people don't agree with the verdict?
Quote from: sheclown on July 15, 2013, 11:00:33 AM
Quote from: duvalbill on July 15, 2013, 09:20:01 AM
Quote from: sheclown on July 15, 2013, 07:36:57 AM
Whatever is wrong, needs to be fixed. And needs to be fixed quickly. We cannot live in a world where this is allowed to happen.
The message sent is more than alarming
What was the message?
Well. Open season on young black men for one Easy targets. No protection
I must assume you didn't watch a single second of the trial. Otherwise, you wouldn't post such a silly response.
Quote from: sheclown on July 15, 2013, 11:00:33 AM
Quote from: duvalbill on July 15, 2013, 09:20:01 AM
Quote from: sheclown on July 15, 2013, 07:36:57 AM
Whatever is wrong, needs to be fixed. And needs to be fixed quickly. We cannot live in a world where this is allowed to happen.
The message sent is more than alarming
What was the message?
Well. Open season on young black men for one Easy targets. No protection
hyperbole
NN I think Zimmerman reporting on the 911 call that TM was running is evidence that supports fleeing.
Fsquid I don't want the Feds into every disappointing verdict or even this one I just do not see it opening up a bunch of problems.
Quote from: acme54321 on July 15, 2013, 10:45:44 AM
Quote from: fsquid on July 15, 2013, 10:41:18 AM
Govt going after Zimmerman sets a dangerous precedent that will assuredly do more harm than good.
Agreed
Many thought the same with the Emmet Till case in 1955. You strive to get better, not maintain status quo. This is larger than GZ.
Jeffrey,
I agree that Zimmerman's decision to continue his pursuit and/or search after he said that martin was "running" is an issue. My point is that any "fleeing" law would not apply when a person stops "fleeing". I wasn't in the courtroom, and I am not familiar with the testimony but it is my understanding that Zimmerman claimed he was suddenly attacked by Martin after Zimmerman had lost sight of him and had exited his truck. It is also my understanding that there was no evidence to argue this testimony.
Lake,
I wouldn't equate the Emmet Till case with this one. I understand the racial sensitivity, and I understand the outrage at the loss of a seventeen year old boy in such circumstances. But I would not equate Zimmerman's overzealous pursuit and the subsequent conflict between him and Martin with what happened to Till.
Quote from: fsquid on July 15, 2013, 11:14:01 AM
Quote from: sheclown on July 15, 2013, 11:00:33 AM
Quote from: duvalbill on July 15, 2013, 09:20:01 AM
Quote from: sheclown on July 15, 2013, 07:36:57 AM
Whatever is wrong, needs to be fixed. And needs to be fixed quickly. We cannot live in a world where this is allowed to happen.
The message sent is more than alarming
What was the message?
Well. Open season on young black men for one Easy targets. No protection
hyperbole
Gesundheit& btw.
I have walked this earth for quite a while now. I grew up near DC during the civil rights marches. I have witnessed overt and covert racism in many forums and I gotta tell ya...
...anyone who thinks this isn't anything but a state-sanctioned lynching is being naive.
Quote from: sheclown on July 15, 2013, 11:44:01 AM
Quote from: fsquid on July 15, 2013, 11:14:01 AM
Quote from: sheclown on July 15, 2013, 11:00:33 AM
Quote from: duvalbill on July 15, 2013, 09:20:01 AM
Quote from: sheclown on July 15, 2013, 07:36:57 AM
Whatever is wrong, needs to be fixed. And needs to be fixed quickly. We cannot live in a world where this is allowed to happen.
The message sent is more than alarming
What was the message?
Well. Open season on young black men for one Easy targets. No protection
hyperbole
Gesundheit
& btw.
I have walked this earth for quite a while now. I grew up near DC during the civil rights marches. I have witnessed overt and covert racism in many forums and I gotta tell ya...
...anyone who thinks this isn't anything but a state-sanctioned lynching is being naive.
It's a little early to be drinking.
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 11:45:40 AM
Quote from: fsquid on July 15, 2013, 10:56:13 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 15, 2013, 09:35:54 AM
Quote from: FSBA on July 15, 2013, 08:28:10 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 15, 2013, 07:32:08 AM
It seems the evidence is there for manslaughter and certainly the kid's civil rights were violated. As I've continued to state, I don't think this is over by a long shot. Nevertheless, we can't raise TM from the dead but we can work to save other innocent people from similar fates.
What civil right was violated?
I'm no attorney but many are saying his right to live is one. I guess we'll see in upcoming months.
so anyone found not guilty of murder can then be charged on a civil rights law?
Best to let the courts play it out than to pointelessly argue the finer points of law here.
Have you ever read the Civil Rights Act? Or read up on Civil Rights Law?
Or were you asking genuinely?
I have, although on a very basic level. I was simply responding to the statement that Trayvon's civil right to live was violated. When put in those simple terms, you could bring up civil rights charges on any acquitted murderer if you wanted to.
Quote from: sheclown on July 15, 2013, 11:44:01 AM
Quote from: fsquid on July 15, 2013, 11:14:01 AM
Quote from: sheclown on July 15, 2013, 11:00:33 AM
Quote from: duvalbill on July 15, 2013, 09:20:01 AM
Quote from: sheclown on July 15, 2013, 07:36:57 AM
Whatever is wrong, needs to be fixed. And needs to be fixed quickly. We cannot live in a world where this is allowed to happen.
The message sent is more than alarming
What was the message?
Well. Open season on young black men for one Easy targets. No protection
hyperbole
Gesundheit
& btw.
I have walked this earth for quite a while now. I grew up near DC during the civil rights marches. I have witnessed overt and covert racism in many forums and I gotta tell ya...
...anyone who thinks this isn't anything but a state-sanctioned lynching is being naive.
that's great that you have experienced that. Still doesn't change my opinion that this isn't going to mean that black kids are going to get gunned down at will in the streets starting next month anymore than they already are in some inner cities.
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 12:05:17 PM
Quote from: fsquid on July 15, 2013, 11:54:41 AM
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 11:45:40 AM
Quote from: fsquid on July 15, 2013, 10:56:13 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 15, 2013, 09:35:54 AM
Quote from: FSBA on July 15, 2013, 08:28:10 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 15, 2013, 07:32:08 AM
It seems the evidence is there for manslaughter and certainly the kid's civil rights were violated. As I've continued to state, I don't think this is over by a long shot. Nevertheless, we can't raise TM from the dead but we can work to save other innocent people from similar fates.
What civil right was violated?
I'm no attorney but many are saying his right to live is one. I guess we'll see in upcoming months.
so anyone found not guilty of murder can then be charged on a civil rights law?
Best to let the courts play it out than to pointelessly argue the finer points of law here.
Have you ever read the Civil Rights Act? Or read up on Civil Rights Law?
Or were you asking genuinely?
I have, although on a very basic level. I was simply responding to the statement that Trayvon's civil right to live was violated. When put in those simple terms, you could bring up civil rights charges on any acquitted murderer if you wanted to.
or unacquitted murder. Lets not over burden the simplification with so much hot air. ;)
well if you are found guilty of murder, I believe the feds just let the state sentence be.
Quote...anyone who thinks this isn't anything but a state-sanctioned lynching is being naive covertly racist.
Wow... Pretty broad statement there... ::)
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 12:06:05 PM
Quote from: sheclown on July 15, 2013, 11:44:01 AM
Quote from: fsquid on July 15, 2013, 11:14:01 AM
Quote from: sheclown on July 15, 2013, 11:00:33 AM
Quote from: duvalbill on July 15, 2013, 09:20:01 AM
Quote from: sheclown on July 15, 2013, 07:36:57 AM
Whatever is wrong, needs to be fixed. And needs to be fixed quickly. We cannot live in a world where this is allowed to happen.
The message sent is more than alarming
What was the message?
Well. Open season on young black men for one Easy targets. No protection
hyperbole
Gesundheit
& btw.
I have walked this earth for quite a while now. I grew up near DC during the civil rights marches. I have witnessed overt and covert racism in many forums and I gotta tell ya...
...anyone who thinks this isn't anything but a state-sanctioned lynching is being naive covertly racist.
There are not enough facepalms in the world if that's what you believe.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 15, 2013, 12:48:59 PM
Quote...anyone who thinks this isn't anything but a state-sanctioned lynching is being naive covertly racist.
Wow... Pretty broad statement there... ::)
I often wonder if Stephen merely posts these type of flamebait statements to drive clicks for the site.
The thread began with the statement "Zimmerman Found Not Guilty". I think it is safe to say that him being found not guilty refers to his "trial". However on this thread posters have moved to a number of topics that in my view go to the underlying emotions the trial brought out and not the trial itself. I want to say again that if we are going to address those issues, it should be one at a time without making this a personal contest of who is right and who is wrong but rather what are the issues in "everyone's" view that made this trial so "powerful" and what are the emotions behind all of the public outpouring? Look, if we are not going to allow others their views, even if we don't agree with those views then we are turning our eyes and ears away from causes, real or imagined. I use the word imagined, because the reality each of us feel regarding this case are based on what we imagine happened and what we imagine the causes were.
Was this a state sanctioned lynching? No, it wasn't and I have heard that sentiment more than once. While it's a feeling one can definitely associate with the killing a a black youth, the reality in this case is that Zimmerman's actions were called out, he was charged "by the state" and prosecuted "by the state". Was this a travesty of justice under the law "no". Cause here is the fact of the matter. It was the law "as written" that the attorneys, judge and the jurors had to abide by.
There was a grand jury seated whose purpose was to review the killing of Trayvon and decide if there was enough evidence to charge Zimmerman and with what crime. When it was apparent that the case was one that had caught the eye and passions of the public, Angela Corey stepped in and put herself at the front of this case. The grand jury was dismissed and a special prosecutor took this into their own hands, to trial with a murder 2 charge which under the law must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Corey and her prosecutors who are in fact "the state" in this situation were responsible for prosecuting Zimmerman and getting justice for Trayvon. Since the state prosecuted for Trayvon there is not way I can see that the state sanctioned Trayvon's death. It didn't, but the man who caused his death was found "not guilty" because of the way our laws in Florida are written and that's the God's honest truth.
My view on what happened with the case itself (I am only talking trial here), is perhaps a bit different than what others have focused on so far. First questions, why did Corey jump into this case? Remember Corey, who is known for overcharging in cases, particularly those with minorities in the hot seat, now want's to step up as she said over and over again, while standing before cameras next to the Martin's was only "to get justice for Trayvon". Sure painted herself as a scion for justice at that moment. But what is her record really? Remember Christian Hernandez? He was the 10 year old child, (child not teenager) that Corey in her quest for justice charged as an adult. The 10 year old who violently pushed his brother into a bookcase and the little brother died because the injured child's own mother did not get medical help for him until hours later. As it turns out several high powered attorneys challenged Corey's actions and the child was tried as a juvenile and is now safe and receiving treatment.
Corey has taken some serious hits overtime when it comes to Black prosecution and minority prosecution. I think she saw the Trayvon case as a way to thrust herself into the spotlight as the avenging angel for the Martin family and in so doing to rehabilitate herself in the eyes of public opinion. I thought this to begin with but felt it even more strongly when she instructed her office to withhold evidence from the defense in this case. Sanctions against her are now pending for this reason. When the Zimmerman verdict was announced as "not guilty", Corey rushed before television camera's, not to the Martin's in support and then played the role of the "good loser" thanking local authorities for their treatment of her and her team while wearing this odd and phoney smile. She said while she didn't like the outcome, she respects the law and the jury's verdict. She also stated the case was "Never about race". Really? Is this what she thought? I seriously doubt it.
Zimmerman was not convicted because Corey charged him with a crime she and her team could not prove. The prosecution put on a lousy case to support a murder two charge. They didn't prep witnesses, civil or otherwise all they did was call Zimmerman a liar or cop wanna be and during closing arguments actually claimed he made a statement about killing Trayvon that was proved to be a lie as the incident was recorded. The prosecution blew it and the way our laws are written set up the state for a "not guilty". Is that racist? No it's not, the jury acted according to the law they were instructed to use and anyone who watched the trial knows that there were many, many circumstances raised in the case that screamed "reasonable doubt". Which means if the jury had any doubt that was reasonable, they could not convict on the murder 2 charge. The addition of the manslaughter charge as a "fall back" charge that was not defended in the court failed. Had the case been argued under that charge we may have seen a different outcome.
The questions the case raised touch upon deeply felt hurts in the Black community that are justified and backed by more than a few historical events. We cannot undo those events, but we should avoid infusing this case with facts from the past. In order to discuss the injustice in the deaths of everyone who has died because of racism, we need to listen, stay calm, not make it about ourselves but rather about everyone. Zimmerman was one guy who for many became everyone that had ever made a racist statement in the past, but he does not speak for an entire race and an entire race is not prejudiced. My goodness, this insistence on calling him "white" as a basis to prove his thoughts and actions were racist is in and of itself the backside of racism, it is a racist view. The underlying question is why human beings, not just here but globally judge one another by the color of their skin as opposed to the content of their character? If we are going to discuss such an important issue can we please do it without the need to attack those with different opinions or life experiences? We need to first listen with compassion to all that is said, not lash out, because when we do that we only fall into the habits of the past which have allowed the deep problems of racism to fester and grow.
Quote from: sheclown on July 15, 2013, 11:44:01 AM
Quote from: fsquid on July 15, 2013, 11:14:01 AM
Quote from: sheclown on July 15, 2013, 11:00:33 AM
Quote from: duvalbill on July 15, 2013, 09:20:01 AM
Quote from: sheclown on July 15, 2013, 07:36:57 AM
Whatever is wrong, needs to be fixed. And needs to be fixed quickly. We cannot live in a world where this is allowed to happen.
The message sent is more than alarming
What was the message?
Well. Open season on young black men for one Easy targets. No protection
hyperbole
Gesundheit
& btw.
I have walked this earth for quite a while now. I grew up near DC during the civil rights marches. I have witnessed overt and covert racism in many forums and I gotta tell ya...
...anyone who thinks this isn't anything but a state-sanctioned lynching is being naive.
That is a complete load of crap.
The evidence did not support convicting Zimmerman. Is it a tragedy? Yes. There are two people who know what happened that night, and one of them is dead. The prosecution presented their case and it was not enough to convince a jury that he was guilty. Could he have been guilty of what they claimed? Yes, but the burden of proof is on the prosecution and they must convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt and the bar is purposely set that high by our laws to help prevent innocent people of being convicted of crimes they did not commit.
William Blackstone, a British jurist and judge who influenced a number of our founding fathers, said that it is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished.
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 01:19:08 PM
Quote from: carpnter on July 15, 2013, 01:15:46 PM
That is a complete load of crap.
The evidence did not support convicting Zimmerman.
Is that your legal opinion Carpenter? What part of the testimony that you listened to and saw, you know during the court proceedings that makes you say that?
Looking for specifics here.
The jury made that decision, the state did not convince them beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. Their opinion is the only one that matters. What you or I think really isn't relevant, but since you asked.
I didn't watch the trial, but I did read the daily news articles and read CNN's Headline News daily blog of the trial, and from what I read, there wasn't enough to get beyond reasonable doubt.
I like many other people thought he was guilty and should have already been arrested when the story first came out, but as more information came out my opinion changed. I can't say Zimmerman is innocent, but I can say that the evidence isn't there to convict him beyond that reasonable doubt.
Stephen, the jurors listened to five long weeks of testimony from both sides. They received directions from the court as to what guilty beyond a reasonable doubt meant. The testimony of many individuals as well as expert witnesses confirmed doubt at many levels. Let's just take one statement by Angela Corey herself on behalf of her prosecution made after the verdict. She was asked why she went for a murder 2 conviction. Her answer I found to be stunning. Her reasoning was that they had listened to the 911 tape of the screams during the altercation between Zimmerman and Trayvon. They were "sure" the once screaming was Trayvon and backed that up with the statement that the screaming stopped after the shot was fired. As it turns out the preponderance of witnesses said it was Zimmerman screaming but the hard facts are that police forensics and the forensics of the FBI said there was no way to know for sure if it was Zimmerman or Trayvon screaming. Nada, they testified to this in court. Right there you have reasonable doubt through the testimony of experts from the FBI. There were other things as well testified to by experts where serious doubt was raised regarding the actual shooting of Trayvon, which spoke to him being on top during the altercation and the direction in which he was shot and all that it indicated. The entire trial was filled with areas of testimony and conflicting evidence that raised doubt. The jury decided not guilty which means after all those weeks of testimony and backroom discussions they had doubts. I watched most of the trial and I would have to agree with the jury's response based on how the law was written and the criterion for reasonable doubt.
Alan Dershowitz called it from the beginning, based on the weakness of the case.
It was a weak case and did not do Trayvon justice. I mean if Corey and her prosecutors were making their case based upon the screams hear over a cell phone as a murder 2 it really was a stretch and speakers to her penchant to overcharge defendants. My question is "Why did she not change gears and go for a manslaughter conviction when police and FBI experts said there was no way to prove who screamed?" Right there her case was undone, but did she back down from murder 2? No she went blindly ahead thinking she could withhold evidence from the defense and use other tactics to get a conviction. In my view, her inability to change gears and go for another lesser charge that they could possibly prove made this more about Corey having her way than it was about justice for Trayvon. She has a big chip on her shoulder and doesn't like it knocked off. In this case even FBI evidence telling her the basis of her case was not provable she did what she wanted anyway.
I hear what you are saying Stephen, but Corey herself said the trial was never about race. If that is her position then she has made it impossible to look at racial profiling as to the motive for Zimmermans actions. While trial law isn't a science, forensic science is important to a jury and the outcome of a trial. Corey failed Trayvon on all counts in this trial.
The issue of profiling and rights is deeply important and perhaps a thread can be started to focus on that issue. I think a lot of good discussion can be had about profiling, personal rights, rights of free movement and the like. :)
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 01:25:20 PM
Quote from: Gators312 on July 15, 2013, 01:03:19 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 15, 2013, 12:48:59 PM
Quote...anyone who thinks this isn't anything but a state-sanctioned lynching is being naive covertly racist.
Wow... Pretty broad statement there... ::)
I often wonder if Stephen merely posts these type of flamebait statements to drive clicks for the site.
Well there's no reason to wonder. It expresses my personal view.
I have yet to have someone explain their viewpoint on this without resorting to their opinions on the scariness of young black people.
Not even much more than a peep ---with the sole exception of not now, our curious LEO who thinks that facing death by handgun is something that average citizens should have to do whenever they step out to walmart.--- from people who are defending the right to become walking death machines (in self defense, of course) because, you know: Liberty! or something connected by vampire snot to the Second Amendment.
If this is the case, are we really saying that anyone who stalks, abducts, and murders a child can do so without penalty as long as they claim that they percieved the child as a threat? Thats what happened in this case, and no matter how racist or how gun nutty you might personally be, this kind of precedent is an existential threat to you and your family.
Just like the media, you're making this out to be something it's not. I have no idea how you could have listened to the testimony provided, the evidence produced or the state's shaky arguments and thought the outcome should have been any different. This wasn't a matter of race, this was the worst possible scenario playing out. Defenses based upon self-defense are decided on an ad hoc basis, and it's not as if this ruling gives any person the framework to beat a murder charge.
And what a crock for you to portray other's views as racist because they don't align with your tin-foil hat theory.
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 01:49:54 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 15, 2013, 01:45:45 PM
It was a weak case and did not do Trayvon justice. I mean if Corey and her prosecutors were making their case based upon the screams hear over a cell phone as a murder 2 it really was a stretch and speakers to her penchant to overcharge defendants. My question is "Why did she not change gears and go for a manslaughter conviction when police and FBI experts said there was no way to prove who screamed?" Right there her case was undone, but did she back down from murder 2? No she went blindly ahead thinking she could withhold evidence from the defense and use other tactics to get a conviction. In my view, her inability to change gears and go for another lesser charge that they could possibly prove made this more about Corey having her way than it was about justice for Trayvon. She has a big chip on her shoulder and doesn't like it knocked off. In this case even FBI evidence telling her the basis of her case was not provable she did what she wanted anyway.
I think she made the mistake of thinking that all women on a jury were easier to convince when it came to a child, to be frank.
That has never been my own experience. Especially when there is some doubt as to who was at fault situationally.
It was brilliant on the part of the defense to bring Zimmerman's mother to the case, and to present him as an ineffectual loser. Since Trayvon is dead, Zimmerman became the only victim in the room. Its hard to overcome that.
I agree. Not sure what Corey was thinking about the jurors being all women, but as both a woman and mother I can say that if I were deciding what was to become of the life of any human being I would want to make my choice without any doubt as to their guilt. Some others have said that six women, five white were not representative of Trayvon's and Zimmerman's peers. But if they wish to point to the jury and say they didn't get the facts or emotion of the case because of their gender or color is in it's own right a racist view. If the argument is that more Blacks on the jury would have led to a different outcome, it again comes back to the prosecution. They agreed to the jurors and could have made motions to change the jury selection or fought to have 12 jurors instead of 6. They didn't so once again the failed case goes back to the prosecution. No one else.
Stephen, you write: "Angela Corey was undermined by her own staff, leaking negatives about a teenager that had nothing to do with his murder and had a pretty huge task in front of her."
Leaking negatives about Trayvon's past? You mean like the racially charged and derogatory statements about women all over his Twitter feed? Or the pictures of him holding a gun? Or smoking weed? Or from the message boards about him looking for hydrocodone for sizzurp and claiming he's drank it before? Or his multiple suspensions from school? All of that is irrelevant, correct?
Yet at the same time, you think Zimmerman's past IS relevant. You talk about his past run-in with the law and post a link to a HuffPo article where one woman claims that Zimmerman and his family are racists?
Zimmerman's past and the opinions of others are fair game by your standards, but Trayvon's past and his destructive behavior leading up to him referring to Zimmerman by racial epithets and then attacking him for GZ asking "What are you doing?" is not?
Despite the fact that the FBI has already investigated him and cleared him of being a racist? Despite the fact that Det. Serino testified under oath that the profiling was not based on race?
It is apparent that you have an agenda and you are going to skew things to fit your agenda.
Quote from: Jameson on July 15, 2013, 01:58:12 PM
Stephen, you write: "Angela Corey was undermined by her own staff, leaking negatives about a teenager that had nothing to do with his murder and had a pretty huge task in front of her."
Leaking negatives about Trayvon's past? You mean like the racially charged and derogatory statements about women all over his Twitter feed? Or the pictures of him holding a gun? Or smoking weed? Or from the message boards about him looking for hydrocodone for sizzurp and claiming he's drank it before? Or his multiple suspensions from school? All of that is irrelevant, correct?
Yet at the same time, you think Zimmerman's past IS relevant. You talk about his past run-in with the law and post a link to a HuffPo article where one woman claims that Zimmerman and his family are racists?
Zimmerman's past and the opinions of others are fair game by your standards, but Trayvon's past and his destructive behavior leading up to him referring to Zimmerman by racial epithets and then attacking him for GZ asking "What are you doing?" is not?
Despite the fact that the FBI has already investigated him and cleared him of being a racist? Despite the fact that Det. Serino testified under oath that the profiling was not based on race?
It is apparent that you have an agenda and you are going to skew things to fit your agenda.
Not a challenge or argument. Can you tell me the post to which you are referring where such statements were made? Thanks.
Both Zimmerman and Trayvon had opportunities to prevent this tragedy. The whole situation just sucks.
We can go back to the fact that Trayvon would have never even had been in Orlando had he not been suspended from school for 10 days. But even so, Zimmerman should have stopped pursuing him when told to by the dispatcher. Period. But even after that, when he asked Trayvon "What are you doing?", it could have ended there had Trayvon simply said "I'm walking back from the store, see?" But instead, it appears that he got defensive and a fight ensued ending in his tragic death. And if Trayvon was feeling threatened when he was being followed, why didn't he hang up with Rachel and dial 911?
And now here we are. A teenager is dead and Zimmerman has to live with that and he will never have a normal day in his life. It is a tragedy from every angle.
Shame on the media for jumping to conclusions, flat-out lying and distorting the facts to fit their agenda, the President for remarking on a state case that he has no business ever being involved in, the NAACP, Al Sharpton, and the New Black Panthers for stirring up the racial narrative to fit their agenda, Angela Corey's office for manipulating evidence and keeping it from the defense and the press, MSNBC for doctoring recordings to make Zimmerman sound like he was racial profiling, CNN for broadcasting Zimmerman's SSN and personal info, and so on and so on.
We can all learn from this. Most importantly that when "race" is made a focal point in any situation, it can only set us back as a society.
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 01:41:39 PM
Juries are fickle creatures, Diane. In the end most attorneys really don't know what motivates the decisions or why the jurors make up their minds.
Law isnt a science, and our system of trial by jury Justice is an inexact process. It beats Trial by aristocracy, to be sure, but theres no point in mistaking it for a foregone process.
Obviously there was enough evidence to convict OJ Simpson, for the crime that he was later legally found responsible for committing in a separate civil trial. But the jurors didnt convict him for whatever reason, even though he did in fact murder nichole simpson and is presently in jail for another violent crime.
Angela Corey was undermined by her own staff, leaking negatives about a teenager that had nothing to do with his murder and had a pretty huge task in front of her.
But I don't think anyone is arguiing that Zimmerman's outcome should be reversed by the Jury or Judge.
Thats fait accompli, but as in the case of the OJ Simpson case, it is not (nor should it be) the end of the legal matters.
Profiling is a violation of Trayvon's Civil Rights.
He has the right to walk through the streets of a city without being profiled and accosted based on his race.
However, Zimmerman admitted to profiling the kid. No one has denied that he profiled him.
This was probably under the assumption that since Zimmerman wasnt actually a cop that it didnt matter. We usually proceed on the basis that profiling is something that cops do, and if they get caught, then its unfair. In fact the Supremes have found it unconstitutional.
But what happens when a private citizen profiles?
Well thats a different question isnt it?
Stephen, above is the post where you state the line I was referring to in my previous post.
I read the statement as though you found it to be "wrong" that there were leaks in the media about Trayvon's past.
Yet at the same time on page 2 of this very same thread, you dedicate 2 very long posts questioning Zimmerman's past run in with the law, his character, and that of his family.
Quote from: Jameson on July 15, 2013, 02:09:56 PM
Both Zimmerman and Trayvon had opportunities to prevent this tragedy. The whole situation just sucks.
We can go back to the fact that Trayvon would have never even had been in Orlando had he not been suspended from school for 10 days. But even so, Zimmerman should have stopped pursuing him when told to by the dispatcher. Period. But even after that, when he asked Trayvon "What are you doing?", it could have ended there had Trayvon simply said "I'm walking back from the store, see?" But instead, it appears that he got defensive and a fight ensued ending in his tragic death. And if Trayvon was feeling threatened when he was being followed, why didn't he hang up with Rachel and dial 911?
And now here we are. A teenager is dead and Zimmerman has to live with that and he will never have a normal day in his life. It is a tragedy from every angle.
Shame on the media for jumping to conclusions, flat-out lying and distorting the facts to fit their agenda, the President for remarking on a state case that he has no business ever being involved in, the NAACP, Al Sharpton, and the New Black Panthers for stirring up the racial narrative to fit their agenda, Angela Corey's office for manipulating evidence and keeping it from the defense and the press, MSNBC for doctoring recordings to make Zimmerman sound like he was racial profiling, CNN for broadcasting Zimmerman's SSN and personal info, and so on and so on.
We can all learn from this. Most importantly that when "race" is made a focal point in any situation, it can only set us back as a society.
I agree with your overall sentiment, but there was no testimony to Zimmerman asking Trayvon what he was doing. The only commentary that was testified to by either side was Zimmerman saying that just before the altercation, Trayvon approached him saying "You have a problem with me?" and Zimmerman says he responded "No I don't have problem with you" and then said Trayvon struck him. I agree with your statement that media helped to inflame people and did participate in the broadcast of partial truth's which is why NBC is being sued.
The Martin case has become the proverbial "Straw that broke the Camels Back". Trayvon became every black man who has ever been profiled or suspected because of race and Zimmerman became every non black that has acted with prejudice toward Black men. That is the outcropping of the case. The reality is that Zimmerman is just "some guy" not an authority figure and Trayvon is a young man who was killed as a result of the zeal with which he was pursued by another. Neither one perfect. Just two people. Zimmerman was the adult in this situation and in my view he is responsible for his actions that led up to Trayvon's death, but he is not the guy to point to when it comes to issues of racial profiling because the prosecution said this was not about race. Zimmerman represents no one in this situation but himself, not all whites or Hispanics for that matter. Just himself.
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 02:14:50 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 15, 2013, 02:09:56 PM
Both Zimmerman and Trayvon had opportunities to prevent this tragedy. The whole situation just sucks.
We can go back to the fact that Trayvon would have never even had been in Orlando had he not been suspended from school for 10 days. But even so, Zimmerman should have stopped pursuing him when told to by the dispatcher. Period. But even after that, when he asked Trayvon "What are you doing?", it could have ended there had Trayvon simply said "I'm walking back from the store, see?" But instead, it appears that he got defensive and a fight ensued ending in his tragic death. And if Trayvon was feeling threatened when he was being followed, why didn't he hang up with Rachel and dial 911?
And now here we are. A teenager is dead and Zimmerman has to live with that and he will never have a normal day in his life. It is a tragedy from every angle.
Shame on the media for jumping to conclusions, flat-out lying and distorting the facts to fit their agenda, the President for remarking on a state case that he has no business ever being involved in, the NAACP, Al Sharpton, and the New Black Panthers for stirring up the racial narrative to fit their agenda, Angela Corey's office for manipulating evidence and keeping it from the defense and the press, MSNBC for doctoring recordings to make Zimmerman sound like he was racial profiling, CNN for broadcasting Zimmerman's SSN and personal info, and so on and so on.
We can all learn from this. Most importantly that when "race" is made a focal point in any situation, it can only set us back as a society.
Shame on you, Jameson. Shame on you. It sounds like the minute someone mentioned race, you forgot that it was about a child killing.
And btw, your last point is nonsense. Do you think the Civil Rights Movement set us back as a nation? Poppycock.
Stephen, why the shame on you? Jameson is stating their view as they are entitled to. You don't have to agree but please don't go after those who disagree with you all of the time. Perhaps it would be better to try and understand what others think without making their views inferior. It makes for better discussion that can possibly lead to understanding.
Quote from: Jameson on July 15, 2013, 02:21:36 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 01:41:39 PM
Juries are fickle creatures, Diane. In the end most attorneys really don't know what motivates the decisions or why the jurors make up their minds.
Law isnt a science, and our system of trial by jury Justice is an inexact process. It beats Trial by aristocracy, to be sure, but theres no point in mistaking it for a foregone process.
Obviously there was enough evidence to convict OJ Simpson, for the crime that he was later legally found responsible for committing in a separate civil trial. But the jurors didnt convict him for whatever reason, even though he did in fact murder nichole simpson and is presently in jail for another violent crime.
Angela Corey was undermined by her own staff, leaking negatives about a teenager that had nothing to do with his murder and had a pretty huge task in front of her.
But I don't think anyone is arguiing that Zimmerman's outcome should be reversed by the Jury or Judge.
Thats fait accompli, but as in the case of the OJ Simpson case, it is not (nor should it be) the end of the legal matters.
Profiling is a violation of Trayvon's Civil Rights.
He has the right to walk through the streets of a city without being profiled and accosted based on his race.
However, Zimmerman admitted to profiling the kid. No one has denied that he profiled him.
This was probably under the assumption that since Zimmerman wasnt actually a cop that it didnt matter. We usually proceed on the basis that profiling is something that cops do, and if they get caught, then its unfair. In fact the Supremes have found it unconstitutional.
But what happens when a private citizen profiles?
Well thats a different question isnt it?
Stephen, above is the post where you state the line I was referring to in my previous post.
I read the statement as though you found it to be "wrong" that there were leaks in the media about Trayvon's past.
Yet at the same time on page 2 of this very same thread, you dedicate 2 very long posts questioning Zimmerman's past run in with the law, his character, and that of his family.
Semantics perhaps? The statement does speak to the leaking of information about Trayvon. When did that happen and who did the leaking. It really is another sad statement about the SAO.
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 01:53:30 PM
Quote from: duvalbill on July 15, 2013, 01:51:35 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 01:25:20 PM
Quote from: Gators312 on July 15, 2013, 01:03:19 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 15, 2013, 12:48:59 PM
Quote...anyone who thinks this isn't anything but a state-sanctioned lynching is being naive covertly racist.
Wow... Pretty broad statement there... ::)
I often wonder if Stephen merely posts these type of flamebait statements to drive clicks for the site.
Well there's no reason to wonder. It expresses my personal view.
I have yet to have someone explain their viewpoint on this without resorting to their opinions on the scariness of young black people.
Not even much more than a peep ---with the sole exception of not now, our curious LEO who thinks that facing death by handgun is something that average citizens should have to do whenever they step out to walmart.--- from people who are defending the right to become walking death machines (in self defense, of course) because, you know: Liberty! or something connected by vampire snot to the Second Amendment.
If this is the case, are we really saying that anyone who stalks, abducts, and murders a child can do so without penalty as long as they claim that they percieved the child as a threat? Thats what happened in this case, and no matter how racist or how gun nutty you might personally be, this kind of precedent is an existential threat to you and your family.
Just like the media, you're making this out to be something it's not. I have no idea how you could have listened to the testimony provided, the evidence produced or the state's shaky arguments and thought the outcome should have been any different. This wasn't a matter of race, this was the worst possible scenario playing out. Defenses based upon self-defense are decided on an ad hoc basis, and it's not as if this ruling gives any person the framework to beat a murder charge.
And what a crock for you to portray other's views as racist because they don't align with your tin-foil hat theory.
Im sorry, bill. I really cant make out what you are trying to say. What are you saying is not a matter of race? The child killing by Zimmerman or the verdict that the jury came back with?
I assumed we were discussing this case, and the media sensationalism surrounding it. The facts of this matter led to a jury acquitting Zimmerman of the charges filed by the State. Seemingly, you believe that anyone that agrees with the Jury's acquittal is a "covert racist," when the facts of this case seemingly show that Zimmerman possessed a reasonable fear for his life. No one's happy that a child died, but believing that this case will lead to an "open season," on African-Americans is nonsensical.
For the record, I'm not scared of any race of people, and think the jury came to the proper decision. It's a tragic situation, no doubt, but the race card is unnecessary as it relates to this case.
The case if the prosecution is to be believed was not about race. However for many it was and is. For me it is easy to see how this can be about race if you are a Black, a minority member or a non bigoted individual. The problem I have is that somehow in the minds of some Zimmerman became an authority figure who profiled. He was not an authority figure, just a guy on a neighborhood watch team. What happened is his actions then morphed into "profiling by authorities". It wasn't. Perhaps Zimmerman is a bigot and his motivation was based in a racist view, that just makes him a "bigot". I frankly don't know how we can pretend that we can get into everyone's head and stop them for viewing others through the lens of race. The only thing we can do is to address the laws and how and if they permit racial profiling as used and applied by authorities. To deal with all the racists and bigots in the world is a much bigger more complicated issues and not one that I think we can legislate into being but rather one we can educate about.
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 01:25:20 PM
If this is the case, are we really saying that anyone who stalks, abducts, and murders a child can do so without penalty as long as they claim that they percieved the child as a threat?
You are taking a lot of liberties with the facts, Stephen. The facts that most agree upon are:
- Neighborhood had seen a rise in break ins
- Zimmerman, right or wrong, decided he was going to play neighborhood watch
- Zimmerman spots Martin and follows him, while calling the police
- Martin sprints away from Zimmerman
- Martin and Zimmerman end up in a fight
- Martin ends up on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman shoots him
The testimonial discrepancies differ between 5 and 6 above. Now, if the evidence had shown that Zimmerman had sprinted after Martin, tackled him, fought him and then shot him, I think the verdict would have been very different. However, that's not what the evidenced showed. Instead, there was evidence that Zimmerman continued his pursuit of Martin (walking, not running) and that Martin jumped out from behind some bushes and attacked Zimmerman. Very different scenarios. So different that it cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case.
LOL at this thread and the comments.
Quote from: Coolyfett on July 15, 2013, 02:38:40 PM
LOL at this thread and the comments.
I don't find much funny about the death of Trayvon or the hurts of racism. I think there has been some very good commentary so far. What is funny about this thread in your view? I would be interested to know. This is a sincere question by the way. :)
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 15, 2013, 02:24:05 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 02:14:50 PM
Shame on you, Jameson. Shame on you. It sounds like the minute someone mentioned race, you forgot that it was about a child killing.
And btw, your last point is nonsense. Do you think the Civil Rights Movement set us back as a nation? Poppycock.
Stephen, why the shame on you? Jameson is stating their view as they are entitled to. You don't have to agree but please don't go after those who disagree with you all of the time. Perhaps it would be better to try and understand what others think without making their views inferior. It makes for better discussion that can possibly lead to understanding.
Stephen, if you truly listen to the words of MLK, his dream was to live in a nation where one's race was irrelevant. Where one's race would one day not be a factor in regards to anything and everything. Where we wouldn't see a black person or a white person. We would simply see a person. That is the world I want to live in and only when we reach that point as a society will racism be extinct.
It wasn't "someone" mentioning race. It was the media creating a racial narrative to fit their agenda (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/13/Media-Zimmerman-Coverage-Rap-Sheet), networks such as MSNBC doctoring 911 calls to make it sound like Zimmerman was profiling based on race, etc., THAT then makes this case more about race in the public's eyes instead of the fact that it is a tragedy that a teenager was killed.
If you want to shame anyone, you should shame the media.
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 02:47:18 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 15, 2013, 02:45:14 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 15, 2013, 02:24:05 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 02:14:50 PM
Shame on you, Jameson. Shame on you. It sounds like the minute someone mentioned race, you forgot that it was about a child killing.
And btw, your last point is nonsense. Do you think the Civil Rights Movement set us back as a nation? Poppycock.
Stephen, why the shame on you? Jameson is stating their view as they are entitled to. You don't have to agree but please don't go after those who disagree with you all of the time. Perhaps it would be better to try and understand what others think without making their views inferior. It makes for better discussion that can possibly lead to understanding.
Stephen, if you truly listen to the words of MLK, his dream was to live in a nation where one's race was irrelevant. Where one's race would one day not be a factor in regards to anything and everything. Where we wouldn't see a black person or a white person. We would simply see a person. That is the world I want to live in and only when we reach that point as a society will racism be extinct.
It wasn't "someone" mentioning race. It was the media creating a racial narrative to fit their agenda (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/13/Media-Zimmerman-Coverage-Rap-Sheet), networks such as MSNBC doctoring 911 calls to make it sound like Zimmerman was profiling based on race, etc., THAT then makes this case more about race in the public's eyes instead of the fact that it is a tragedy that a teenager was killed.
If you want to shame anyone, you should shame the media.
Well youve already mistakenly criticized my own posts here based on what you thought was being said, rather than what I actually said, and at the end of the day, you can thank Zimmerman and his family for driving the racial profiling narrative.
NO ONE questions the fact that profiling happened, and thats about as racist as it gets.
Stephen, The Zimmermans may or may not be racist I don't know. But if they are, there is no evidence of them using the media to drive home their racist views and they are not the ones on trial, only George is. If there is a public evidence of them driving a racist agenda behind this case via the media can you share that with all of us? I think this was media at the forefront of the issue in that they know that a case that can be shared as racist is a case that will get viewers and readership.
It seems everyone is arguing over the unknown. If you speculate that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon, then Zimmerman is a racist child killer. If Trayvon attacked Zimmerman than Trayvon is a deserving dead thug. Pick your brand of racism and throw the dice. What a waste of time, looks like there's no good to come from this tragedy.
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 03:04:33 PM
What brought this case to national attention was the delay in arresting Zimmerman in the first place. You probably don't remember the early days of this, but the zimmerman camp had some pretty steamy things that got put out there in the press in hopes of keeping him from being charged with any crime at all.
Zimmerman was not charged with a crime because the local prosecutor did not believe it had the evidence to convict him.
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 03:13:10 PM
see above.
Quote from: MEGATRON on July 15, 2013, 03:11:31 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 03:04:33 PM
What brought this case to national attention was the delay in arresting Zimmerman in the first place. You probably don't remember the early days of this, but the zimmerman camp had some pretty steamy things that got put out there in the press in hopes of keeping him from being charged with any crime at all.
Zimmerman was not charged with a crime because the local prosecutor did not believe it had the evidence to convict him.
That addresses Zimmerman's defense. It does not address the delay in prosecuting Zimmerman.
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 03:04:33 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 15, 2013, 02:53:14 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 02:47:18 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 15, 2013, 02:45:14 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 15, 2013, 02:24:05 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 02:14:50 PM
Shame on you, Jameson. Shame on you. It sounds like the minute someone mentioned race, you forgot that it was about a child killing.
And btw, your last point is nonsense. Do you think the Civil Rights Movement set us back as a nation? Poppycock.
Stephen, why the shame on you? Jameson is stating their view as they are entitled to. You don't have to agree but please don't go after those who disagree with you all of the time. Perhaps it would be better to try and understand what others think without making their views inferior. It makes for better discussion that can possibly lead to understanding.
Stephen, if you truly listen to the words of MLK, his dream was to live in a nation where one's race was irrelevant. Where one's race would one day not be a factor in regards to anything and everything. Where we wouldn't see a black person or a white person. We would simply see a person. That is the world I want to live in and only when we reach that point as a society will racism be extinct.
It wasn't "someone" mentioning race. It was the media creating a racial narrative to fit their agenda (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/13/Media-Zimmerman-Coverage-Rap-Sheet), networks such as MSNBC doctoring 911 calls to make it sound like Zimmerman was profiling based on race, etc., THAT then makes this case more about race in the public's eyes instead of the fact that it is a tragedy that a teenager was killed.
If you want to shame anyone, you should shame the media.
Well youve already mistakenly criticized my own posts here based on what you thought was being said, rather than what I actually said, and at the end of the day, you can thank Zimmerman and his family for driving the racial profiling narrative.
NO ONE questions the fact that profiling happened, and thats about as racist as it gets.
Stephen, The Zimmermans may or may not be racist I don't know. But if they are, there is no evidence of them using the media to drive home their racist views and they are not the ones on trial, only George is. If there is a public evidence of them driving a racist agenda behind this case via the media can you share that with all of us? I think this was media at the forefront of the issue in that they know that a case that can be shared as racist is a case that will get viewers and readership.
actually, that isnt accurate, Diane. From the beginning, Zimmerman maintained that he was covered by the stand your ground law, and then his cousins immediately came out and called him out for his racist background.
What brought this case to national attention was the delay in arresting Zimmerman in the first place. You probably don't remember the early days of this, but the zimmerman camp had some pretty steamy things that got put out there in the press in hopes of keeping him from being charged with any crime at all.
Interesting, I was unaware of the statements by his cousins, but not sure that those qualify has driving the racist perception. But will concede it does lead some credence to racism in Zimmerman's mind. My question then becomes if his cousins made such statements, why didn't the prosecution put them on the stand? Probably because Corey decided it wasn't about race. In any event it was the media driving much of the sentiment surrounding this case. IMO :)
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 03:08:38 PM
By the way, I am not going to participate in a debate about whether or not the case is about racism. For me it is about irresponsible gun laws, created by the very people who want more proliferation of guns.
However, an idiot first time poster decided to use this issue as a way to discuss his bizarre theories about the criminality of black people, which is how i got involved in the discussion in the first place.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/15/2301621/why-stand-your-ground-is-central-to-george-zimmermans-case-after-all/
The Stand Your Ground law that gained notoriety in the wake of Trayvon Martin's shooting became central to the case again last week, when written instructions advised the jury that found shooter George Zimmerman not guilty to take the law's central provision into account.
The law that authorizes the use of unfettered deadly force with no "duty to retreat" sparked national outcry last year when police cited the statute as grounds for not arresting George Zimmerman for more than a month. Since then, reports and studies have shown that similar laws on the books in at least 21 states are discriminatory, applied arbitrarily, and associated with a higher rate of homicides. But the law faded from center stage after police pursued arrest of Zimmerman 44 days later, and Zimmerman's lawyers opted not to specifically raise the law as a defense during trial. Had the lawyers moved to formally raise Stand Your Ground as a defense, the judge would have held a hearing devoted to whether the law immunized Zimmerman from criminal liability, and the case might have ended without ever going to a jury.
Zimmerman's lawyer chose instead to go to trial, once again declining to specifically raise "Stand Your Ground" as a defense and keeping the law out of the trial. But the principle's irrelevance ended the moment the jury received their instructions for deciding the case. As Ta-Nehisi Coates reveals, the written instructions that sat with the jurors as they deliberated made very clear that under Florida law, a shooter has a right to stand his ground:
QuoteIf George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Since Zimmerman's lawyers opted not to invoke Stand Your Ground as a defense, observers have characterized this case as a regular old "self-defense" case, rather than a "Stand Your Ground" case. But what these jury instructions make clear is that, in Florida, there is no longer an effective distinction. Stand Your Ground is the state's self-defense law, whether or not a defendant opts to hold a hearing specifically on the question. In fact, this section on the "Justifiable Use of Deadly Force" is the only place in all 27 pages of jury instructions in which the phrase "self-defense" is used.
And self-defense now means shooters may stand their ground not just to prevent death or great bodily harm, but also to prevent the "commission of a forcible felony." Those who wonder why jurors didn't expect that a reasonable person in George Zimmerman's situation should have taken lesser action than firing a deadly shot at a kid whose arsenal consisted of candy and a soft drink – regardless of whether or not he attacked Zimmerman — may find their answer on page 11 of the jury instructions.
Given this instruction, it is worth pointing out that George Zimmerman was studying criminal justice at an online college, including Florida's Stand Your Ground law. After jurors watched the recording of a Fox News interview in which Zimmerman claimed to have no knowledge of Florida's Stand Your Ground law, his college professor testified that the law was covered extensively in his class, and that Zimmerman was "probably one of the better students in the class" and received an A.
Regardless of whether Zimmerman was well-versed in the statute and exploited it to his advantage, it remains the law in Florida. Its inclusion in the jury instructions as an explanation of self-defense makes all the more compelling the jury's reasonable doubt about Zimmerman's legal culpability, even if, as Emily Bazelon suggests, Florida is undoubtedly guilty.
The Stand Your Ground law may once again play a pivotal role in civil lawsuits against Zimmerman. As legal commentators have pointed out, the Stand Your Ground law provides the same opportunity for defendants to seek immunity from civil liability that it does from criminal, if a judge finds the defendant's use of force was justifiable under the law's standards. And as in this case, even if a judge doesn't find Zimmerman immune, a jury would once again be instructed to take the Stand Your Ground rule into account.
Can you start a link about how Gun laws impacted this case? That is a discussion waiting to be continued.
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 02:47:18 PM
Well youve already mistakenly criticized my own posts here based on what you thought was being said, rather than what I actually said, and at the end of the day, you can thank Zimmerman and his family for driving the racial profiling narrative.
NO ONE questions the fact that profiling happened, and thats about as racist as it gets.
Actually Stephen, I criticized your post, you asked me to show you which post I was referring to and demanded an apology. Instead of apologizing (as it most certainly is not warranted), I quoted your post, pointed out the line to you, and you have not made any attempt at a clarification or a rebuttal.
Now you claim that Zimmerman and his family drove the racial narrative and not the media. How one can look at the news stories and make such an ignorant statement is beyond me. But I digress.
Yes, PROFILING happened. Not RACIAL PROFILING. Keep in mind that it was at night, dark, raining, Trayvon was wearing a hoodie and walking away from Zimmerman, and Zimmerman made no mention of the race of Trayvon Martin until asked by the 911 Dispatcher:
Dispatcher: Sanford Police Department.
Zimmerman: Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy, uh, it's Retreat View Circle, um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy is he white, black, or hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black. So again, as the facts show, Zimmerman wasn't profiling Trayvon based on his race.
Also, the FBI has already investigated whether Zimmerman was motivated by "racial bias or hatred" and found no evidence to support those claims:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0712/FBI-report-No-evidence-George-Zimmerman-is-racist
Actually, the FBI did an investigation on Zimmerman and came to the conclusion that he wasn't racist.
And as far as I'm aware - the only racist that night was Trayvon Martin. Or maybe you consider "crazy-ass cracker" an endearing term?
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 03:16:10 PM
By the way, I am not going to participate in a debate about whether or not the case is about racism. For me it is about irresponsible gun laws, created by the very people who want more proliferation of guns.
However, an idiot first time poster decided to use this issue as a way to discuss his bizarre theories about the criminality of black people, which is how i got involved in the discussion in the first place.
Who might the idiot first time poster be? :D
If there was some legit concern that he acted out as a racist, the charges should have been filed immediately. Filing them now makes it seem a lot like double jeopardy.
"Well shit, we didnt get the conviction. Screw it, we will just keep filing new charges until we find one that sticks!!"
Also, I believe corporations, landlords, and employers should be regulated as far as racial issues go (EO is necessary and justifiable) but individuals being charged with racism is a little too thought policey for me.
If someone murders someone because they are gay or black, its still murder. Motive is already considered when the charges are levied. No?
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 03:20:59 PM
megatron, do you have any clue at all about the criminal process?
I suspect that you don't know what you are talking about, and would be more than happy to fill you in. Normally a case like this is initiated by an arrest and a police officer filing a criminal charge with the states attorney.
At that point the states attorney decides whether to prosecute or not.
In this case, the police didnt arrest zimmerman for weeks.
Anyways, this doesnt apply to the conversation that you are commenting on, which is about how the discussion of race and profiling was first injected into the story nationally.
[/quote]I know a lot more about it than you do, Stephen.
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 03:20:59 PM
megatron, do you have any clue at all about the criminal process?
I suspect that you don't know what you are talking about, and would be more than happy to fill you in. Normally a case like this is initiated by an arrest and a police officer filing a criminal charge with the states attorney.
At that point the states attorney decides whether to prosecute or not.
In this case, the police didnt arrest zimmerman for weeks.
Anyways, this doesnt apply to the conversation that you are commenting on, which is about how the discussion of race and profiling was first injected into the story nationally.
I know a lot more about it than you do, Stephen.
Quote from: mikew on July 15, 2013, 03:23:19 PM
Actually, the FBI did an investigation on Zimmerman and came to the conclusion that he wasn't racist.
And as far as I'm aware - the only racist that night was Trayvon Martin. Or maybe you consider "crazy-ass cracker" an endearing term?
The difference is that Trayvon was a teenager and teenagers say stupid stuff. I think for him the statement was simply a descriptive in his mind and frankly, he was a kid being followed by a "cracker" in his view. No big deal.
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 03:16:10 PM
By the way, I am not going to participate in a debate about whether or not the case is about racism. For me it is about irresponsible gun laws, created by the very people who want more proliferation of guns.
It's hard to take this post seriously after you say:
"...anyone who thinks this isn't anything but a state-sanctioned lynching is being naive covertly racist."
What I would like to know is why the Judge over ruled the state's request to have the initial aggressor rule read to the jury as part of the juror instructions. I know the defense objected but I have yet to hear why the judge ruled in the defenses favor. I am not saying she was right or wrong I would just like an explanation as to why.
The First Aggressor Rule is a rather simple common law rule that says "a defendant who provokes an encounter as a result of which he finds it necessary to use deadly force to defend himself, is guilty of an unlawful homicide and cannot claim that he acted in self-defense." Wharton's Criminal Law, Sec. 136 Provocation by Defendant.
Quote from: duvalbill on July 15, 2013, 03:34:56 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 03:16:10 PM
By the way, I am not going to participate in a debate about whether or not the case is about racism. For me it is about irresponsible gun laws, created by the very people who want more proliferation of guns.
It's hard to take this post seriously after you say:
"...anyone who thinks this isn't anything but a state-sanctioned lynching is being naive covertly racist."
:D
An idiot poster? I thought you had more class than that.
I believe it was you who stated:
"NO ONE questions the fact that profiling happened, and thats about as racist as it gets."
No, that's only in your mind. No one knows went through Zimmerman's mind that night.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 15, 2013, 03:34:42 PM
Quote from: mikew on July 15, 2013, 03:23:19 PM
Actually, the FBI did an investigation on Zimmerman and came to the conclusion that he wasn't racist.
And as far as I'm aware - the only racist that night was Trayvon Martin. Or maybe you consider "crazy-ass cracker" an endearing term?
The difference is that Trayvon was a teenager and teenagers say stupid stuff. I think for him the statement was simply a descriptive in his mind and frankly, he was a kid being followed by a "cracker" in his view. No big deal.
That's no different than saying profiling is no big deal.
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 03:33:47 PM
sorry, i didnt see this in the mix, Jameson.
My post was clearly in response to Diane's comments about the failures of the prosecution, and I was commenting on that narrow subject.
People are allowed to talk about whatever they like, thats part of life and a controversial case being argued in public. This will not be either the first or last time that a victim is smeared through 'opposition research'.
But my comments were restricted to the execution of the prosecution.
You were mistaken, and I accept your apology. ;)
But you never clarified. Were you or were you not referring to "negatives" about Trayvon's past having nothing to do with the case?
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 03:35:49 PM
Quote from: duvalbill on July 15, 2013, 03:34:56 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 03:16:10 PM
By the way, I am not going to participate in a debate about whether or not the case is about racism. For me it is about irresponsible gun laws, created by the very people who want more proliferation of guns.
It's hard to take this post seriously after you say:
...anyone who thinks this isn't anything but a state-sanctioned lynching is being naive covertly racist.
you are free to take whatever you like, in good health.
and you're free to live out the lyrics to a certain Dead or Alive song.
Quote from: MEGATRON on July 15, 2013, 03:37:41 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 15, 2013, 03:34:42 PM
Quote from: mikew on July 15, 2013, 03:23:19 PM
Actually, the FBI did an investigation on Zimmerman and came to the conclusion that he wasn't racist.
And as far as I'm aware - the only racist that night was Trayvon Martin. Or maybe you consider "crazy-ass cracker" an endearing term?
The difference is that Trayvon was a teenager and teenagers say stupid stuff. I think for him the statement was simply a descriptive in his mind and frankly, he was a kid being followed by a "cracker" in his view. No big deal.
That's no different than saying profiling is no big deal.
No, not really. I think you have to consider context. As a mother of two son's they have said many things that on the surface could be misunderstood or taken wrong when they were teens. It's context that counts and his "cracker" statement was no where close to racial profiling. ;) Lord have mercy, if everything I said or did as a teenager were held up as proof of my inner soul, I can't imagine what a person could claim about me. lol
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 03:43:51 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 15, 2013, 03:39:00 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 03:33:47 PM
sorry, i didnt see this in the mix, Jameson.
My post was clearly in response to Diane's comments about the failures of the prosecution, and I was commenting on that narrow subject.
People are allowed to talk about whatever they like, thats part of life and a controversial case being argued in public. This will not be either the first or last time that a victim is smeared through 'opposition research'.
But my comments were restricted to the execution of the prosecution.
You were mistaken, and I accept your apology. ;)
But you never clarified. Were you or were you not referring to "negatives" about Trayvon's past having nothing to do with the case?
I have clarified my statement. If you agree with that, then I will answer your second question about my opinion as to the relevance of trayvons facebook page on his murder.
Where did you clarify?
A simple yes or no will suffice: Were you or were you not referring to "negatives" about Trayvon's past having nothing to do with the case?
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 15, 2013, 03:42:06 PM
Quote from: MEGATRON on July 15, 2013, 03:37:41 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 15, 2013, 03:34:42 PM
Quote from: mikew on July 15, 2013, 03:23:19 PM
Actually, the FBI did an investigation on Zimmerman and came to the conclusion that he wasn't racist.
And as far as I'm aware - the only racist that night was Trayvon Martin. Or maybe you consider "crazy-ass cracker" an endearing term?
The difference is that Trayvon was a teenager and teenagers say stupid stuff. I think for him the statement was simply a descriptive in his mind and frankly, he was a kid being followed by a "cracker" in his view. No big deal.
That's no different than saying profiling is no big deal.
No, not really. I think you have to consider context. As a mother of two son's they have said many things that on the surface could be misunderstood or taken wrong when they were teens. It's context that counts and his "cracker" statement was no where close to racial profiling. ;) Lord have mercy, if everything I said or did as a teenager were held up as proof of my inner soul, I can't imagine what a person could claim about me. lol
What about, in this case, where that same 17 year old was alleged to have hid in bushes and jumped a guy as he came by? Then do his statements 4 minutes earlier matter?
Quote from: MEGATRON on July 15, 2013, 03:49:45 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 15, 2013, 03:42:06 PM
Quote from: MEGATRON on July 15, 2013, 03:37:41 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 15, 2013, 03:34:42 PM
Quote from: mikew on July 15, 2013, 03:23:19 PM
Actually, the FBI did an investigation on Zimmerman and came to the conclusion that he wasn't racist.
And as far as I'm aware - the only racist that night was Trayvon Martin. Or maybe you consider "crazy-ass cracker" an endearing term?
The difference is that Trayvon was a teenager and teenagers say stupid stuff. I think for him the statement was simply a descriptive in his mind and frankly, he was a kid being followed by a "cracker" in his view. No big deal.
That's no different than saying profiling is no big deal.
No, not really. I think you have to consider context. As a mother of two son's they have said many things that on the surface could be misunderstood or taken wrong when they were teens. It's context that counts and his "cracker" statement was no where close to racial profiling. ;) Lord have mercy, if everything I said or did as a teenager were held up as proof of my inner soul, I can't imagine what a person could claim about me. lol
What about, in this case, where that same 17 year old was alleged to have hid in bushes and jumped a guy as he came by? Then do his statements 4 minutes earlier matter?
No one that I know of made a claim anywhere in the trial that had Trayvon hiding in the bushes. Zimmerman himself only stated that he came up to him from his left side. That is what his testimony was. No one ever said Trayvon was hiding in bushes.
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 03:53:19 PM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/15/the-trayvon-martin-killing-and-the-myth-of-black-on-black-crime.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_afternoon&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_afternoon&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet
Trayvon Martin and the Myth of "Black on Black Crime"
Crime is driven by proximity and opportunity, writes Jamelle Bouie—which is why 86 percent of white victims were killed by white offenders.
Last week, in Chicago, 16-year-old Darryl Green was found dead in the yard of an abandoned home. He was killed, relatives reported, because he refused to join a gang. Unlike most tragedies, however—which remain local news—this one caught the attention of conservative activist Ben Shapiro, an editor for Breitbart News. Using the hashtag "#justicefordarryl," Shaprio tweeted and publicized the details of Green's murder. But this wasn't a call for help and assistance for Green's family, rather, it was his response to wide outrage over Saturday's decision in the case of George Zimmerman, where a Florida jury judged him "not guilty" of second-degree murder or manslaughter in the killing of Trayvon Martin.
Shapiro, echoing many other conservatives, is angry over the perceived politicization of the Zimmerman trial, and believes that activists have "injected" race into the discussion, as if there's nothing racial already within the criminal-justice system. Indeed, he echoes many conservatives when he complains that media attention had everything to do with Zimmerman's race. If he were black, the argument goes, no one would care. And so, Shapiro found the sad story of Darryl Green, and promoted it as an example of the "black-on-black" crime that, he believes, goes ignored. Or, as he tweets, "49% of murder victims are black men. 93% of those are killed by other blacks. Media don't care. Obama doesn't care. #JusticeForDarryl."
The idea that "black-on-black" crime is the real story in Martin's killing isn't a novel one. In addition to Shapiro, you'll hear the argument from conservative African-American activists like Crystal White, as well as people outside the media, like Zimmerman defense attorney Mark O'Mara, who said that his client "never would have been charged with a crime" if he were black.
(It's worth noting, here, that Zimmerman wasn't charged with a crime. At least, not at first. It took six weeks of protest and pressure for Sanford police to revisit the killing and bring charges against him. Indeed, in the beginning, Martin's cause had less to do with the identity of the shooter and everything to do with the appalling disinterest of the local police department.)
But there's a huge problem with attempt to shift the conversation: There's no such thing as "black-on-black" crime. Yes, from 1976 to 2005, 94 percent of black victims were killed by black offenders, but that racial exclusivity was also true for white victims of violent crime—86 percent were killed by white offenders. Indeed, for the large majority of crimes, you'll find that victims and offenders share a racial identity, or have some prior relationship to each other.
What Shapiro and others miss about crime, in general, is that it's driven by opportunism and proximity; If African-Americans are more likely to be robbed, or injured, or killed by other African-Americans, it's because they tend to live in the same neighborhoods as each other. Residential statistics bear this out (PDF); blacks are still more likely to live near each other or other minority groups than they are to whites. And of course, the reverse holds as well—whites are much more likely to live near other whites than they are to minorities and African-Americans in particular.
Nor are African-Americans especially criminal. If they were, you would still see high rates of crime among blacks, even as the nation sees a historic decline in criminal offenses. Instead, crime rates among African-Americans, and black youth in particular, have taken a sharp drop. In Washington, D.C., for example, fewer than 10 percent of black youth are in a gang, have sold drugs, have carried a gun, or have stolen more than $100 in goods.
Overall, figures from a variety of institutions—including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Justice Statistics—show that among black youth, rates of robbery and serious property offenses are at their lowest rates in 40 years, as are rates of violent crime and victimization. And while it's true that young black men are a disproportionate share of the nation's murder victims, it's hard to disentangle this from the stew of hyper-segregation (often a result of deliberate policies), entrenched poverty, and nonexistent economic opportunities that characterizes a substantial number of black communities. Hence the countless inner-city anti-violence groups that focus on creating opportunity for young, disadvantaged African-Americans, through education, mentoring, and community programs. Blacks care intensely about the violence that happens in their communities. After all, they have to live with it.
"Black-on-black crime" has been part of the American lexicon for decades, but as a specific phenomenon, it's no more real than "white-on-white crime." Unlike the latter, however, the idea of "black-on-black crime" taps into specific fears around black masculinity and black criminality—the same fears that, in Florida, led George Zimmerman to focus his attention on Trayvon Martin, and in New York, continue to justify Michael Bloomberg's campaign of police harassment against young black men in New York City.
Indeed, these fears are the reason that—in predominantly African-American neighborhoods across the country—police gathered and waited. There might be riots, observers said, and we have to be prepared. Why? The protests in support of Martin have been peaceful, and no one has called for violence or retribution. But that doesn't matter.
America is afraid of black people, and that's especially true—it seems—when it thinks they might be angry.
Compelling article and discussion. Deserves it's own thread perhaps?
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 03:50:37 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 15, 2013, 03:47:44 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 03:43:51 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 15, 2013, 03:39:00 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 03:33:47 PM
sorry, i didnt see this in the mix, Jameson.
My post was clearly in response to Diane's comments about the failures of the prosecution, and I was commenting on that narrow subject.
People are allowed to talk about whatever they like, thats part of life and a controversial case being argued in public. This will not be either the first or last time that a victim is smeared through 'opposition research'.
But my comments were restricted to the execution of the prosecution.
You were mistaken, and I accept your apology. ;)
But you never clarified. Were you or were you not referring to "negatives" about Trayvon's past having nothing to do with the case?
I have clarified my statement. If you agree with that, then I will answer your second question about my opinion as to the relevance of trayvons facebook page on his murder.
Where did you clarify?
A simple yes or no will suffice: Were you or were you not referring to "negatives" about Trayvon's past having nothing to do with the case?
You made the comment:
Angela Corey was undermined by her own staff, leaking negatives about a teenager that had nothing to do with his murder and had a pretty huge task in front of her. The underlined part is your opinion -
leaking negatives about a teenager has nothing to do with his murder.
So negatives about Trayvon and his past have nothing to do with the case?
Yet on the other hand, you see Zimmerman's past as completely relevant and having something to do with the case.
Got it. ;)
You mean stuff like in the past he has purchased and eaten skittles without incident?
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 04:03:09 PM
Jameson do you need coffee? Ive already asked you if you think this is appropriate to a murder prosecution, and whether or not it should be coming from the officials in charge of prosecuting the murderer. Is there something unclear to you about the inappropriateness of this?
I think we're talking about two different things.
When you mentioned "leaks" in your statement, which leaks are you referring to? Leaks about Zimmerman? Zimmerman's past? The case in general? Trayvon's past? Something else?
Again, I read it as though you think that leaks about Trayvon's past have nothing to do with the case and therefore should not be in the discussion.
What am I missing?
This is an interesting article about the jury instructions in today's T.U.
http://jacksonville.com/news/florida/2013-07-15/story/jury-instructions-center-zimmerman-verdict
QuoteThe acquittal of the former neighborhood watch leader left many Americans wondering Sunday how the justice system could allow him to walk away from the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin, the unarmed black teenager whose death provoked a long national debate over racial profiling and self-defense.
But the essential criteria for deciding the case came from the court itself, which told jurors that Zimmerman was allowed to use deadly force when he shot the teen not only if he actually faced death or bodily harm, but also if he merely thought he did.
And jurors heard plenty of conflicting evidence and testimony that could have created reasonable doubt
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/florida/2013-07-15/story/jury-instructions-center-zimmerman-verdict#ixzz2Z9GTl6Ji
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 04:19:00 PM
So you read my post that way, despite the fact that it was in response to a criticism of the prosecutor, is bracketed by references to the prosecutor's office in the same sentence, and i have since then clarified for you four times that it was in reference to the job faced by the prosecutor?
Can you explain, given this, why anything I might respond with matters?
Why would Corey's office leak anything negative about Trayvon while at the same time prosecuting his case? That's why your statement doesn't make sense to me.
Stephen, what is the point of the photo beyond sensationalism? Everyone knows a young man who was loved by his family is dead and that the death never needed have happened. The graphic visual is not necessary to make that understood.
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 04:29:22 PM
And I still don't understand why we are discussing his facebook page and twitter account or whether or not he smoked pot.
None of those things caused this:
This is what happened. A child was shot to death by a man with a gun who followed and accosted him.
Again, because you want to make an issue of Zimmerman's past in an attempt to paint him as a racist, yet at the same time completely ignore Trayvon's destructive behavior that lead to him being in Orlando in the first place. Why can't you leave BOTH of their pasts out of the case?
I have no friggin clue how this thread got to 22 pages, nor do I have time to catch up, but wanted to jump in and say that there are rumors swirling that the 2 brothers that were killed at Golden Corral last night MAY and I stress may have been killed in retaliation to the Zimmerman acquittal. Saw on Facebook that someone who knows one of the brothers says it was related to Zimmerman.
I hope this is not true and I hope that the media is responsible before putting anything out there.
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2013-07-15/story/brothers-killed-shooting-outside-jacksonville-restaurant-identified
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 04:41:58 PM
Exactly. And the guy who did it has been subsequently fired by Corey.
My comment was in response to diane's post which immediately preceded it.
So now that that is settled, I will answer your question.
A criminal trial is about an act and a circumstance.
We punish guilty minds, not guilty deeds. So a person who accidentally kills someone is not charged in the same way as a person who intentionally kills someone.
In the case of this murder, unless Zimmerman was acquainted with Martin before the trial, then Martins life before the incident has no bearing on the case.
It is not Martin's worthiness of living that is on trial.
It is the actions taken by Zimmerman.
Unless you think that murder charges should be decided by the worth that a jury places on the life of the person who has been killed as a factor.
Do you?
Hold on, are you referring to the IT Director, Kruidbos as the employee who was fired?
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 04:44:24 PM
You cannot possibly be this thick skulled.
Should people who have been hit behind by a mack truck be called to account as to why they were driving in that city?
This has to be literally the dumbest legal theory i have ever heard. Literally. In my life.
Let me make myself VERY clear. Trayvon's past does NOT mean that he deserved to die. Not at all. That is NOT what I am implying. Anyone who thinks like that is an ignorant fool.
I do not understand how you think Trayvon's destructive path of behavior from 2010-2012 that culminated with him being in Orlando because he was suspended from school for 10 days should be left out of the discussion, whereas you have made several references to Zimmerman's past in the discussion, accused he and his family of being racists, etc.
In my opinion, neither man should being tried on their past. BOTH of their pasts should be left out of it.
I have been merely trying to make the point that BOTH OF THEIR PASTS SHOULD BE LEFT OUT OF THE DISCUSSION AS IT DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE CASE.
Do you not agree?
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 04:45:51 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 15, 2013, 04:38:47 PM
Stephen, what is the point of the photo beyond sensationalism? Everyone knows a young man who was loved by his family is dead and that the death never needed have happened. The graphic visual is not necessary to make that understood.
well I don't think everyone does, Diane. Most of the commentary on the issue has been about everything except for the dead child.
I only know this. As a mother I would never, every want my child's photo showing his face in death to be running through media and social media and being used to push one side or other in a discussion. It's insensitive and disrespectful to Trayvon and his family to use the moment when he was most vulnerable in death this way. I hope you will take it down. Any mother I think would agree. Their child is the most sacred thing in their life and to see them exploited in photo's in death is dreadful.
Thanks Stephen!
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 05:03:41 PM
Obviously I don't, and neither does a few thousand years of legal precedent.
George's motivations for killing this child are literally the essence of a murder trial.
Surprising that you don't seem to understand that.
This isnt a public relations campaign Jameson. Someone died.
Of course you don't.
"George's motivations for killing this child are literally the essence of a murder trial."
A "murder trial."
None of the evidence supported murder. It was a reach to begin with. Anyone thinking logically and not racially sees that. Should have tried him for involuntary manslaughter or manslaughter if they really wanted a conviction.
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 05:36:50 PM
um hello. welcome to earth, Jameson.
Don't know if you heard out there in outer space, but Florida just concluded a murder trial in the case of George Zimmerman. He was acquitted.
Cute childish sayings, Stephen.
This is most assuredly a difficult conversation to have, yet another outcropping to the death of Trayvon, has been conversation about Black on Black crime. It has been brought up recently on this forum and the conversation was not one initially welcome. In my view it had much to do with the timing for the opening of the conversation which was not very long after Zimmerman was found not guilty. People were reeling in response to the outcome of the trial and quite frankly were not ready to talk about anything that pointed a finger back to the Black Community after the death of a young Black man at the hands of a White/Hispanic. When emotions calm a bit, people can speak and listen a bit more clearly.
I hold many people close to my heart who are of a variety of races. Many of those persons are black and I love them dearly. I do not even begin to speak for them with regard to this topic but have worked with Black organizations and individuals have spoken to me in depth about their deep concerns regarding Black on Black crime.
Should a discussion about Black on Black crime be used to deflect feelings about the death of Trayvon? Absolutely
not. But this is perhaps a conversation needing to be had. Some non Blacks wonder why outrage only seems to come when a crime includes people of different races. Real or imagined this perception needs to be understood and discussed if we are ever to get to the bottom of how racism and crime impacts us today.
Let me offer a post from a FB acquaintance who is a Black woman. I think it is clear that the concern of Black on Black crime is not just an observation about crime but a real concern in the eyes of many.
QuoteWhat is more sickening then Trayvon Martin's murder? Black on Black murders. We have become so immune to them that we don't even raise an eyebrow when the news speak of a shooting on Moncrief, Soutel, Lem Turner, Edgewood, Phoenix, Eastside of town or the Northside of town. We just go on about our life as though it's business as usual. It's really disheartening that we pick and choose what murders we want to polarize or demonstrate about. People wake up. Murder is Murder; regardless of who pulled the trigger. Regardless of what life style the individual lived. It's not the choice of no man on earth decision as to when another person's life should end. That is up to our creator. My nephew RIP Bernard "Hard Nard" Cason was shot and killed 03/11/12 during a senseless Black on Black murder. My family lives for the day we can sit in a courtroom for the trial of a coward. I know there are plenty of others that have experienced tragic family murders and live today to see justice served. We must first start respecting our own color before anyone else does. Missing my nephew!
This was a point more than one speaker brought up at the Trayvon rally in Hemming Park Sunday. One middle-aged black male said that (paraphrasing), 'a guarantee that before tomorrow, a black man the same age as Zimmerman will kill another black man, Trayvon's age ... and it won't make the news' He urged black folk to stop killing each other.
Here is the Facebook of one of the brothers that was killed. Pretty much everyone on there was saying he got shot over an argument related to the Zimmerman case.
https://www.facebook.com/matthew.r.bohannon
Quote from: Charles Hunter on July 15, 2013, 05:53:46 PM
This was a point more than one speaker brought up at the Trayvon rally in Hemming Park Sunday. One middle-aged black male said that (paraphrasing), 'a guarantee that before tomorrow, a black man the same age as Zimmerman will kill another black man, Trayvon's age ... and it won't make the news' He urged black folk to stop killing each other.
I have heard this over and over Charles. I know many in the Black community have deep concerns with regard to this issue. I don't think it is appropriate to pretend it doesn't exist in the face of one high profile crime. All life is important and while profiling and race based crimes are indeed a very grave problem, I think it may be unfortunate that Zimmerman has become the face for every non black that has been hurt or killed by a non black and Trayvon became the face for all young men on the wrong end of a deadly exchange with a non black. History clearly shows very egregious crimes against the Black race have been visited upon them through no fault of their own. That is totally undeniable. What I think we cannot afford as a society if we are serious about addressing racially based conflicts is to edit today's reality by the past alone. We need to be honest with ourselves and think rationally, not just through our emotions.
CL, JSO has issued a statement saying this shooting had nothing to do with the Zimmerman trial. https://www.facebook.com/JacksonvilleSheriffsOffice/posts/10151527049572896
I don't know how to embed videos. Perhaps someone else can do this for me. The following is a link to Angela Corey's statements immediately following the Zimmerman "not guilty" verdict for those who have not seen it.
http://news.yahoo.com/video/angela-corey-prosecutors-speak-george-033320376.html
This. A thousand times. I was gonna post this on the other thread, but its a lost cause & turned into a zoo quite frankly.
I think we're all guilty of letting the media circus take hold of us, try to divide & distract us with race baiting. That same media who loves LOVES a juicy story & spins it every way from Sunday. To the point where we're now all arguing about it, losing friends because of it, painting these broad assumptions of people because of their opinion, etc. Its disgusting really, but its the world we live in. The 6 giant corporations that now owns over 90% of all the media that we have access to tells us to jump & before thinking, we jump. And its getting worse, but still people don't seem to recognize it because the topics they choose to pound into our heads are so tempting to get bent out of shape over.
Stop & think for a moment, please. And look at things from a broader perspective. I read something like 25 black youths/young adults have been killed in Chicago so far in the month of July ALONE. Not to mention a bunch of injuries to women, children, etc. Now, where the hell is the outrage there? Where are the protests?? Where is the media??? Hmm, I'm looking around & all anyone is talking about is this one isolated instance. I guess they don't matter since its not a juicy enough story then. And people apparently certainly wont seek this information out, or even want to know about it, because, again, we like to be told what to be outraged about & can only take it in the prescribed concentrated bursts. That way we can all get up on our soap boxes & push whatever agendas or hangups we ourselves might have, forget about it when the next cycle hits, while never acknowledging the real ugliness.
It's fucking sick & that's all I'm saying about it.
Quote from: peestandingup on July 15, 2013, 06:29:52 PM
This. A thousand times. I was gonna post this on the other thread, but its a lost cause & turned into a zoo quite frankly.
I think we're all guilty of letting the media circus take hold of us, try to divide & distract us with race baiting. That same media who loves LOVES a juicy story & spins it every way from Sunday. To the point where we're now all arguing about it, losing friends because of it, painting these broad assumptions of people because of their opinion, etc. Its disgusting really, but its the world we live in. The 6 giant corporations that now owns over 90% of all the media that we have access to tells us to jump & before thinking, we jump. And its getting worse, but still people don't seem to recognize it because the topics they choose to pound into our heads are so tempting to get bent out of shape over.
Stop & think for a moment, please. And look at things from a broader perspective. I read something like 25 black youths/young adults have been killed in Chicago so far in the month of July ALONE. Not to mention a bunch of injuries to women, children, etc. Now, where the hell is the outrage there? Where are the protests?? Where is the media??? Hmm, I'm looking around & all anyone is talking about is this one isolated instance. I guess they don't matter since its not a juicy enough story then. And people apparently certainly wont seek this information out, or even want to know about it, because, again, we like to be told what to be outraged about & can only take it in the prescribed concentrated bursts. That way we can all get up on our soap boxes & push whatever agendas or hangups we ourselves might have, forget about it when the next cycle hits, while never acknowledging the real ugliness.
It's fucking sick & that's all I'm saying about it.
It is indeed sick and this is a point that needs to be made. Believe me I thought twice before wading into any of the Trayvon discussions but it is my deep feeling that we need to walk into some of these discussions in order to bring some sort of understanding as to why race and discussion of race remains such a volatile subject and much of that I believe is the fanning of passions as opposed to clarity of thinking and honest discussion. As long as people simply take the lead of the angry or political in cases like this the core importance of an issue is lost in blame, angry words and passion.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 15, 2013, 06:23:51 PM
CL, JSO has issued a statement saying this shooting had nothing to do with the Zimmerman trial. https://www.facebook.com/JacksonvilleSheriffsOffice/posts/10151527049572896
Oh what a surprise, of course they are gonna say that. Meanwhile, all of the USA still remain 'peaceful' regarding the verdict. I know better.
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 04:03:09 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 15, 2013, 04:00:07 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 03:50:37 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 15, 2013, 03:47:44 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 03:43:51 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 15, 2013, 03:39:00 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 03:33:47 PM
sorry, i didnt see this in the mix, Jameson.
My post was clearly in response to Diane's comments about the failures of the prosecution, and I was commenting on that narrow subject.
People are allowed to talk about whatever they like, thats part of life and a controversial case being argued in public. This will not be either the first or last time that a victim is smeared through 'opposition research'.
But my comments were restricted to the execution of the prosecution.
You were mistaken, and I accept your apology. ;)
But you never clarified. Were you or were you not referring to "negatives" about Trayvon's past having nothing to do with the case?
I have clarified my statement. If you agree with that, then I will answer your second question about my opinion as to the relevance of trayvons facebook page on his murder.
Where did you clarify?
A simple yes or no will suffice: Were you or were you not referring to "negatives" about Trayvon's past having nothing to do with the case?
You made the comment: Angela Corey was undermined by her own staff, leaking negatives about a teenager that had nothing to do with his murder[/u] and had a pretty huge task in front of her.
The underlined part is your opinion - leaking negatives about a teenager has nothing to do with his murder.
So negatives about Trayvon and his past have nothing to do with the case?
Yet on the other hand, you see Zimmerman's past as completely relevant and having something to do with the case.
Got it. ;)
Jameson do you need coffee? Ive already asked you if you think this is appropriate to a murder prosecution, and whether or not it should be coming from the officials in charge of prosecuting the murderer. Is there something unclear to you about the inappropriateness of this?
If you can verify that you were wrong and launched a 'shame on you' tirade based on being wrong, then I will gladly address your question.
The prosecution is required by law to share this and any other evidence with the defense. All recovered information from electronic devices must be shared. If there is a question as to whether it should be entered in the trial, then a motion should be made for the bench to decide.
ALL evidence. Anything found on the phone has to be shared. "Pertinent to the case" will be decided by the judge. Ask your friend Chris.
You might want to study up on Florida State Statutes Chapter 776.
Specifically 776.012, 776.013, and for any of you who want to read the Florida statute which pertains to the "Aggressor Rule"...776.041.
There is a lot of emotion, speculation, and just plain wrong information being put out here. I would recommend doing your own research from other than biased sites on either "side" of this issue. I will look for a factual article on this case but honestly...I haven't seen one yet.
Oh, and you might take a gander at Brady v. Maryland (1963).
I believe the point is moot based on the fact that a grand jury has already indicted her on the issue of withholding evidence. Or at least they believed there was enough of a notion to warrant further investigation
JayBird, that was a "citizens grand jury". It has no legal standing.
Quote from: I-10east on July 15, 2013, 06:44:55 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 15, 2013, 06:23:51 PM
CL, JSO has issued a statement saying this shooting had nothing to do with the Zimmerman trial. https://www.facebook.com/JacksonvilleSheriffsOffice/posts/10151527049572896
Oh what a surprise, of course they are gonna say that. Meanwhile, all of the USA still remain 'peaceful' regarding the verdict. I know better.
No I-10 it is true, it is a rumor that has been confirmed false by several sources, also being that they have video of the incident which have to come to light in any trial, they can't really deny a connection if it existed. And as for 'peaceful' that is based purely on arrests. Huge protests and demonstrations with over 8,000 in NYC yesterday and last night and no arrests. Demonstrations in Hemming Plaza, no arrests. That is how they can say peaceful. It is just civilians exercising their first amendment. However, some people like to stir the pot and get other riled up, so there will probably more rumors to come. Personally I think Zimmerman might know where Jimmy Hoffa is buried.
Quote from: NotNow on July 15, 2013, 07:20:11 PM
JayBird, that was a "citizens grand jury". It has no legal standing.
Overlooked that, thanks for keeping me on the facts.
Quote from: peestandingup on July 15, 2013, 06:29:52 PM
This. A thousand times. I was gonna post this on the other thread, but its a lost cause & turned into a zoo quite frankly.
I think we're all guilty of letting the media circus take hold of us, try to divide & distract us with race baiting. That same media who loves LOVES a juicy story & spins it every way from Sunday. To the point where we're now all arguing about it, losing friends because of it, painting these broad assumptions of people because of their opinion, etc. Its disgusting really, but its the world we live in. The 6 giant corporations that now owns over 90% of all the media that we have access to tells us to jump & before thinking, we jump. And its getting worse, but still people don't seem to recognize it because the topics they choose to pound into our heads are so tempting to get bent out of shape over.
Stop & think for a moment, please. And look at things from a broader perspective. I read something like 25 black youths/young adults have been killed in Chicago so far in the month of July ALONE. Not to mention a bunch of injuries to women, children, etc. Now, where the hell is the outrage there? Where are the protests?? Where is the media??? Hmm, I'm looking around & all anyone is talking about is this one isolated instance. I guess they don't matter since its not a juicy enough story then. And people apparently certainly wont seek this information out, or even want to know about it, because, again, we like to be told what to be outraged about & can only take it in the prescribed concentrated bursts. That way we can all get up on our soap boxes & push whatever agendas or hangups we ourselves might have, forget about it when the next cycle hits, while never acknowledging the real ugliness.
It's fucking sick & that's all I'm saying about it.
Good, solid points and I am in agreement with you. The only answer I can determine is that it isn't just July, it has been happening that way in Chicago and I guess if it was happening in Jax the same way for the same time period we would just take it as fact too. Everytime First Coast news posts on their Facebook that JSO is responding to the Northside or Westside, details to follow, you get the rigmarole of comments of people saying must be another shooting. So in a way, maybe we do have the same mentality or have become numb to it. Or maybe we ignore it because it wasn't on my street. As for black on black crime, it happens but one observation I do have is that in a predominately African American community, they are much more close-knitted than say a 90% white neighborhood. I think some of the issue is that they don't like it to happen, but the fear of having outsiders to come in and try to 'fix' the situation is even worse to them.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 15, 2013, 06:40:43 PM
Believe me I thought twice before wading into any of the Trayvon discussions but it is my deep feeling that we need to walk into some of these discussions in order to bring some sort of understanding as to why race and discussion of race remains such a volatile subject and much of that I believe is the fanning of passions as opposed to clarity of thinking and honest discussion. As long as people simply take the lead of the angry or political in cases like this the core importance of an issue is lost in blame, angry words and passion.
And for that Diane, thank you. Even though not everyone comments, a lot of us follow the board and both respect and admire your ability to act as voice of calm and reason when emotions get a little too involved.
Quote from: JayBird on July 15, 2013, 07:50:16 PM
Quote from: peestandingup on July 15, 2013, 06:29:52 PM
This. A thousand times. I was gonna post this on the other thread, but its a lost cause & turned into a zoo quite frankly.
I think we're all guilty of letting the media circus take hold of us, try to divide & distract us with race baiting. That same media who loves LOVES a juicy story & spins it every way from Sunday. To the point where we're now all arguing about it, losing friends because of it, painting these broad assumptions of people because of their opinion, etc. Its disgusting really, but its the world we live in. The 6 giant corporations that now owns over 90% of all the media that we have access to tells us to jump & before thinking, we jump. And its getting worse, but still people don't seem to recognize it because the topics they choose to pound into our heads are so tempting to get bent out of shape over.
Stop & think for a moment, please. And look at things from a broader perspective. I read something like 25 black youths/young adults have been killed in Chicago so far in the month of July ALONE. Not to mention a bunch of injuries to women, children, etc. Now, where the hell is the outrage there? Where are the protests?? Where is the media??? Hmm, I'm looking around & all anyone is talking about is this one isolated instance. I guess they don't matter since its not a juicy enough story then. And people apparently certainly wont seek this information out, or even want to know about it, because, again, we like to be told what to be outraged about & can only take it in the prescribed concentrated bursts. That way we can all get up on our soap boxes & push whatever agendas or hangups we ourselves might have, forget about it when the next cycle hits, while never acknowledging the real ugliness.
It's fucking sick & that's all I'm saying about it.
Good, solid points and I am in agreement with you. The only answer I can determine is that it isn't just July, it has been happening that way in Chicago and I guess if it was happening in Jax the same way for the same time period we would just take it as fact too. Everytime First Coast news posts on their Facebook that JSO is responding to the Northside or Westside, details to follow, you get the rigmarole of comments of people saying must be another shooting. So in a way, maybe we do have the same mentality or have become numb to it. Or maybe we ignore it because it wasn't on my street. As for black on black crime, it happens but one observation I do have is that in a predominately African American community, they are much more close-knitted than say a 90% white neighborhood. I think some of the issue is that they don't like it to happen, but the fear of having outsiders to come in and try to 'fix' the situation is even worse to them.
I know this is a very important issue to many in the Black community and as I mentioned on another thread MADDADS, as well as other organizations, pastors and religious groups have taken this issue on. I don't think this is a thing that can be fixed but rather is going to turn from inside the community. How that may happen I don't know but I do know folks are very tired of the crime.
A proper discussion on black-on-black crime can't take place without putting it within its proper content. For example, it's not all peaches and cream across the tracks. Crime in general is based on environment, not race. This article Stephendare posted in the Zimmerman thread seems ideal for this discussion.
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 03:53:19 PM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/15/the-trayvon-martin-killing-and-the-myth-of-black-on-black-crime.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_afternoon&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_afternoon&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet
Trayvon Martin and the Myth of "Black on Black Crime"
Crime is driven by proximity and opportunity, writes Jamelle Bouie—which is why 86 percent of white victims were killed by white offenders.
Last week, in Chicago, 16-year-old Darryl Green was found dead in the yard of an abandoned home. He was killed, relatives reported, because he refused to join a gang. Unlike most tragedies, however—which remain local news—this one caught the attention of conservative activist Ben Shapiro, an editor for Breitbart News. Using the hashtag "#justicefordarryl," Shaprio tweeted and publicized the details of Green's murder. But this wasn't a call for help and assistance for Green's family, rather, it was his response to wide outrage over Saturday's decision in the case of George Zimmerman, where a Florida jury judged him "not guilty" of second-degree murder or manslaughter in the killing of Trayvon Martin.
Shapiro, echoing many other conservatives, is angry over the perceived politicization of the Zimmerman trial, and believes that activists have "injected" race into the discussion, as if there's nothing racial already within the criminal-justice system. Indeed, he echoes many conservatives when he complains that media attention had everything to do with Zimmerman's race. If he were black, the argument goes, no one would care. And so, Shapiro found the sad story of Darryl Green, and promoted it as an example of the "black-on-black" crime that, he believes, goes ignored. Or, as he tweets, "49% of murder victims are black men. 93% of those are killed by other blacks. Media don't care. Obama doesn't care. #JusticeForDarryl."
The idea that "black-on-black" crime is the real story in Martin's killing isn't a novel one. In addition to Shapiro, you'll hear the argument from conservative African-American activists like Crystal White, as well as people outside the media, like Zimmerman defense attorney Mark O'Mara, who said that his client "never would have been charged with a crime" if he were black.
(It's worth noting, here, that Zimmerman wasn't charged with a crime. At least, not at first. It took six weeks of protest and pressure for Sanford police to revisit the killing and bring charges against him. Indeed, in the beginning, Martin's cause had less to do with the identity of the shooter and everything to do with the appalling disinterest of the local police department.)
But there's a huge problem with attempt to shift the conversation: There's no such thing as "black-on-black" crime. Yes, from 1976 to 2005, 94 percent of black victims were killed by black offenders, but that racial exclusivity was also true for white victims of violent crime—86 percent were killed by white offenders. Indeed, for the large majority of crimes, you'll find that victims and offenders share a racial identity, or have some prior relationship to each other.
What Shapiro and others miss about crime, in general, is that it's driven by opportunism and proximity; If African-Americans are more likely to be robbed, or injured, or killed by other African-Americans, it's because they tend to live in the same neighborhoods as each other. Residential statistics bear this out (PDF); blacks are still more likely to live near each other or other minority groups than they are to whites. And of course, the reverse holds as well—whites are much more likely to live near other whites than they are to minorities and African-Americans in particular.
Nor are African-Americans especially criminal. If they were, you would still see high rates of crime among blacks, even as the nation sees a historic decline in criminal offenses. Instead, crime rates among African-Americans, and black youth in particular, have taken a sharp drop. In Washington, D.C., for example, fewer than 10 percent of black youth are in a gang, have sold drugs, have carried a gun, or have stolen more than $100 in goods.
Overall, figures from a variety of institutions—including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Justice Statistics—show that among black youth, rates of robbery and serious property offenses are at their lowest rates in 40 years, as are rates of violent crime and victimization. And while it's true that young black men are a disproportionate share of the nation's murder victims, it's hard to disentangle this from the stew of hyper-segregation (often a result of deliberate policies), entrenched poverty, and nonexistent economic opportunities that characterizes a substantial number of black communities. Hence the countless inner-city anti-violence groups that focus on creating opportunity for young, disadvantaged African-Americans, through education, mentoring, and community programs. Blacks care intensely about the violence that happens in their communities. After all, they have to live with it.
"Black-on-black crime" has been part of the American lexicon for decades, but as a specific phenomenon, it's no more real than "white-on-white crime." Unlike the latter, however, the idea of "black-on-black crime" taps into specific fears around black masculinity and black criminality—the same fears that, in Florida, led George Zimmerman to focus his attention on Trayvon Martin, and in New York, continue to justify Michael Bloomberg's campaign of police harassment against young black men in New York City.
Indeed, these fears are the reason that—in predominantly African-American neighborhoods across the country—police gathered and waited. There might be riots, observers said, and we have to be prepared. Why? The protests in support of Martin have been peaceful, and no one has called for violence or retribution. But that doesn't matter.
America is afraid of black people, and that's especially true—it seems—when it thinks they might be angry.
As for the Chicago killings, there is outrage. However, the major difference between the GZ/TM situation and those is when the killers are identified, they end up being put away behind bars.
Quote from: JayBird on July 15, 2013, 07:53:40 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 15, 2013, 06:40:43 PM
Believe me I thought twice before wading into any of the Trayvon discussions but it is my deep feeling that we need to walk into some of these discussions in order to bring some sort of understanding as to why race and discussion of race remains such a volatile subject and much of that I believe is the fanning of passions as opposed to clarity of thinking and honest discussion. As long as people simply take the lead of the angry or political in cases like this the core importance of an issue is lost in blame, angry words and passion.
And for that Diane, thank you. Even though not everyone comments, a lot of us follow the board and both respect and admire your ability to act as voice of calm and reason when emotions get a little too involved.
Wow Jaybird, thank you. I just feel in my heart that real conversation can change things and that everyone has the right to their views but they are so much more useful when shared without vitriol. It really isn't that hard to be respectful.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 15, 2013, 07:57:44 PM
A proper discussion on black-on-black crime can't take place without putting it within it's proper content. For example, it's not all peaches and cream across the tracks. Crime in general is based on environment, not race. This article Stephendare posted in the Zimmerman thread seems ideal for this discussion.
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 03:53:19 PM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/15/the-trayvon-martin-killing-and-the-myth-of-black-on-black-crime.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_afternoon&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_afternoon&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet
Trayvon Martin and the Myth of "Black on Black Crime"
Crime is driven by proximity and opportunity, writes Jamelle Bouie—which is why 86 percent of white victims were killed by white offenders.
Last week, in Chicago, 16-year-old Darryl Green was found dead in the yard of an abandoned home. He was killed, relatives reported, because he refused to join a gang. Unlike most tragedies, however—which remain local news—this one caught the attention of conservative activist Ben Shapiro, an editor for Breitbart News. Using the hashtag "#justicefordarryl," Shaprio tweeted and publicized the details of Green's murder. But this wasn't a call for help and assistance for Green's family, rather, it was his response to wide outrage over Saturday's decision in the case of George Zimmerman, where a Florida jury judged him "not guilty" of second-degree murder or manslaughter in the killing of Trayvon Martin.
Shapiro, echoing many other conservatives, is angry over the perceived politicization of the Zimmerman trial, and believes that activists have "injected" race into the discussion, as if there's nothing racial already within the criminal-justice system. Indeed, he echoes many conservatives when he complains that media attention had everything to do with Zimmerman's race. If he were black, the argument goes, no one would care. And so, Shapiro found the sad story of Darryl Green, and promoted it as an example of the "black-on-black" crime that, he believes, goes ignored. Or, as he tweets, "49% of murder victims are black men. 93% of those are killed by other blacks. Media don't care. Obama doesn't care. #JusticeForDarryl."
The idea that "black-on-black" crime is the real story in Martin's killing isn't a novel one. In addition to Shapiro, you'll hear the argument from conservative African-American activists like Crystal White, as well as people outside the media, like Zimmerman defense attorney Mark O'Mara, who said that his client "never would have been charged with a crime" if he were black.
(It's worth noting, here, that Zimmerman wasn't charged with a crime. At least, not at first. It took six weeks of protest and pressure for Sanford police to revisit the killing and bring charges against him. Indeed, in the beginning, Martin's cause had less to do with the identity of the shooter and everything to do with the appalling disinterest of the local police department.)
But there's a huge problem with attempt to shift the conversation: There's no such thing as "black-on-black" crime. Yes, from 1976 to 2005, 94 percent of black victims were killed by black offenders, but that racial exclusivity was also true for white victims of violent crime—86 percent were killed by white offenders. Indeed, for the large majority of crimes, you'll find that victims and offenders share a racial identity, or have some prior relationship to each other.
What Shapiro and others miss about crime, in general, is that it's driven by opportunism and proximity; If African-Americans are more likely to be robbed, or injured, or killed by other African-Americans, it's because they tend to live in the same neighborhoods as each other. Residential statistics bear this out (PDF); blacks are still more likely to live near each other or other minority groups than they are to whites. And of course, the reverse holds as well—whites are much more likely to live near other whites than they are to minorities and African-Americans in particular.
Nor are African-Americans especially criminal. If they were, you would still see high rates of crime among blacks, even as the nation sees a historic decline in criminal offenses. Instead, crime rates among African-Americans, and black youth in particular, have taken a sharp drop. In Washington, D.C., for example, fewer than 10 percent of black youth are in a gang, have sold drugs, have carried a gun, or have stolen more than $100 in goods.
Overall, figures from a variety of institutions—including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Justice Statistics—show that among black youth, rates of robbery and serious property offenses are at their lowest rates in 40 years, as are rates of violent crime and victimization. And while it's true that young black men are a disproportionate share of the nation's murder victims, it's hard to disentangle this from the stew of hyper-segregation (often a result of deliberate policies), entrenched poverty, and nonexistent economic opportunities that characterizes a substantial number of black communities. Hence the countless inner-city anti-violence groups that focus on creating opportunity for young, disadvantaged African-Americans, through education, mentoring, and community programs. Blacks care intensely about the violence that happens in their communities. After all, they have to live with it.
"Black-on-black crime" has been part of the American lexicon for decades, but as a specific phenomenon, it's no more real than "white-on-white crime." Unlike the latter, however, the idea of "black-on-black crime" taps into specific fears around black masculinity and black criminality—the same fears that, in Florida, led George Zimmerman to focus his attention on Trayvon Martin, and in New York, continue to justify Michael Bloomberg's campaign of police harassment against young black men in New York City.
Indeed, these fears are the reason that—in predominantly African-American neighborhoods across the country—police gathered and waited. There might be riots, observers said, and we have to be prepared. Why? The protests in support of Martin have been peaceful, and no one has called for violence or retribution. But that doesn't matter.
America is afraid of black people, and that's especially true—it seems—when it thinks they might be angry.
As for the Chicago killings, there is outrage. However, the major difference between the GZ/TM situation and those is when the killers are identified, they end up being put away behind bars.
Thanks for reposting the article Ennis. It is a good one for this discussion to be sure. So far no one has touched your query on the Zimmerman thread about how environment impacts this type of crime. Are you willing to lead us down that path of discussion. I would be very interested in you take on the issue from all sides.
Caught this too late. Anderson Cooper just had an exclusive with one of the jurors on the Zimmerman case. This is on CNN and the broadcast continues right now.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 15, 2013, 07:57:44 PM
A proper discussion on black-on-black crime can't take place without putting it within its proper content. For example, it's not all peaches and cream across the tracks. Crime in general is based on environment, not race. This article Stephendare posted in the Zimmerman thread seems ideal for this discussion.
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 03:53:19 PM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/15/the-trayvon-martin-killing-and-the-myth-of-black-on-black-crime.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_afternoon&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_afternoon&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet
Trayvon Martin and the Myth of "Black on Black Crime"
Crime is driven by proximity and opportunity, writes Jamelle Bouie—which is why 86 percent of white victims were killed by white offenders.
Last week, in Chicago, 16-year-old Darryl Green was found dead in the yard of an abandoned home. He was killed, relatives reported, because he refused to join a gang. Unlike most tragedies, however—which remain local news—this one caught the attention of conservative activist Ben Shapiro, an editor for Breitbart News. Using the hashtag "#justicefordarryl," Shaprio tweeted and publicized the details of Green's murder. But this wasn't a call for help and assistance for Green's family, rather, it was his response to wide outrage over Saturday's decision in the case of George Zimmerman, where a Florida jury judged him "not guilty" of second-degree murder or manslaughter in the killing of Trayvon Martin.
Shapiro, echoing many other conservatives, is angry over the perceived politicization of the Zimmerman trial, and believes that activists have "injected" race into the discussion, as if there's nothing racial already within the criminal-justice system. Indeed, he echoes many conservatives when he complains that media attention had everything to do with Zimmerman's race. If he were black, the argument goes, no one would care. And so, Shapiro found the sad story of Darryl Green, and promoted it as an example of the "black-on-black" crime that, he believes, goes ignored. Or, as he tweets, "49% of murder victims are black men. 93% of those are killed by other blacks. Media don't care. Obama doesn't care. #JusticeForDarryl."
The idea that "black-on-black" crime is the real story in Martin's killing isn't a novel one. In addition to Shapiro, you'll hear the argument from conservative African-American activists like Crystal White, as well as people outside the media, like Zimmerman defense attorney Mark O'Mara, who said that his client "never would have been charged with a crime" if he were black.
(It's worth noting, here, that Zimmerman wasn't charged with a crime. At least, not at first. It took six weeks of protest and pressure for Sanford police to revisit the killing and bring charges against him. Indeed, in the beginning, Martin's cause had less to do with the identity of the shooter and everything to do with the appalling disinterest of the local police department.)
But there's a huge problem with attempt to shift the conversation: There's no such thing as "black-on-black" crime. Yes, from 1976 to 2005, 94 percent of black victims were killed by black offenders, but that racial exclusivity was also true for white victims of violent crime—86 percent were killed by white offenders. Indeed, for the large majority of crimes, you'll find that victims and offenders share a racial identity, or have some prior relationship to each other.
What Shapiro and others miss about crime, in general, is that it's driven by opportunism and proximity; If African-Americans are more likely to be robbed, or injured, or killed by other African-Americans, it's because they tend to live in the same neighborhoods as each other. Residential statistics bear this out (PDF); blacks are still more likely to live near each other or other minority groups than they are to whites. And of course, the reverse holds as well—whites are much more likely to live near other whites than they are to minorities and African-Americans in particular.
Nor are African-Americans especially criminal. If they were, you would still see high rates of crime among blacks, even as the nation sees a historic decline in criminal offenses. Instead, crime rates among African-Americans, and black youth in particular, have taken a sharp drop. In Washington, D.C., for example, fewer than 10 percent of black youth are in a gang, have sold drugs, have carried a gun, or have stolen more than $100 in goods.
Overall, figures from a variety of institutions—including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Justice Statistics—show that among black youth, rates of robbery and serious property offenses are at their lowest rates in 40 years, as are rates of violent crime and victimization. And while it's true that young black men are a disproportionate share of the nation's murder victims, it's hard to disentangle this from the stew of hyper-segregation (often a result of deliberate policies), entrenched poverty, and nonexistent economic opportunities that characterizes a substantial number of black communities. Hence the countless inner-city anti-violence groups that focus on creating opportunity for young, disadvantaged African-Americans, through education, mentoring, and community programs. Blacks care intensely about the violence that happens in their communities. After all, they have to live with it.
"Black-on-black crime" has been part of the American lexicon for decades, but as a specific phenomenon, it's no more real than "white-on-white crime." Unlike the latter, however, the idea of "black-on-black crime" taps into specific fears around black masculinity and black criminality—the same fears that, in Florida, led George Zimmerman to focus his attention on Trayvon Martin, and in New York, continue to justify Michael Bloomberg's campaign of police harassment against young black men in New York City.
Indeed, these fears are the reason that—in predominantly African-American neighborhoods across the country—police gathered and waited. There might be riots, observers said, and we have to be prepared. Why? The protests in support of Martin have been peaceful, and no one has called for violence or retribution. But that doesn't matter.
America is afraid of black people, and that's especially true—it seems—when it thinks they might be angry.
As for the Chicago killings, there is outrage. However, the major difference between the GZ/TM situation and those is when the killers are identified, they end up being put away behind bars.
Thanks, I missed this in the other board but that's growing at a new page every hour it seems. Let me grab dinner and I hope Ennis that you jump into this. From a quick scan, I will say I have used statistics like that before in discussions with prisoners in Lake Butler CI and I will never forget what one told me. He said "I grew up in 29th & Chase in Jacksonville and I was more afraid of my neighbor than some (slang word for white guy) with gun in his pocket. Those numbers don't mean (slang) when it's 100 brothers getting cut down and only 5 (slang for white men)." Now, to keep in context he was imprisoned for the murder of his neighbor, and he held within him a lot of hate.
^I'm just getting back in to town. That Zimmerman thread has gotten so large during my commute back, that I'm going to have to search and dig out my post about about economics and environment. This issue of black-on-black crime isn't about race. Stats tend to be pretty skewed when they are cherry picked. Anyway, the underlying issue deals with economics and environment. Change those, you change the results and it doesn't matter what the population's skin pigmentation happens to be.
The two takeaway statements I got from her was first that they "never" discussed race. Second that when they first went back there were three for not guilty, one for murder 2 and two for manslaughter. She said that as they read and re-read the law there was no way to find Zimmerman guilty of either charge. She went on to say that a couple of jurors wanted to find him guilty of something because Trayvon had died, but the law didn't support either charge.
She said all the jurors wept after they had come to the verdict and given it to the bailiff and that none of them ever want to serve on another jury. She also said that they were totally surprised by how big the public interest had become in the trial and that race had been brought into the picture. She said none of the jurors even thought about race as a factor. She also wanted the public to know that they combed through all the evidence again and listened over and over to the testimony and did their very best to render a verdict according to law.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 15, 2013, 09:17:50 PM
The two takeaway statements I got from her was first that they "never" discussed race. Second that when they first went back there were three for not guilty, one for murder 2 and two for manslaughter. She said that as they read and re-read the law there was no way to find Zimmerman guilty of either charge. She went on to say that a couple of jurors wanted to find him guilty of something because Trayvon had died, but the law didn't support either charge.
She said all the jurors wept after they had come to the verdict and given it to the bailiff and that none of them ever want to serve on another jury. She also said that they were totally surprised by how big the public interest had become in the trial and that race had been brought into the picture. She said none of the jurors even thought about race as a factor. She also wanted the public to know that they combed through all the evidence again and listened over and over to the testimony and did their very best to render a verdict according to law.
Totally understandable. I think he's guilty of manslaughter but I'm also sure he did fear for his life when TM started getting the best of him. After all, from his perspective, TM was a thug on the prowl. If I find anything wrong, it's the idea that one can provoke an incident, shoot the victim when the victim gets the best of him and walk away free on a claim of self defense.
IMO, there's no telling what can of worms we are opening here. If what I've described is true (which it appears to be), then I believe we need to work on modifying law to not allow such a chain of events to happen and the instigator get away with it.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 15, 2013, 09:51:27 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 15, 2013, 09:17:50 PM
The two takeaway statements I got from her was first that they "never" discussed race. Second that when they first went back there were three for not guilty, one for murder 2 and two for manslaughter. She said that as they read and re-read the law there was no way to find Zimmerman guilty of either charge. She went on to say that a couple of jurors wanted to find him guilty of something because Trayvon had died, but the law didn't support either charge.
She said all the jurors wept after they had come to the verdict and given it to the bailiff and that none of them ever want to serve on another jury. She also said that they were totally surprised by how big the public interest had become in the trial and that race had been brought into the picture. She said none of the jurors even thought about race as a factor. She also wanted the public to know that they combed through all the evidence again and listened over and over to the testimony and did their very best to render a verdict according to law.
Totally understandable. I think he's guilty of manslaughter but I don't doubt that he didn't fear for his life with TM started getting the best of him. If I find anything wrong, it's the idea that one can provoke an incident, shoot the victim when the victim gets the best of him and walk away free on a claim of self defense.
IMO, there's no telling what can of worms we are opening here. If what I've described is true (which it appears to be), then I believe we need to work on modifying law to not allow such a chain of events to happen and the instigator get away with it.
Clearly stated, bottom line.
Quote from: stephendare on July 15, 2013, 07:04:08 PM
Quote from: NotNow on July 15, 2013, 07:03:06 PM
ALL evidence. Anything found on the phone has to be shared. "Pertinent to the case" will be decided by the judge. Ask your friend Chris.
Im sure he will weigh in shortly
Stephen you know I love ya bud, but NotNow's right on this one. It's anything in the possession of the state with few very limited exceptions, and possession's imputed to not only SAO and their investigators, but also law enforcement and any agency of the executive branch. The photos should have been turned over, no question. Whether they were admissible at trial would depend on who wins the ruling on the motion in limine or wins the objection when somebody attempts to introduce them, and in this particular case the state actually succeeded in keeping most of it out. But no question at all that they should have been given to the defense. Failing to do so was just one of several serious ethical lapses that SAO4 appeared to use as a crutch in the absence of a viable strategy, commencing with the filing of the affidavit in support of the warrant and getting worse from there.
Also FWIW: http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2013-07-15/story/state-attorney-corey-scrutinized-nationally-over-handling-trayvon
Blah blah blah. So much talking about nothing. Everyone knows black people kill a lot of other black people. Everyone (who is living in the real world) knows that young black males commit a lot more crime per capita than any other race. Great. So you've spent two pages talking about stuff everyone already knows. Known facts.
-- Why does this demographic commit so much violent crime?
-- What can the rest of society do to slow it down?
He's being paid a lot of money to argue a point a certain way. I'm sure if he was paid by the other side, he'd argue in the opposite direction.
Quote from: AngryMuffin on July 15, 2013, 10:51:35 PM
Blah blah blah. So much talking about nothing. Everyone knows black people kill a lot of other black people. Everyone (who is living in the real world) knows that young black males commit a lot more crime per capita than any other race. Great. So you've spent two pages talking about stuff everyone already knows. Known facts.
-- Why does this demographic commit so much violent crime?
-- What can the rest of society do to slow it down?
I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but this last post tells me you are intent upon making your own point about Blacks and crime that is not born of concern but rather accusative. I don't think there is a place in this conversation where that attitude toward this discussion has value. Perhaps you should reconsider your approach if you expect anyone to entertain your views and ideas.
Quote from: AngryMuffin on July 15, 2013, 10:51:35 PM
Blah blah blah. So much talking about nothing. Everyone knows black people kill a lot of other black people. Everyone (who is living in the real world) knows that young black males commit a lot more crime per capita than any other race. Great. So you've spent two pages talking about stuff everyone already knows. Known facts.
-- Why does this demographic commit so much violent crime?
-- What can the rest of society do to slow it down?
AngryMuffin, I've already answered both of those questions. You ignored both in that long Zimmerman thread to go back and forth trading pot shots with Stephendare instead.
I found an interesting article at http://www.theroot.com/views/why-don-t-we-talk-about-white-white-crime?page=0,1. I'll just quote a few bits from it.
QuoteThe term "black on black" crime is a destructive, racialized colloquialism that perpetuates an idea that blacks are somehow more prone to violence. This is untrue and fully verifiable by FBI, DOJ and census (pdf) data. Yet the fallacy is so fixed that even African Americans have come to believe it.
In Michelle Alexander's book, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, she explains that the term was coined in the 1980s as American cities underwent transformation as a result of riots, white flight and the onslaught of the drug trade. David Wilson, a professor at the University of Illinois, documents the phenomena in Inventing Black-on-Black Violence. Wilson says that instead of attributing increased crime activity to poverty, inequality and disenfranchisement, the media chose to blame "a supposedly defective, aberrant black culture."
In a 2010 piece published by The Root, "The Myth of Black-on-Black Violence," Natalie Hopkinson opines that journalists should follow the direction of the United Kingdom, where the Guardian newspaper banned the use of the phrase. A Guardian stylebook asked authors to ''imagine the police saying they were investigating an incident of white-on-white violence ... " Hopkinson concludes, "The term 'black-on-black violence' is a slander against the majority of law-abiding black Americans, rich and poor, who get painted by this broad and crude brush."
QuoteAfrican-American media and policymakers have been equally complicit in promoting a "black-on-black crime" anecdote, thinking that it could help address some of the community's problems; but what it has actually done is provide support for racial profiling and promote the disproportionate policing of black criminality as "legitimate" and "acceptable." This over-policing has led to disproportionately higher rates of arrests in black communities, reinforcing the idea that blacks commit more crimes.
If we were to talk about "white-on-white crime," then at least we'd be addressing issues like gun violence in a racially neutral way. That doesn't happen because too many Americans remain convinced that black or brown people are the problem.
QuoteWashington Post columnist George Will said that despite the Trayvon tragedy, "150 black men are killed every week in this country," and "about 94 percent of them by other black men."
... the exacting truth that white Americans are just as likely to be killed by other whites. According to Justice Department statistics (pdf), 84 percent of white people killed every year are killed by other whites.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0325.pdf
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
Can we somehow get the First Baptist Church involved in this conversation? ;D
Quote from: ronchamblin on July 15, 2013, 11:14:09 PM
Can we somehow get the First Baptist Church involved in this conversation? ;D
No Ron, we can't! lol
Ron here is the thing about the liberal asshole agenda... they use religion as a wedge to peel off people into believing their bullshit. A lot of people - myself included are atheists (I am actually a born again atheist) they paint religious people as evil hell bent on destroying all the great stuff in life; speeding, whoring around, drinking, rock music and the demon weed.
I bought into this bullshit. But then I started noticing that there are a whole lot of religious people that I really like personally. In fact the religious people that I know and like are among the nicest, most responsible, highest quality people that I know. Good jobs. Good families. Well educated great kids. Bedrock people. But then I had Bill Maher telling me that these people were stupid, evil, had an agenda to destroy my lifestyle etc.
Here is what I realized; religious people wasted time doing stupid stuff on Sunday mornings and believed in stuff I didn't. Other than that these people on the whole - pretty good people. And while the lefties were trying to paint them as the cause of the world's problems I realized that they weren't and aren't the problem after all.
Before someone calls me an evil conservative; I want drugs to be legalized, government funded abortions and the last time I set foor in a church it was a funeral.
Quote from: ronchamblin on July 15, 2013, 11:14:09 PM
Can we somehow get the First Baptist Church involved in this conversation? ;D
^Interesting pieces to be sure. What I am trying to come to balance with is what is happening beyond the rhetoric. In Jacksonville at least some of the crimes being committed that place Blacks as the victims also have Blacks as the perp. The stats I have seen in the past when working with those working on the issue of crime and prevention have pointed to a great deal of crime between Blacks that statistically is higher than other races when population is factored in. Like the 09 area code. I do believe that there is a great influence when it comes to poverty and environment as Ennis mentioned and look forward to more input about that. But there is something else going on as well. During ride alongs with the JSO I have have witnessed many incidents where citizens call each other the "n" word with venom and they are all of the Black race. I have also seen flareups over the shade of Black one happens to be and value associated with one another based on degree of color. That is something that tells me at least that this may go beyond economics and toward something unspoken and painful in the Black psyche. Please know and accept me at my word that I am not laying down judgments but rather sharing ideas and experiences that have mostly come through my deep associations with members of the Black community. I simply want to understand so that there can be healing and clarity of thought where needed in our community and society in general.
Sorry man I must have missed it. You're right I was. I just like arguing with him. I don't know why. I do have to credit the dude. If I was running a message board and some smart ass was giving me a beat down on it I'd probably ban him or delete his posts. On the other hand I'm driving up engagement and advertising impressions... so...
What did you say? Irreverence aside. I'd love to know your opinion.
Here is the problem with this thread. I didn't see a single solution, opinion or guess what is causing this problem and what can be done to stop it.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 15, 2013, 11:01:11 PM
Quote from: AngryMuffin on July 15, 2013, 10:51:35 PM
Blah blah blah. So much talking about nothing. Everyone knows black people kill a lot of other black people. Everyone (who is living in the real world) knows that young black males commit a lot more crime per capita than any other race. Great. So you've spent two pages talking about stuff everyone already knows. Known facts.
-- Why does this demographic commit so much violent crime?
-- What can the rest of society do to slow it down?
AngryMuffin, I've already answered both of those questions. You ignored both in that long Zimmerman thread to go back and forth trading pot shots with Stephendare instead.
I had some causes and solutions in there. I'll have to go into that thread and dig it out of there.
Well, perhaps it is too soon to talk solutions when discussing an issue that is this important. We have a ways to go in understanding and coming to conclusions if there are any to be had. I know this is the age where everyone want's what they want now. But real life takes real time when deciding on things of importance.
I'll go look for it. I went to bed before you posted. Or Steve's orange shirt distracted me.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 15, 2013, 11:52:42 PM
I had some causes and solutions in there. I'll have to go into that thread and dig it out of there.
Quote from: JayBird on July 15, 2013, 07:25:37 PM
Huge protests and demonstrations with over 8,000 in NYC yesterday and last night and no arrests. Demonstrations in Hemming Plaza, no arrests. That is how they can say peaceful. It is just civilians exercising their first amendment.
Some of these 'civilians' apparently think that it's okay to exercise their 'right' to assault a particular group of people. The Baltimore Sun already reported that a Hispanic man was attacked by blacks shouting "For Trayvon". Also their was some violence in Mississippi with someone (I believe a white man) being thrown out of a car. Expect a lot more violence. The race baiters won't be happy until George's head is on a stake....
Or in reality AM you are completely wrong. My liberal ass is in church most Sundays. You have certainly read Stephen's support of religion on this site. There are lots of different people making up the groups known as liberal and conservative. Do you think the Hispanics who have been voting for the more liberal party are anti religion?
Anyway enjoy this glimpse into the real world.
Someone may have already posted this, but here:
QuoteAnother trial involving a Florida man who fatally shot an unarmed black teen
By Eric W. Dolan
Monday, July 15, 2013 19:55 EDT
Murder suspect Michael Dunn (Screenshot)
Topics: Jordan Davis ♦ Michael David Dunn ♦ Ron Davis
CNN's Ryan Smith on Monday highlighted an upcoming trial in Florida that is eerily similar to the Trayvon Martin case. In both cases, an unarmed 17-year-old black male was left dead.
"I'm not an eye for an eye type person where I think he should be killed," Ron Davis, the father of Jordan Davis, told CNN. "I don't believe in capitol punishment. I believe every life is precious. You took my son's life. That doesn't mean anybody else should take his life. I think he should spend the rest of his life in prison because of the fact that you have to think about what you've done not only to Jordan but to his family, his friends, people that cry for him every day."
Michael David Dunn, 45, told police he shot and killed Davis at a gas station last year because he feared for his life. Dunn had told Davis and his friends to turn down their loud music. He claimed the situation escalated and the teens began threatening him. Dunn started shooting because he thought they had a shotgun.
"It was either a barrel or a stick but, sir, they're like we're going to kill you and then they said, 'you're dead [expletive removed].' What I should have done was put the car in reverse, but that shotgun come up or whatever it was – fight or flight – and I don't think there was time for flight at that moment because I was going to get shot," he told police.
Dunn fled the scene, but was arrested the next day.
Dunn, who faces a first-degree murder charge and three attempted murder charges, plans to invoke Florida's controversial "Stand your ground" law in his defense. The law allows gun owners to use deadly force without the "duty to retreat" first if they feel their life is endangered.
http://www.youtube.com/v/LT_6LFuVkZw?list=UUupvZG-5ko_eiXAupbDfxWw
Quote from: I-10east on July 16, 2013, 01:11:26 AM
Quote from: JayBird on July 15, 2013, 07:25:37 PM
Huge protests and demonstrations with over 8,000 in NYC yesterday and last night and no arrests. Demonstrations in Hemming Plaza, no arrests. That is how they can say peaceful. It is just civilians exercising their first amendment.
Some of these 'civilians' apparently think that it's okay to exercise their 'right' to assault a particular group of people. The Baltimore Sun already reported that a Hispanic man was attacked by blacks shouting "For Trayvon". Also their was some violence in Mississippi with someone (I believe a white man) being thrown out of a car. Expect a lot more violence. The race baiters won't be happy until George's head is on a stake....
There has not been an arrest in Baltimore yet, so keeping it in context with what I had written they can technically still assert peaceful protest. And according to Baltimore Sun, it wasn't part of any demonstration.
QuoteTensions have run high, and Baltimore police said Monday they are investigating an alleged beating of a Hispanic man that, according to a witness, came at the hands of a group of black youths who were saying "This is for Trayvon" while they attacked him. Police, who have urged residents to respond peacefully, reported no incidents at the protests.http://touch.baltimoresun.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-76681129/ (http://touch.baltimoresun.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-76681129/)
I couldn't find the Mississippi case, which is why it is helpful when you post a link to where you get your info, but I am sure it has been embellished.
Stevie Wonder pledged not to play in Florida until the "Stand Your Ground" law is repealed.
http://www.youtube.com/v/3i9GSbwgvcQ?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param%20name="allowFullScreen"%20value="true"></param><param%20name="allowscriptaccess"%20value="always"></param><embed%20src="//www.youtube.com/v/3i9GSbwgvcQ?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"%20type="application/x-shockwave-
Quote from: sheclown on July 16, 2013, 07:10:25 AM
Someone may have already posted this, but here:
QuoteAnother trial involving a Florida man who fatally shot an unarmed black teen
By Eric W. Dolan
Monday, July 15, 2013 19:55 EDT
Murder suspect Michael Dunn (Screenshot)
Topics: Jordan Davis ♦ Michael David Dunn ♦ Ron Davis
CNN's Ryan Smith on Monday highlighted an upcoming trial in Florida that is eerily similar to the Trayvon Martin case. In both cases, an unarmed 17-year-old black male was left dead.
"I'm not an eye for an eye type person where I think he should be killed," Ron Davis, the father of Jordan Davis, told CNN. "I don't believe in capitol punishment. I believe every life is precious. You took my son's life. That doesn't mean anybody else should take his life. I think he should spend the rest of his life in prison because of the fact that you have to think about what you've done not only to Jordan but to his family, his friends, people that cry for him every day."
Michael David Dunn, 45, told police he shot and killed Davis at a gas station last year because he feared for his life. Dunn had told Davis and his friends to turn down their loud music. He claimed the situation escalated and the teens began threatening him. Dunn started shooting because he thought they had a shotgun.
"It was either a barrel or a stick but, sir, they're like we're going to kill you and then they said, 'you're dead [expletive removed].' What I should have done was put the car in reverse, but that shotgun come up or whatever it was – fight or flight – and I don't think there was time for flight at that moment because I was going to get shot," he told police.
Dunn fled the scene, but was arrested the next day.
Dunn, who faces a first-degree murder charge and three attempted murder charges, plans to invoke Florida's controversial "Stand your ground" law in his defense. The law allows gun owners to use deadly force without the "duty to retreat" first if they feel their life is endangered.
http://www.youtube.com/v/LT_6LFuVkZw?list=UUupvZG-5ko_eiXAupbDfxWw
Slightly different case as there are over 20 eyewitnesses listed by the defense, a recorded phone call from one of the juveniles that were in the car and video footage from security cameras. I'm sure there is more that hasn't been released yet and shouldn't be because the case needs to be tried in a courtroom first. The problem with Zimmerman was no one really knows what happened except for him which leaves a lot of room for interjection. What will be interesting about this case is if Stand Your Ground applies to being in public what constitutes the feeling of danger. That would mean if I was trying to park my truck at OP Mall and someone took the spot I was waiting for, I can shoot them and claim Stand Your Ground? Very scary thought if this case affirms SYG.
Quote from: JayBird on July 16, 2013, 07:18:43 AM
I couldn't find the Mississippi case, which is why it is helpful when you post a link to where you get your info, but I am sure it has been embellished.
To me whether this violence is from an 'official' Treyvon rally or not is irrelevant; Bottomline people are being assaulted by this scum making Treyvon a martyr to 'justify' their heinous actions. Of course the liberal media has no interest in these assaults because 'everything is okay'. These MSNBC 'progressives' should be known as regressives, with their constant lies and race-baiting; They set the entire country back thirty years! Thanks MSNBC, and the rest of the liberal media, thanks....SMH
Mississippi- www.wreg.com/2013/07/15/man-claims-attack-was-trayvon-retaliation/
Quote from: I-10east on July 16, 2013, 07:51:25 AM
To me whether this violence is from an 'official' Treyvon rally or not is irrelevant; Bottomline people are being assaulted by this scum making Treyvon a martyr to 'justify' their heinous actions. Of course the liberal media has no interest in these assaults because 'everything is okay'. These MSNBC 'progressives' should be known as regressives, with their constant lies and race-baiting; They set the entire country back thirty years! Thanks MSNBC, and the rest of the liberal media, thanks....SMH
Mississippi- www.wreg.com/2013/07/15/man-claims-attack-was-trayvon-retaliation/
Alabama- www.loop21.com/life/revenge-for-trayvon-martin-beating-mobile-alabama
That's a shame because taking it out of context only spurs hate and bigotry. Also your Alabama posting has nothing to do with it, due to the fact that it happened over a year ago. And by 'scum' do you mean all young males? All black males? All those wearing a hoodie? Please do not generalize. A few incidents a calamity does not make.
Quote from: JayBird on July 16, 2013, 08:16:00 AM
That's a shame because taking it out of context only spurs hate and bigotry. Also your Alabama posting has nothing to do with it, due to the fact that it happened over a year ago. And by 'scum' do you mean all young males? All black males? All those wearing a hoodie? Please do not generalize. A few incidents a calamity does not make.
Right on about that old Alabama posting, my bad. Yeah, by scum I mean the people who are doing these racially motivated attacks; They happen to be black, and so do I BTW. Why is color brought up whenever someone is black? If the people were white, and I said scum no one would say anything. Regardless of color, why stick up for those assailants anyway? I know I sound like a right-winger regarding the MSNBC bashing, but believe me I call the conservatives out when they do something stupid also. I refuse to be put into a bubble of lies, liberal or conservative.
I really found this juror's comments to be infuriating.
That poor, sympathetic George Zimmerman, heart full of love, just found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Quote"I think George Zimmerman is a man whose heart was in the right place, but just got displaced by the vandalism in the neighborhoods, and wanting to catch these people so badly that he went above and beyond what he really should have done," she said.
If anything, Zimmerman was guilty of not using "good judgment," the juror said.
"When he was in the car, and he had called 911, he shouldn't have gotten out of that car," she said.
She also said she believes Martin threw the first punch in the confrontation that followed.
"I think George got in a little bit too deep, which he shouldn't have been there. But Trayvon decided that he wasn't going to let him scare him ... and I think Trayvon got mad and attacked him," she said.
Most people who commit crimes are guilty of not using good judgement. I had to bite my lip on that quote. Zimmerman's attorneys did a great job, considering they've convinced the jury that he's the victim instead of the kid who died as a result of him not using "good judgment".
^the lawyers also did a great job on jury selection as it is has been proven that it is harder for a woman to sentence someone. The female brain will look at a male offender in a motherly view whereas a male brain will typically assign the attributes of someone whom he personally knew that broke the law to base his decision.
brain profiling?
Quote from: I-10east on July 16, 2013, 08:26:37 AM
Quote from: JayBird on July 16, 2013, 08:16:00 AM
That's a shame because taking it out of context only spurs hate and bigotry. Also your Alabama posting has nothing to do with it, due to the fact that it happened over a year ago. And by 'scum' do you mean all young males? All black males? All those wearing a hoodie? Please do not generalize. A few incidents a calamity does not make.
Right on about that old Alabama posting, my bad. Yeah, by scum I mean the people who are doing these racially motivated attacks; They happen to be black, and so do I BTW. Why is color brought up whenever someone is black? If the people were white, and I said scum no one would say anything. Regardless of color, why stick up for those assailants anyway? I know I sound like a right-winger regarding the MSNBC bashing, but believe me I call the conservatives out when they do something stupid also. I refuse to be put into a bubble of lies, liberal or conservative.
No one is sticking up for them, it's more like let's not blow it out of proportion. And if notice I only used attributes that were pertinent to this case. Had Trayvon been Asian or one the attackers in your selected articles been Indian I would've said that. No racial intention implied, interesting that's how you perceived it. Maybe that shows the underlying issue in our communities.
Quote from: AKIRA on July 16, 2013, 09:12:52 AM
brain profiling?
Haha believe it or not is very true. My college roommate now works in Tulsa and that is all he does, analyze people for jury selections and prospective employees for corporations. Heck there are even studies going on right now at Eckerd University in St Pete to determine if one will return to prison solely based on their facial expression from a release day mugshot.
I know someone mentioned Emmett Till, but the case that this more eerily resembles is the Rudolph Hargett murder that took place in Jacksonville the night after the MLK assassination.
The more things change...
(http://i.imgur.com/ddY0gHf.jpg)
A year later:
(http://i.imgur.com/33znCA6.jpg)
It seems we are designed to look for (a profile established by) patterns. Thats basically what an IQ test is - a search for order within the questions to find the right answer. The more attuned to patterns, higher the score.
One question is how much of GZ belief TM was suspicious is based on TM being black versus suspiciousness based on behavior, time of day, environment, etc.
^to which only GZ can positively attest to, which therein lies the dilemma leaving room for interpretation, manipulation and thus fostering passionate debate.
Oh come on.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 16, 2013, 08:44:47 AM
Most people who commit crimes are guilty of not using good judgement. I had to bite my lip on that quote. Zimmerman's attorneys did a great job, considering they've convinced the jury that he's the victim instead of the kid who died as a result of him not using "good judgment".
Isnt that really the crux of it? Had Travon simply gone home, or called the cops, rather than confronting Zimmerman, nobody would have died. There is no indication that Zimmerman was itching to kill, and seemingly was doing what so many other people across the country do in patrolling his neighborhood. Was he perhaps a bit too agressive? Arguably, perhaps, but the truth appears that he did not confront Travon martin. He followed him. He called the non-emergency number, he gave an accurate description, and only when he was physically confronted did bad shit happen.
The lesson for us to teach our children is, if you feel like a creep is following you, remove yourself from the situation, and call the police. If you dont trust the police, then go somewhere you feel safe, and lock the door.
I am not justifying anything by saying this. Its sad that Travon is dead, and its also sad that Zimmerman, a guy who thought he was being a good neighbor has now been vilified, and will forever have blood on his hands.
He will forever have blood on his hands because he has blood on his hands.
Quote from: Demosthenes on July 16, 2013, 12:18:03 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 16, 2013, 08:44:47 AM
Most people who commit crimes are guilty of not using good judgement. I had to bite my lip on that quote. Zimmerman's attorneys did a great job, considering they've convinced the jury that he's the victim instead of the kid who died as a result of him not using "good judgment".
Had Travon simply gone home, or called the cops, rather than confronting Zimmerman, nobody would have died.
You can't seriously be suggesting that the onus of guilt falls on the threatened kid just going about his business, rather than the armed adult who blindly assumed his behavior criminal and pursued him through the neighborhood?
Whether or not Zimmerman started the actual physical confrontation, he was
100% the instigator in this situation. An adult stalking a child through the neighborhood is a threatening gesture, and one that we've all been warned about since kindergarten. It's a gesture that Martin had every right to defend themselves against, even physically, regardless of the sissified "run home and tell Mommy!" society you'd like us all to live in.
It's just absolute crap that people are so willing to give the benefit of the doubt to and sympathize with an armed neighborhood loon known to call the police about 4' foot tall, 7-year old black kids walking the neighborhood, rather than giving the benefit of the doubt to the dead kid in the street who's only crime was walking home while black.
When an unarmed kid gets shot dead in the street by a gun-toting adult with a vigilante history, you have to blame the adult.
In 50 cases out of 50.
I can completely understand the argument that the state didn't do a good enough job presenting its case, but it just turns my stomach to hear "Poor Zimmerman" crap like this. He's not a victim of circumstance. He murdered a minor in cold blood that he chose, against instruction, to engage. Trayvon Martin isn't dead because he chose not to run home and call the police or tell Mommy, he is dead because a low-life Dog the Bounty Hunter wanna be decided to take the law into his own hands.
Just unbelievable to me that it could be viewed any other way.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/6d0a0f2c-dd77-4876-8a77-289659322dff.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/6d0a0f2c-dd77-4876-8a77-289659322dff.jpg.html)
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 16, 2013, 01:07:12 PM(Just unbelievable to me that it could be viewed any other way.) It was by the jury they found George Zimmerman Not Guilty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As I clearly stated, I can understand the argument for why there wasn't a conviction, but I cannot understand the "Zimmerman as the victim" narrative.
Quote from: KenFSU on July 16, 2013, 09:37:57 AM
I know someone mentioned Emmett Till, but the case that this more eerily resembles is the Rudolph Hargett murder that took place in Jacksonville the night after the MLK assassination.
The more things change...
(http://i.imgur.com/ddY0gHf.jpg)
A year later:
(http://i.imgur.com/33znCA6.jpg)
+1
Ken I don't believe anyone thinks Zimmerman is not at fault. It is just that fault lies in both parties. You can no more say Zimmerman instigated it than one can say Trayvon shouldn't have confronted. That's the point, had either one made an alternate choice the outcome would've been different.
Thankfully, as noted today, we are beginning to move from drawing lines in the sand and being defensive and starting to meet in the middle to assess and evaluate the situation. Hopefully, this will spur conversation to make less Trayvons and Zimmermans in the future.
Of course, by posting articles like that, we are making it a race issue. Which Martin/Zimmerman wasn't in the eyes of the jury that made the decision. So as long as we continue to base all opinions on race, we will never progress forward. And that is our own faults. Either pushing it or allowing it to be pushed.
It seems two of the forum threads have started a cross over conversation. I am going to put up a post that was shared on the Profiling thread here because it also speaks to this issue. Ron Mexico, reply 21. http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,18960.msg336961/topicseen.html#new
The conversation is continuing on the Profiling thread right now.
Quote
By JASON L. RILEY
George Zimmerman's acquittal of murder charges in a Florida court has been followed by predictable calls for America to have a "national conversation" about this or that aspect of the case. President Obama wants to talk about gun control. Civil-rights leaders want to talk about racial profiling. Others want to discuss how the American criminal justice system supposedly targets black men.
All of which is fine. Just don't expect these conversations to be especially illuminating or honest. Liberals in general, and the black left in particular, like the idea of talking about racial problems, but in practice they typically ignore the most relevant aspects of any such discussion.
Any candid debate on race and criminality in this country would have to start with the fact that blacks commit an astoundingly disproportionate number of crimes. African-Americans constitute about 13% of the population, yet between 1976 and 2005 blacks committed more than half of all murders in the U.S. The black arrest rate for most offenses—including robbery, aggravated assault and property crimes—is typically two to three times their representation in the population. The U.S. criminal-justice system, which currently is headed by one black man (Attorney General Eric Holder) who reports to another (President Obama), is a reflection of this reality, not its cause.
"High rates of black violence in the late twentieth century are a matter of historical fact, not bigoted imagination," wrote the late Harvard Law professor William Stuntz in "The Collapse of American Criminal Justice." "The trends reached their peak not in the land of Jim Crow but in the more civilized North, and not in the age of segregation but in the decades that saw the rise of civil rights for African Americans—and of African American control of city governments."
The left wants to blame these outcomes on racial animus and "the system," but blacks have long been part of running that system. Black crime and incarceration rates spiked in the 1970s and '80s in cities such as Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia, under black mayors and black police chiefs. Some of the most violent cities in the U.S. today are run by blacks.
The jury's only job in the Zimmerman trial was to determine whether the defendant broke the law when he shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin last year in a gated community near Orlando, Fla. In cases of self-defense, it doesn't matter who initiated the confrontation; whether Mr. Zimmerman singled out Martin because he was a black youngster in a neighborhood where there had been a series of burglaries by black youngsters; or whether Mr. Zimmerman disregarded what the police dispatcher told him before he got out of his car. Nor does it matter that Martin was unarmed and minding his own business when Mr. Zimmerman approached.
All that really mattered in that courtroom is whether Mr. Zimmerman reasonably believed that his life was in danger when he pulled the trigger. Critics of the verdict might not like the statutes that allowed for this outcome, but the proper response would not have been for the jury to ignore them and convict.
Did the perception of black criminality play a role in Martin's death? We may never know for certain, but we do know that those negative perceptions of young black men are rooted in hard data on who commits crimes. We also know that young black men will not change how they are perceived until they change how they behave.
The homicide rate claiming black victims today is seven times that of whites, and the George Zimmermans of the world are not the reason. Some 90% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks.
So let's have our discussions, even if the only one that really needs to occur is within the black community. Civil-rights leaders today choose to keep the focus on white racism instead of personal responsibility, but their predecessors knew better.
"Do you know that Negroes are 10 percent of the population of St. Louis and are responsible for 58% of its crimes? We've got to face that. And we've got to do something about our moral standards," Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. told a congregation in 1961. "We know that there are many things wrong in the white world, but there are many things wrong in the black world, too. We can't keep on blaming the white man. There are things we must do for ourselves."
Mr. Riley is a member of the Journal's editorial board.
A version of this article appeared July 16, 2013, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Race, Politics and the Zimmerman Trial
Quote from: JayBird on July 16, 2013, 01:23:10 PM
Ken I don't believe anyone thinks Zimmerman is not at fault. It is just that fault lies in both parties. You can no more say Zimmerman instigated it than one can say Trayvon shouldn't have confronted. That's the point, had either one made an alternate choice the outcome would've been different.
Thankfully, as noted today, we are beginning to move from drawing lines in the sand and being defensive and starting to meet in the middle to assess and evaluate the situation. Hopefully, this will spur conversation to make less Trayvons and Zimmermans in the future.
Of course, by posting articles like that, we are making it a race issue. Which Martin/Zimmerman wasn't in the eyes of the jury that made the decision. So as long as we continue to base all opinions on race, we will never progress forward. And that is our own faults. Either pushing it or allowing it to be pushed.
If both men had been black?
If Martin had been white and Zimmerman black?
Does anyone SERIOUSLY think the outcome would have been the same?
Quote from: KenFSU on July 16, 2013, 01:05:23 PM
You can't seriously be suggesting that the onus of guilt falls on the threatened kid just going about his business, rather than the armed adult who blindly assumed his behavior criminal and pursued him through the neighborhood?
Whether or not Zimmerman started the actual physical confrontation, he was 100% the instigator in this situation. An adult stalking a child through the neighborhood is a threatening gesture, and one that we've all been warned about since kindergarten. It's a gesture that Martin had every right to defend themselves against, even physically, regardless of the sissified "run home and tell Mommy!" society you'd like us all to live in.
It's just absolute crap that people are so willing to give the benefit of the doubt to and sympathize with an armed neighborhood loon known to call the police about 4' foot tall, 7-year old black kids walking the neighborhood, rather than giving the benefit of the doubt to the dead kid in the street who's only crime was walking home while black.
When an unarmed kid gets shot dead in the street by a gun-toting adult with a vigilante history, you have to blame the adult.
In 50 cases out of 50.
I can completely understand the argument that the state didn't do a good enough job presenting its case, but it just turns my stomach to hear "Poor Zimmerman" crap like this. He's not a victim of circumstance. He murdered a minor in cold blood that he chose, against instruction, to engage. Trayvon Martin isn't dead because he chose not to run home and call the police or tell Mommy, he is dead because a low-life Dog the Bounty Hunter wanna be decided to take the law into his own hands.
Just unbelievable to me that it could be viewed any other way.
KenFSU:
You refer to TM as a child but then claim that he need not be "sissified" by calling the police or telling Mommy. So, GZ made a mistake following TM on foot. Is it seriously your contention that TM had "every right" to escalate the situation by punching and then beating up GZ? If your son were faced with a range of choices in that situation, would you encourage him to do the same as TM so he wouldn't take the "sissified" course of action?
Yes SheClown I do, because race wasn't a factor. Race does not determine thought process, as a matter of fact the genes that determine race have no impact whatsoever on the development of your brain. An Asian kid raised in an environment of extreme poverty will have the same mentality as those around him. Instead of being the stereotypical math/science genius.
Where do you feel race was a factor here? You believe had it been a white 'skater' kid Zimmerman wouldn't have followed? If you are using that basis, than actually it is more probable that he would follow a black person the least, as they are stereotypically more confrontational and aggressive. There are too many holes in the race card, idk why you continue to play it.
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 16, 2013, 01:34:02 PM
Quote from: sheclown on July 16, 2013, 01:29:21 PM
Quote from: JayBird on July 16, 2013, 01:23:10 PM
Ken I don't believe anyone thinks Zimmerman is not at fault. It is just that fault lies in both parties. You can no more say Zimmerman instigated it than one can say Trayvon shouldn't have confronted. That's the point, had either one made an alternate choice the outcome would've been different.
Thankfully, as noted today, we are beginning to move from drawing lines in the sand and being defensive and starting to meet in the middle to assess and evaluate the situation. Hopefully, this will spur conversation to make less Trayvons and Zimmermans in the future.
Of course, by posting articles like that, we are making it a race issue. Which Martin/Zimmerman wasn't in the eyes of the jury that made the decision. So as long as we continue to base all opinions on race, we will never progress forward. And that is our own faults. Either pushing it or allowing it to be pushed.
If both men had been black?
If Martin had been white and Zimmerman black?
Does anyone SERIOUSLY think the outcome would have been the same?
(If both men had been black?) If this would have been the case the MEDIA wouldn't have covered the trial!
I agree. If Zimmerman and Martin were the same race, we would have never heard about the case. The media created and spun the racial narrative to fit their agenda since day one.
Wasn't it a few organized protests that brought the attention to this case?
Quote from: JayBird on July 16, 2013, 01:23:10 PM
Ken I don't believe anyone thinks Zimmerman is not at fault. It is just that fault lies in both parties. You can no more say Zimmerman instigated it than one can say Trayvon shouldn't have confronted. That's the point, had either one made an alternate choice the outcome would've been different.
I guess this is where our opinions differ. To me, the term "instigate" has a very narrow definition. In my opinion, which is only that, Zimmerman initiated the event by following Martin. His pursuit of Martin, against advisement, can only be seen as Zimmerman going on the offensive. Whatever happened next was in direct response of Zimmerman's instigation, which is why I think he deserves the largest slice of whatever blame diagram people want to sketch out. He's also the one who pulled the trigger during a fist fight.
QuoteOf course, by posting articles like that, we are making it a race issue. Which Martin/Zimmerman wasn't in the eyes of the jury that made the decision. So as long as we continue to base all opinions on race, we will never progress forward. And that is our own faults. Either pushing it or allowing it to be pushed.
I posted the article because I found the similarities between the two cases striking. Profiling leads to murder leads to acquittal on self defense grounds. We have come a tremendous way, no doubt. I'm so white that I sunburn on my way to the mailbox, but in this particular case, I think it's impossible to divorce race from the circumstances. It's not even a black/white/hispanic/arab/asian thing, but rather a
profiling thing. I don't think we live in this horribly racist country. In fact, things are as good as they've ever been. But it's hard to deny that both the mass media and the courts can still be guilty of putting less value on black suffering than that of whites. Again, things are getting better every year (Axe Handle Saturday wasn't even covered in the Times-Union in the 1960s), but were living in a fantasy land if we don't think that race was one of many components of this case.
Quote from: Jameson on July 16, 2013, 01:42:21 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 16, 2013, 01:34:02 PM
Quote from: sheclown on July 16, 2013, 01:29:21 PM
Quote from: JayBird on July 16, 2013, 01:23:10 PM
Ken I don't believe anyone thinks Zimmerman is not at fault. It is just that fault lies in both parties. You can no more say Zimmerman instigated it than one can say Trayvon shouldn't have confronted. That's the point, had either one made an alternate choice the outcome would've been different.
Thankfully, as noted today, we are beginning to move from drawing lines in the sand and being defensive and starting to meet in the middle to assess and evaluate the situation. Hopefully, this will spur conversation to make less Trayvons and Zimmermans in the future.
Of course, by posting articles like that, we are making it a race issue. Which Martin/Zimmerman wasn't in the eyes of the jury that made the decision. So as long as we continue to base all opinions on race, we will never progress forward. And that is our own faults. Either pushing it or allowing it to be pushed.
If both men had been black?
If Martin had been white and Zimmerman black?
Does anyone SERIOUSLY think the outcome would have been the same?
(If both men had been black?) If this would have been the case the MEDIA wouldn't have covered the trial!
I agree. If Zimmerman and Martin were the same race, we would have never heard about the case. The media created and spun the racial narrative to fit their agenda since day one.
100% agree as well, however thankfully the media is not our justice system and the people make the laws, not FOX or CNN. We all know the news puts their spin on it, however I don't think anyone is looking to them for justice or change so they really don't matter other than to give us pieces of a puzzle.
Quote from: KenFSU on July 16, 2013, 01:49:25 PM
Quote from: JayBird on July 16, 2013, 01:23:10 PM
Ken I don't believe anyone thinks Zimmerman is not at fault. It is just that fault lies in both parties. You can no more say Zimmerman instigated it than one can say Trayvon shouldn't have confronted. That's the point, had either one made an alternate choice the outcome would've been different.
I guess this is where our opinions differ. To me, the term "instigate" has a very narrow definition. In my opinion, which is only that, Zimmerman initiated the event by following Martin. His pursuit of Martin, against advisement, can only be seen as Zimmerman going on the offensive. Whatever happened next was in direct response of Zimmerman's instigation, which is why I think he deserves the largest slice of whatever blame diagram people want to sketch out. He's also the one who pulled the trigger during a fist fight.
QuoteOf course, by posting articles like that, we are making it a race issue. Which Martin/Zimmerman wasn't in the eyes of the jury that made the decision. So as long as we continue to base all opinions on race, we will never progress forward. And that is our own faults. Either pushing it or allowing it to be pushed.
I posted the article because I found the similarities between the two cases striking. Profiling leads to murder leads to acquittal on self defense grounds. We have come a tremendous way, no doubt. I'm so white that I sunburn on my way to the mailbox, but in this particular case, I think it's impossible to divorce race from the circumstances. It's not even a black/white/hispanic/arab/asian thing, but rather a profiling thing. I don't think we live in this horribly racist country. In fact, things are as good as they've ever been. But it's hard to deny that both the mass media and the courts can still be guilty of putting less value on black suffering than that of whites. Again, things are getting better every year (Axe Handle Saturday wasn't even covered in the Times-Union in the 1960s), but were living in a fantasy land if we don't think that race was one of many components of this case.
I can understand your points and for the most part agree. The only place I truly differ is that I feel race only plays in on whether or not Zimmerman followed/instigated/murdered purely because Martin was black. Any other way to view the race card is in the eyes of the beholder in my opinion.
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 16, 2013, 01:47:11 PM
Wasn't it a few organized protests that brought the attention to this case?
The protests were based on race. Of it being a white vs. black issue. This narrative was spun in the media by people like Al Sharpton:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/07/13/Media-Zimmerman-Coverage-Rap-Sheet
Quote from: sheclown on July 16, 2013, 01:29:21 PM
Quote from: JayBird on July 16, 2013, 01:23:10 PM
Ken I don't believe anyone thinks Zimmerman is not at fault. It is just that fault lies in both parties. You can no more say Zimmerman instigated it than one can say Trayvon shouldn't have confronted. That's the point, had either one made an alternate choice the outcome would've been different.
Thankfully, as noted today, we are beginning to move from drawing lines in the sand and being defensive and starting to meet in the middle to assess and evaluate the situation. Hopefully, this will spur conversation to make less Trayvons and Zimmermans in the future.
Of course, by posting articles like that, we are making it a race issue. Which Martin/Zimmerman wasn't in the eyes of the jury that made the decision. So as long as we continue to base all opinions on race, we will never progress forward. And that is our own faults. Either pushing it or allowing it to be pushed.
If both men had been black?
If Martin had been white and Zimmerman black?
Does anyone SERIOUSLY think the outcome would have been the same?
Gloria, I think history has shown us that ones race as it goes to the propensity for crime is a factor in how the crime is perceived and how it is prosecuted. I think this case became the media sensation that it is because race was put to the forefront and the reason that happened is different depending on agenda's. Some of those political and some of those for media ratings.
I do agree that if this crime had involved individuals of the same race it would have not made headlines. I look at this particular situation as one where the guy who pulled the trigger was charged, prosecuted and found not guilty under the law as the laws are written and administered. I think the jury of six women, five White and one not did follow the law without prejudice. As the one juror who was interviewed said, they never talked about race during their deliberations and that they felt that Zimmerman thought that it was Trayvon's actions and not his race that made him suspect that night. It was testified to that he was out in the rain, cutting through back yards and stopping to look in windows. I think those actions could reasonably be viewed as suspicious in a community where there has been a rash of break ins without race being a factor. I think if my own son was there that night dressed in a hoodie, cutting through back yards and peering into windows his actions would have been viewed as suspicious. I also do not believe for a minute that the women of the jury did not weigh all of the evidence in order to come to a lawful verdict.
I think there are many cases that scream racism but this is not one of them. Even if Zimmerman himself is a bigot, I don't believe it was Trayvon's race that called attention to him. I think it was a variety of factors, perhaps including the hoodie. I have asked my youngest son to never put up his hoodie when in public because it hides ones face. I will admit that is a paranoia on my part but not because I think it would cause him to be profiled as a Black but because it could make him appear suspicious to some.
Zimmerman is a guy who was stupid enough to get out of his car a follow someone he found suspicious. It was shortsighted and ended up being tragic.
Quote from: stephendare on July 16, 2013, 01:59:03 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 16, 2013, 01:42:21 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 16, 2013, 01:34:02 PM
Quote from: sheclown on July 16, 2013, 01:29:21 PM
Quote from: JayBird on July 16, 2013, 01:23:10 PM
Ken I don't believe anyone thinks Zimmerman is not at fault. It is just that fault lies in both parties. You can no more say Zimmerman instigated it than one can say Trayvon shouldn't have confronted. That's the point, had either one made an alternate choice the outcome would've been different.
Thankfully, as noted today, we are beginning to move from drawing lines in the sand and being defensive and starting to meet in the middle to assess and evaluate the situation. Hopefully, this will spur conversation to make less Trayvons and Zimmermans in the future.
Of course, by posting articles like that, we are making it a race issue. Which Martin/Zimmerman wasn't in the eyes of the jury that made the decision. So as long as we continue to base all opinions on race, we will never progress forward. And that is our own faults. Either pushing it or allowing it to be pushed.
If both men had been black?
If Martin had been white and Zimmerman black?
Does anyone SERIOUSLY think the outcome would have been the same?
(If both men had been black?) If this would have been the case the MEDIA wouldn't have covered the trial!
I agree. If Zimmerman and Martin were the same race, we would have never heard about the case. The media created and spun the racial narrative to fit their agenda since day one.
What a crock. It came to national attention because of the Stand Your Ground Defense. Followed by the cops not arresting the killer.
Thats national news anyway you slice it.
Irresponsible gun ownership that resulted in a legally covered murder.
Was it irresponsible gun ownership or the laws for stand your ground?
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 16, 2013, 02:07:03 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 16, 2013, 01:59:03 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 16, 2013, 01:42:21 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 16, 2013, 01:34:02 PM
Quote from: sheclown on July 16, 2013, 01:29:21 PM
Quote from: JayBird on July 16, 2013, 01:23:10 PM
Ken I don't believe anyone thinks Zimmerman is not at fault. It is just that fault lies in both parties. You can no more say Zimmerman instigated it than one can say Trayvon shouldn't have confronted. That's the point, had either one made an alternate choice the outcome would've been different.
Thankfully, as noted today, we are beginning to move from drawing lines in the sand and being defensive and starting to meet in the middle to assess and evaluate the situation. Hopefully, this will spur conversation to make less Trayvons and Zimmermans in the future.
Of course, by posting articles like that, we are making it a race issue. Which Martin/Zimmerman wasn't in the eyes of the jury that made the decision. So as long as we continue to base all opinions on race, we will never progress forward. And that is our own faults. Either pushing it or allowing it to be pushed.
If both men had been black?
If Martin had been white and Zimmerman black?
Does anyone SERIOUSLY think the outcome would have been the same?
(If both men had been black?) If this would have been the case the MEDIA wouldn't have covered the trial!
I agree. If Zimmerman and Martin were the same race, we would have never heard about the case. The media created and spun the racial narrative to fit their agenda since day one.
What a crock. It came to national attention because of the Stand Your Ground Defense. Followed by the cops not arresting the killer.
Thats national news anyway you slice it.
Irresponsible gun ownership that resulted in a legally covered murder.
Was it irresponsible gun ownership or the laws for stand your ground?
I would say both, the media was itching for something big to happen in Florida because such a controversial law was passed. And had Zimmerman been a responsible gun owner, he would've assessed the situation and only fired as a last resort, not some scrapes and bruises. But personally, I feel Stand Your Ground is just a matchbox waiting in the kindling and should be a thread of its own.
Here is the text from the Tampa article: http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-a-duty-to-retreat-from-a-fla-law-as-it-stands/2131594
There is a difference between respecting the jury's verdict clearing George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin and acknowledging the essential injustice of a Florida law that all but encourages reckless behavior. The verdict Saturday says less about race in America than it does this nation's capacity for violence. Another innocent life has been lost, and the nation searches again for some meaning beyond that the tragedy was lawful.
The jury late Saturday cleared Zimmerman of second-degree murder and a lesser charge of manslaughter in the February 2012 fatal shooting of Martin in the Central Florida city of Sanford. The neighborhood watch volunteer had ignored a police dispatcher's advice and followed the 17-year-old as he walked home from a convenience store in a gated, suburban community. Zimmerman — concerned about burglaries in the area — confronted Martin, and claimed he shot the unarmed teen in self-defense after Martin knocked him to the ground and beat his head on the concrete.
The prosecution presented an incoherent narrative at trial, but the case was hard from the start. Authorities initially sent mixed signals about whether a crime took place, and race (Martin was black, Zimmerman is Hispanic) interjected a sharp and polarizing emotion into the case. The jurors owe the nation some insight into what led to an acquittal; a fuller understanding of the verdict could ease public tensions. But a major factor was the Florida law that gives people wide latitude to use deadly force to defend themselves — even if they cause the confrontation.
Related News/Archive
While Zimmerman did not seek immunity from charges under "stand your ground," he apparently benefited from a less-discussed part of the 2005 law that expanded protections for using force in self-defense. Before the law, defendants had to show that they used every reasonable means to avoid danger before using force. But "stand your ground" removed the obligation to retreat in most circumstances. Zimmerman not only had no legal duty to retreat, the judge said in jury instructions, but the right to stand his ground and meet force with force.
In the most comprehensive effort of its kind, the Tampa Bay Times last year examined 200 "stand your ground" cases and found that the law has worked to free killers and violent attackers whose self-defense claims seem questionable at best. In nearly a third of the cases examined by the Times, defendants initiated the fight — and still went free. A former Republican state senator who sponsored the bill said the law was never meant to protect defendants who put themselves in harm's way. But the criminal justice system has been blind to that intent, as defendants merely have to show reasonable cause to fear bodily harm.
The most productive way to channel the frustration with the verdict is to change Florida's "stand your ground" law to recognize that individuals who initiate confrontations are not then immune from responsibility of the consequences. Legitimate self-defense cases would still be protected, but it would remove the near-amnesty that people have to act recklessly, putting themselves and others in harm's way. The law as it stands is an invitation to more bloodshed and heartache, and a society more divided.
Quote from: stephendare on July 16, 2013, 02:17:29 PM
Stand your ground laws are irresponsible gun ownership.
They certainly allow for it. No argument about that from me.
Quote from: stephendare on July 16, 2013, 01:59:03 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 16, 2013, 01:42:21 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 16, 2013, 01:34:02 PM
Quote from: sheclown on July 16, 2013, 01:29:21 PM
Quote from: JayBird on July 16, 2013, 01:23:10 PM
Ken I don't believe anyone thinks Zimmerman is not at fault. It is just that fault lies in both parties. You can no more say Zimmerman instigated it than one can say Trayvon shouldn't have confronted. That's the point, had either one made an alternate choice the outcome would've been different.
Thankfully, as noted today, we are beginning to move from drawing lines in the sand and being defensive and starting to meet in the middle to assess and evaluate the situation. Hopefully, this will spur conversation to make less Trayvons and Zimmermans in the future.
Of course, by posting articles like that, we are making it a race issue. Which Martin/Zimmerman wasn't in the eyes of the jury that made the decision. So as long as we continue to base all opinions on race, we will never progress forward. And that is our own faults. Either pushing it or allowing it to be pushed.
If both men had been black?
If Martin had been white and Zimmerman black?
Does anyone SERIOUSLY think the outcome would have been the same?
(If both men had been black?) If this would have been the case the MEDIA wouldn't have covered the trial!
I agree. If Zimmerman and Martin were the same race, we would have never heard about the case. The media created and spun the racial narrative to fit their agenda since day one.
What a crock. It came to national attention because of the Stand Your Ground Defense. Followed by the cops not arresting the killer.
Thats national news anyway you slice it.
Irresponsible gun ownership that resulted in a legally covered murder.
Ahhh, here's Stephen again --- Mr. "It's about race" -then- "No it's about irresponsible gun ownership".
Pick an angle you like and stick to it already.
Whether we like it or not, Zimmerman owned his gun legally and only used it as a last resort as he was being bloodied and pummeled and no one was coming to his aid. He felt his life was being threatened and a jury agreed with that.
Quote from: stephendare on July 16, 2013, 02:17:29 PM
Stand your ground laws are irresponsible gun ownership.
That is simply your opinion. That is not factual.
Guns are meant for self-defense. If you are a responsible conceal carry holder, and you are jumped, hit, and you think someone is reaching for your gun... you are defending yourself.
Quote from: Jameson on July 16, 2013, 02:24:27 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 16, 2013, 01:59:03 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 16, 2013, 01:42:21 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 16, 2013, 01:34:02 PM
Quote from: sheclown on July 16, 2013, 01:29:21 PM
Quote from: JayBird on July 16, 2013, 01:23:10 PM
Ken I don't believe anyone thinks Zimmerman is not at fault. It is just that fault lies in both parties. You can no more say Zimmerman instigated it than one can say Trayvon shouldn't have confronted. That's the point, had either one made an alternate choice the outcome would've been different.
Thankfully, as noted today, we are beginning to move from drawing lines in the sand and being defensive and starting to meet in the middle to assess and evaluate the situation. Hopefully, this will spur conversation to make less Trayvons and Zimmermans in the future.
Of course, by posting articles like that, we are making it a race issue. Which Martin/Zimmerman wasn't in the eyes of the jury that made the decision. So as long as we continue to base all opinions on race, we will never progress forward. And that is our own faults. Either pushing it or allowing it to be pushed.
If both men had been black?
If Martin had been white and Zimmerman black?
Does anyone SERIOUSLY think the outcome would have been the same?
(If both men had been black?) If this would have been the case the MEDIA wouldn't have covered the trial!
I agree. If Zimmerman and Martin were the same race, we would have never heard about the case. The media created and spun the racial narrative to fit their agenda since day one.
What a crock. It came to national attention because of the Stand Your Ground Defense. Followed by the cops not arresting the killer.
Thats national news anyway you slice it.
Irresponsible gun ownership that resulted in a legally covered murder.
Ahhh, here's Stephen again --- Mr. "It's about race" -then- "No it's about irresponsible gun ownership".
Pick an angle you like and stick to it already.
Whether we like it or not, Zimmerman owned his gun legally and only used it as a last resort as he was being bloodied and pummeled and no one was coming to his aid. He felt his life was being threatened and a jury agreed with that.
Last resort??? where as I have disagreed on a lot of your points none seemed foolish until this one but it is ridiculous. He had lots of other options including minding his own damn business, firing a warning shot and my favorite don't use a gun in a fist fight.
Quote from: stephendare on July 16, 2013, 02:27:46 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 16, 2013, 02:26:16 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 16, 2013, 02:17:29 PM
Stand your ground laws are irresponsible gun ownership.
That is simply your opinion. That is not factual.
dude, guns arent meant to be a negotiation point in day to day living. To treat them as such is irresponsible, and downright dangerous.
No, they're not. That's why we have gun laws, concealed weapons permits, etc.
I don't hear of guns being used as a negotiation point in day to day life. Do you? When's the last time you heard of someone using a gun to cut in line at the grocery store? Or negotiate a better dinner bill with their waiter? Or to get a better rate from their lawn guy? Oddly, I can't recall many incidents ever happening like this.
Surely, you can google and find an isolated incident (or 5) of some crazy who has done something like this before in an attempt to prove how commonly uncommon it might be.
So, you are walking down the street and some stalker walks up and grabs you in your privates. You resist and you hit the guy in the face. He pulls a legal gun and shoots you. Today there is a very good chance he will get away with it.
This is what this case, this jury and what the court instructions told me. Once the tables are turned and you, the initial victim, have the upper hand, "Stand Your Ground" switches from you to your attacker and he gains the protection.
I was feeling better believing it was all about race, Zimmerman got off because Martin was black At least then it made sense. Wasn't any more right, but one can understand it. History and personal experience tells us it still happens more than we like it to.
The actual result without playing the race card? Now that is what is really scary.
Quote from: stephendare on July 16, 2013, 02:27:46 PM
dude, guns arent meant to be a negotiation point in day to day living. To treat them as such is irresponsible, and downright dangerous.
And I would totally suggest that you reconsider your fairly silly claims about my words. I have said from the beginning that its about another gun owner murdering someone in cold blood, but getting away with it legally.
The race discussion was started by a fairly racist troll, and I responded to him.
Sorry that you are having trigger word issues.
You on page 19: "NO ONE questions the fact that profiling happened, and thats about as racist as it gets."
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 16, 2013, 02:39:29 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 16, 2013, 02:24:27 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 16, 2013, 01:59:03 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 16, 2013, 01:42:21 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 16, 2013, 01:34:02 PM
Quote from: sheclown on July 16, 2013, 01:29:21 PM
Quote from: JayBird on July 16, 2013, 01:23:10 PM
Ken I don't believe anyone thinks Zimmerman is not at fault. It is just that fault lies in both parties. You can no more say Zimmerman instigated it than one can say Trayvon shouldn't have confronted. That's the point, had either one made an alternate choice the outcome would've been different.
Thankfully, as noted today, we are beginning to move from drawing lines in the sand and being defensive and starting to meet in the middle to assess and evaluate the situation. Hopefully, this will spur conversation to make less Trayvons and Zimmermans in the future.
Of course, by posting articles like that, we are making it a race issue. Which Martin/Zimmerman wasn't in the eyes of the jury that made the decision. So as long as we continue to base all opinions on race, we will never progress forward. And that is our own faults. Either pushing it or allowing it to be pushed.
If both men had been black?
If Martin had been white and Zimmerman black?
Does anyone SERIOUSLY think the outcome would have been the same?
(If both men had been black?) If this would have been the case the MEDIA wouldn't have covered the trial!
I agree. If Zimmerman and Martin were the same race, we would have never heard about the case. The media created and spun the racial narrative to fit their agenda since day one.
What a crock. It came to national attention because of the Stand Your Ground Defense. Followed by the cops not arresting the killer.
Thats national news anyway you slice it.
Irresponsible gun ownership that resulted in a legally covered murder.
Ahhh, here's Stephen again --- Mr. "It's about race" -then- "No it's about irresponsible gun ownership".
Pick an angle you like and stick to it already.
Whether we like it or not, Zimmerman owned his gun legally and only used it as a last resort as he was being bloodied and pummeled and no one was coming to his aid. He felt his life was being threatened and a jury agreed with that.
Last resort??? where as I have disagreed on a lot of your points none seemed foolish until this one but it is ridiculous. He had lots of other options including minding his own damn business, firing a warning shot and my favorite don't use a gun in a fist fight.
Yes Jeffrey all those thing could have happened but they didn't. If you watched the trial and listened to what was said about how the law applies to this situation the case turned on the fact that at the moment Zimmerman perceived he was at risk of "serious bodily harm" he could lawfully pull the trigger. It is also speculation that this was or was not the only thing Zimmerman could have done. The reality is that it did happen and the way the law is written today, along with the charges the State chose to go with which specifies a jury cannot convict if there is reasonable doubt is precisely why this case ended the way it did. I am by no means absolving Zimmerman. He should have kept his bottom in his car but he didn't. Leaving his car was stupid, shortsighted, a whole bunch of things, but it wasn't illegal. To me it looks like the law is what needs to be discussed and revisited. Deciding after the fact who was responsible or not won't change the outcome. When we the people think there is injustice in our system, we need to address that injustice and work to change the system.
I am glad you are back to making reasonable points. I agree the laws are the biggest problem in this case.
I am still wondering when he cocked that slide? Certainly the contention isn't that he pulled the gun during the fisticuffs (that were in this one magical instance going to lead to death), released the safety, operated the two hand action of the slide but then couldn't execute a warning shot or a leg shot instead of a perfect "one shot one kill" style shot to the middle of TM's heart.
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 16, 2013, 02:39:29 PM
Last resort??? where as I have disagreed on a lot of your points none seemed foolish until this one but it is ridiculous. He had lots of other options including minding his own damn business, firing a warning shot and my favorite don't use a gun in a fist fight.
JeffreyS, last resort as in he's on the ground, being bloodied and pummeled by someone bigger than him, he is obviously losing the fight, and no one is coming to his aid. Would your life not feel threatened if you were in his position? Would you lay there and get beaten unconscious?
No one is disputing the fact that he should have stayed in the car. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, he (and Trayvon) had opportunities to end the situation and neither of them did. It's a tragedy from every angle.
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 16, 2013, 02:39:29 PM
Last resort??? where as I have disagreed on a lot of your points none seemed foolish until this one but it is ridiculous. He had lots of other options including minding his own damn business, firing a warning shot and my favorite don't use a gun in a fist fight.
Fire a warning shot? So you suggest wildy failing a gun around while beating beaten and pulling the trigger at random?
Some posts on other threads have touched on this and when it passed into law I had a feeling it would only be a matter of time until tragedy happened.
As a disclaimer, I do not own any firearms however I do support people's right to carry. I do not support Stand Your Ground as it is written.
Quote from: stephendare on July 16, 2013, 02:17:29 PM
Stand your ground laws are irresponsible gun ownership.
Quote from: Demosthenes on July 16, 2013, 02:37:56 PM
Guns are meant for self-defense. If you are a responsible conceal carry holder, and you are jumped, hit, and you think someone is reaching for your gun... you are defending yourself.
Quote from: JayBird on July 14, 2013, 08:58:15 AM
Though I am a proponent of Right to Carry, I do not believe in Stand Your Ground. A study done by a Tampa newspaper proves its faults outweighs its benefits IMO. http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133 (http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133)
Quote
Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—
A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—
The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.
What are your thoughts? Is this a necessary law? Is it the media just blowing it out of proportion? Is it the conservatives trying to keep votes?
Quote from: stephendare on July 16, 2013, 02:51:27 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 16, 2013, 02:48:08 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 16, 2013, 02:27:46 PM
dude, guns arent meant to be a negotiation point in day to day living. To treat them as such is irresponsible, and downright dangerous.
And I would totally suggest that you reconsider your fairly silly claims about my words. I have said from the beginning that its about another gun owner murdering someone in cold blood, but getting away with it legally.
The race discussion was started by a fairly racist troll, and I responded to him.
Sorry that you are having trigger word issues.
You on page 19: "NO ONE questions the fact that profiling happened, and thats about as racist as it gets."
yes. your trigger word. If you don't actually know anything about the case, the context, or what people have actually said, why on earth are you debating this, Jameson? You arent asking questions, you are making statements, and they don't make you seem either informed or terribly engaged.
In fact they make you seem the opposite.
Truth is a lot of people are making statements about this case all across the country and beyond who don't know the particulars which is why we have a court of law and a jury. The jury listened for 5 long weeks to testimony and evidence on both sides and were charged to come up with a verdict under Florida Law. They did so and rendered a not guilty under the law. This does not mean they did not think the first error was Zimmermans, they did.
I was very interested to hear the words of the juror who spoke to Anderson Cooper on CNN last night. It explains why the jury came up with the verdict and what they thought happened. At the very least I think people can go to the CNN site and listen to what the jury thought. That in many ways can bring folks up to speed on what happened in this trial.
Quote from: acme54321 on July 16, 2013, 02:55:44 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 16, 2013, 02:39:29 PM
Last resort??? where as I have disagreed on a lot of your points none seemed foolish until this one but it is ridiculous. He had lots of other options including minding his own damn business, firing a warning shot and my favorite don't use a gun in a fist fight.
Fire a warning shot? So you suggest wildy failing a gun around while beating beaten and pulling the trigger at random?
No I am suggesting he intentionally murdered Trayvon Martin.
Stephen, please do not use phrases like 'racist troll' just because someone disagrees with you. I know that you are 100% in that liberal media bubble like alot of people are, but speaking facts doesn't make one 'racist'.
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 16, 2013, 02:50:19 PM
I am glad you are back to making reasonable points. I agree the laws are the biggest problem in this case.
I am still wondering when he cocked that slide? Certainly the contention isn't that he pulled the gun during the fisticuffs (that were in this one magical instance going to lead to death), released the safety, operated the two hand action of the slide but then couldn't execute a warning shot or a leg shot instead of a perfect "one shot one kill" style shot to the middle of TM's heart.
Serious question: Have you ever fired a pistol? Or a firearm?
Quote from: stephendare on July 16, 2013, 02:54:56 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 16, 2013, 02:54:18 PM
No one is disputing the fact that he should have stayed in the car.
then thats the end of the story.
Respectfully Stephen, that is not the end of the story. It should have been but it wasn't and the law cannot convict someone for being stupid enough to follow someone they thought was suspicious.
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 16, 2013, 02:58:13 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on July 16, 2013, 02:55:44 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 16, 2013, 02:39:29 PM
Last resort??? where as I have disagreed on a lot of your points none seemed foolish until this one but it is ridiculous. He had lots of other options including minding his own damn business, firing a warning shot and my favorite don't use a gun in a fist fight.
Fire a warning shot? So you suggest wildy failing a gun around while beating beaten and pulling the trigger at random?
No I am suggesting he intentionally murdered Trayvon Martin.
So? I'm questioning where you said one of his alternate options would have been to fire a warning shot.
Quote from: stephendare on July 16, 2013, 02:51:27 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 16, 2013, 02:48:08 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 16, 2013, 02:27:46 PM
dude, guns arent meant to be a negotiation point in day to day living. To treat them as such is irresponsible, and downright dangerous.
And I would totally suggest that you reconsider your fairly silly claims about my words. I have said from the beginning that its about another gun owner murdering someone in cold blood, but getting away with it legally.
The race discussion was started by a fairly racist troll, and I responded to him.
Sorry that you are having trigger word issues.
You on page 19: "NO ONE questions the fact that profiling happened, and thats about as racist as it gets."
yes. your trigger word. If you don't actually know anything about the case, the context, or what people have actually said, why on earth are you debating this, Jameson? You arent asking questions, you are making statements, and they don't make you seem either informed or terribly engaged.
In fact they make you seem the opposite.
Really, Stephen? Because on Page 2 of this thread you link to and quote and article from HuffPo
in reply to no one about Zimmerman and his family being a bunch of racists.
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 16, 2013, 02:58:13 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on July 16, 2013, 02:55:44 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 16, 2013, 02:39:29 PM
Last resort??? where as I have disagreed on a lot of your points none seemed foolish until this one but it is ridiculous. He had lots of other options including minding his own damn business, firing a warning shot and my favorite don't use a gun in a fist fight.
Fire a warning shot? So you suggest wildy failing a gun around while beating beaten and pulling the trigger at random?
No I am suggesting he intentionally murdered Trayvon Martin.
The jury who listened to the evidence thought he did not Jeffrey. To say that he did is an assumption especially not having had been privy to all the testimony and facts. No one disputes the fact that Zimmerman got out of the car and that he shot Trayvon and that Zimmerman's initial actions opened the door to a final confrontation, so in that way he has fault, but those actions are not illegal. Floridians and society need to look at our laws at this point because the whys and hows behind Trayvon's death and Zimmermans actions cannot be undone. I would also remind everyone that Trayvon's family will be suing Zimmerman in civil court and the outcome there may be very different in that testimony not given in this trial as to character and background can and will come out and Zimmerman if called, must testify. Remember OJ Simpson was found not guilty in criminal court but guilty in civil court and civil action can include jail time.
Quote from: acme54321 on July 16, 2013, 02:59:08 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 16, 2013, 02:50:19 PM
I am glad you are back to making reasonable points. I agree the laws are the biggest problem in this case.
I am still wondering when he cocked that slide? Certainly the contention isn't that he pulled the gun during the fisticuffs (that were in this one magical instance going to lead to death), released the safety, operated the two hand action of the slide but then couldn't execute a warning shot or a leg shot instead of a perfect "one shot one kill" style shot to the middle of TM's heart.
Serious question: Have you ever fired a pistol? Or a firearm?
Shotguns many times, a rifle twice and the only hand guns were for BBs and pellets. Clay pigeons and a few failed hunting trips.
My question was serious as well is that not a two hand action gun?
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 16, 2013, 03:02:48 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 16, 2013, 02:58:13 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on July 16, 2013, 02:55:44 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 16, 2013, 02:39:29 PM
Last resort??? where as I have disagreed on a lot of your points none seemed foolish until this one but it is ridiculous. He had lots of other options including minding his own damn business, firing a warning shot and my favorite don't use a gun in a fist fight.
Fire a warning shot? So you suggest wildy failing a gun around while beating beaten and pulling the trigger at random?
No I am suggesting he intentionally murdered Trayvon Martin.
The jury who listened to the evidence thought he did not Jeffrey. To say that he did is an assumption especially not having had been privy to all the testimony and facts.
We are not in the jury's shoes living life often requires making reasonable assumptions. I believe he did I stated it as such.
Quote from: stephendare on July 16, 2013, 03:03:49 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 16, 2013, 02:59:50 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 16, 2013, 02:54:56 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 16, 2013, 02:54:18 PM
No one is disputing the fact that he should have stayed in the car.
then thats the end of the story.
Respectfully Stephen, that is not the end of the story. It should have been but it wasn't and the law cannot convict someone for being stupid enough to follow someone they thought was suspicious.
Respectfully Diane.
In the conversation with Jameson over why Zimmerman should have been tried and/or convicted, if no one disagrees that Zimmerman should have stayed in the car, then everything that happens after that is Zimmermans responsibility. End of story.
So you are subscribing to the mind my own business and if its not my house they're breaking into I know nothing attitude?
Quote from: strider on July 16, 2013, 02:43:35 PM
So, you are walking down the street and some stalker walks up and grabs you in your privates. You resist and you hit the guy in the face. He pulls a legal gun and shoots you. Today there is a very good chance he will get away with it.
Not under the language of the "stand your ground" statute as I understand it.
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. Section 776.013(3), Florida Statutes.I would argue grabbing someone else's privates without their consent constitutes an unlawful activity, rendering the stand-your-ground defense inapplicable.
The offense of battery occurs when a person actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other. Section 784.03(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes.Granted, without living witness, how can the state prove that the shooter committed the initial battery? Under the prosecutorial immunity provision of Section 776.032, the police can't even question the shooter once he claims self defense unless they have probable cause that shows otherwise. This is the statute that demands revision in my opinion. Under centuries of common law, the burden was on the defendant to prove self-defense based on a preponderance of the evidence. Now, the state must prove
lack of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden is nearly impossible to meet without a living witness to testify.
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 16, 2013, 03:03:13 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on July 16, 2013, 02:59:08 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 16, 2013, 02:50:19 PM
I am glad you are back to making reasonable points. I agree the laws are the biggest problem in this case.
I am still wondering when he cocked that slide? Certainly the contention isn't that he pulled the gun during the fisticuffs (that were in this one magical instance going to lead to death), released the safety, operated the two hand action of the slide but then couldn't execute a warning shot or a leg shot instead of a perfect "one shot one kill" style shot to the middle of TM's heart.
Serious question: Have you ever fired a pistol? Or a firearm?
Shotguns many times, a rifle twice and the only hand guns were for BBs and pellets. Clay pigeons and a few failed hunting trips.
My question was serious as well is that not a two hand action gun?
There was testimony in the trial about this Jeffrey. I don't know much about gun's by my recollection is that the guy was ready to fire once the trigger was pulled.
If Trayvon Martin didn't attack Zimmerman first he still lives today, end of story.
Quote from: stephendare on July 16, 2013, 03:03:49 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 16, 2013, 02:59:50 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 16, 2013, 02:54:56 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 16, 2013, 02:54:18 PM
No one is disputing the fact that he should have stayed in the car.
then thats the end of the story.
Respectfully Stephen, that is not the end of the story. It should have been but it wasn't and the law cannot convict someone for being stupid enough to follow someone they thought was suspicious.
Respectfully Diane.
In the conversation with Jameson over why Zimmerman should have been tried and/or convicted, if no one disagrees that Zimmerman should have stayed in the car, then everything that happens after that is Zimmermans responsibility. End of story.
Morally I agree it was. Legally the law could not convict him for his actions. The outcome I think we all agree was tragic and Zimmerman's choices set this all in motion. That is fact.
Quote from: Traveller on July 16, 2013, 03:07:12 PM
Quote from: strider on July 16, 2013, 02:43:35 PM
So, you are walking down the street and some stalker walks up and grabs you in your privates. You resist and you hit the guy in the face. He pulls a legal gun and shoots you. Today there is a very good chance he will get away with it.
Not under the language of the "stand your ground" statute as I understand it.
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. Section 776.013(3), Florida Statutes.
I would argue grabbing someone else's privates without their consent constitutes an unlawful activity, rendering the stand-your-ground defense inapplicable.
The offense of battery occurs when a person actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other. Section 784.03(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes.
Granted, without living witness, how can the state prove that the shooter committed the initial battery? Under the prosecutorial immunity provision of Section 776.032, the police can't even question the shooter once he claims self defense unless they have probable cause that shows otherwise. This is the statute that demands revision in my opinion. Under centuries of common law, the burden was on the defendant to prove self-defense based on a preponderance of the evidence. Now, the state must prove lack of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden is nearly impossible to meet without a living witness to testify.
The law states they may detain in order to investigate however they may not arrest. As per 776.032(2)
Quote(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
Quote from: I-10east on July 16, 2013, 03:12:58 PM
If Trayvon Martin didn't attack Zimmerman first he still lives today, end of story.
Yes of course the onus is on the 17 year old not to over react after he gave fleeing a try instead of the 28 year old who gave carrying a gun a try. Sound logic.
Quote from: Jameson on July 16, 2013, 03:02:16 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 16, 2013, 02:51:27 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 16, 2013, 02:48:08 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 16, 2013, 02:27:46 PM
dude, guns arent meant to be a negotiation point in day to day living. To treat them as such is irresponsible, and downright dangerous.
And I would totally suggest that you reconsider your fairly silly claims about my words. I have said from the beginning that its about another gun owner murdering someone in cold blood, but getting away with it legally.
The race discussion was started by a fairly racist troll, and I responded to him.
Sorry that you are having trigger word issues.
You on page 19: "NO ONE questions the fact that profiling happened, and thats about as racist as it gets."
yes. your trigger word. If you don't actually know anything about the case, the context, or what people have actually said, why on earth are you debating this, Jameson? You arent asking questions, you are making statements, and they don't make you seem either informed or terribly engaged.
In fact they make you seem the opposite.
Really, Stephen? Because on Page 2 of this thread you link to and quote and article from HuffPo in reply to no one about Zimmerman and his family being a bunch of racists.
We'll just let this be, Stephen. Silence is golden.
Moving on.
btw TM's overreaction would have likely left GZ sore for a while as most ass whippings do. GZ overreaction was more deadly in nature. Disproportionate and everyone who has been in a fist fight knows it.
Quote from: I-10east on July 16, 2013, 03:12:58 PM
If Trayvon Martin didn't attack Zimmerman first he still lives today, end of story.
I think making this determination is what has many in disagreement. I believe it is the use of the word "first".
The facts of the actions of Zimmerman and Trayvon collide on that word. Zimmerman got out of the car "first" so he was the first person whose actions led to the confrontation. Testimony and forensic evidence indicated that Trayvon got physical "first". In the end the actions of both led to the final outcome. The jurors did believe that Trayvon punched Zimmerman and that Zimmerman was in fear of "great bodily harm or death".
Agree and I wonder why the judge wouldn't let the state put the first aggressor rule into the jury instructions. They would still be free to determine if it applied. My understanding is that in cases where self defense is claimed the rule is often put in the jury instructions.
I won't claim to know more about the law than the judge on the ruling but I would like an explanation from her.
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 16, 2013, 03:23:35 PM
Agree and I wonder why the judge wouldn't let the state put the first aggressor rule into the jury instructions. They would still be free to determine if it applied. My understanding is that in cases where self defense is claimed the rule is often put in the jury instructions.
I won't claim to know more about the law than the judge on the ruling but I would like an explanation from her.
Do you know for a fact if the judge didn't allow it or if the prosecution didn't request it?
Is following someone enough to be considered first agressor? If so does that not make every neighborhood watch in america guilty of it?
I have not heard anyone claim Zimmerman initiated contact.
Maybe there was some prejudice in this case....
Jeantel explained that during her telephone conversation with Trayvon Martin on the night of his death, she warned Martin to run from George Zimmerman because he might be a rapist:
PIERS MORGAN: And he was freaked out by it?
RACHEL JEANTEL: Yes. Definitely, after I say 'may be a rapist,' for every boy, for every man, every — who's not that kind of way, seeing a grown man following them, would they be creep out? ... And people need to understand, he didn't want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend's house to go get — mind you, his little brother was there. You know — now, mind you, I told you — I told Trayvon it might have been a rapist.
Jeantel went on to say that any parent who would encourage his child to remain standing calmly in the face of such a threat — rather than to run or fight — would be likely to see his child "in the news for a missing person."
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 16, 2013, 03:29:10 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 16, 2013, 03:23:35 PM
Agree and I wonder why the judge wouldn't let the state put the first aggressor rule into the jury instructions. They would still be free to determine if it applied. My understanding is that in cases where self defense is claimed the rule is often put in the jury instructions.
I won't claim to know more about the law than the judge on the ruling but I would like an explanation from her.
Do you know for a fact if the judge didn't allow it or if the prosecution didn't request it?
The prosecution requested it and the defense objected according to Thom Hartman on the SeriusXM left station. He was interested in talking about it as though the defense lawyer who said it would turn out to be a mistake had strong armed the judge with the threat of appeal. The lawyer who was the guest did not know why she ruled as such but doubted the judge was intimidated by anyone.
Quote from: Demosthenes on July 16, 2013, 03:30:33 PM
Is following someone enough to be considered first agressor? If so does that not make every neighborhood watch in america guilty of it?
I have not heard anyone claim Zimmerman initiated contact.
Legally I don't think so. I do think if someone runs from you and you pursue without any knowledge of wrongdoing on their part it should (but doesn't)constitute a mild form of harassment.
I haven't read any of the other threads in a few hours but I'll try to give you the perspective I've grown up with and have been taught over the years on some of your observations.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 15, 2013, 11:32:45 PM
^Interesting pieces to be sure. What I am trying to come to balance with is what is happening beyond the rhetoric. In Jacksonville at least some of the crimes being committed that place Blacks as the victims also have Blacks as the perp. The stats I have seen in the past when working with those working on the issue of crime and prevention have pointed to a great deal of crime between Blacks that statistically is higher than other races when population is factored in. Like the 09 area code. I do believe that there is a great influence when it comes to poverty and environment as Ennis mentioned and look forward to more input about that.
The 09 area code is one with high poverty levels and a higher population density than most of Jacksonville. It also has more limited access to many things we take for granted in other areas of town, such as retail, medical services, grocery stores, good schools, libraries, maintained parks, etc. Historically, it's an area that has also been redlined, leading to lower property values and a lower chance in the growth of family wealth over an extended period of time.
The stats you suggest on black-on-black crime are going to stand out here because it's a majority black area of town that is also an environment of economic distress. For comparison's sake, find another dense population living in a certain section of a community (say any border town in Texas), and you can find similar statistics for different race. The point I'm trying to make here is this is the "effect" of an economic/environmental situation. Not racial.
Race plays a larger role in American numbers because we have public subsidized policies, real estate practices, and laws that have helped create (on average) a large gulf in wealth based along skin color. Many here will probably disagree, but I'm prepared to go into detail with certain laws and examples for anyone who's up to the challenge.
QuoteBut there is something else going on as well. During ride alongs with the JSO I have have witnessed many incidents where citizens call each other the "n" word with venom and they are all of the Black race.
Right or wrong, I grew up in an economically distressed black neighborhood. For us, the "n" word was tossed around back and forth with no proplem. It could be used to show respect, it could also be used to show disrespect. I don't know exactly, why, that's just how it's always been since I was a little kid. However, if someone white said it, it would always be taken as an insult and result in some type of confrontation. I don't know if something similar takes place with other racial slurs in other communities, all I can share with you is my own experience within the community I know.
QuoteI have also seen flareups over the shade of Black one happens to be and value associated with one another based on degree of color. That is something that tells me at least that this may go beyond economics and toward something unspoken and painful in the Black psyche.
This dates back to slavery. Blacks were pitted against each other by slave owners to keep them divided. The lighter you were, the better you were. This plays into the idea of setting a long pattern of an economic hierarchy system based on skin color. This wasn't really an issue in my community. If you were black, you were black. Didn't matter if you were dark or "red-boned". I wasn't really introduced to this on a large level until going away to college.
QuotePlease know and accept me at my word that I am not laying down judgments but rather sharing ideas and experiences that have mostly come through my deep associations with members of the Black community. I simply want to understand so that there can be healing and clarity of thought where needed in our community and society in general.
No judgment taken. I have no problem explaining things I may have insight into via my own life experiences. Also, recognize, we're not too far past the Jim Crow era. For me, it's only one generation. My parents grew up during segregation and were young adults during the Civil Rights era. My grandparent's young years fell between the 1920s and 1940s. Until my granddad made his kids finish school, it was the norm for all boys to quit school in the third grade and become family income producers by sharecropping. You can't create family wealth that way!
Nevertheless, my whole life, they've drilled me on their experiences and what to look out for myself. I remember, the most embarrassed I've ever been in my life was in high school when my mom forbid me from going to the movies with two girls waiting for me outside (they were white and hispanic). Moms is barely 5' but she struck fear in my heart that day. She's not racist but her life experiences with the KKK, civil rights era, etc. had shaped her mind that she could protect her almost grown baby by keeping him away from a potential situation that she felt was dangerous (and that actually was during most of her lifetime at that point).
With that in mind, me and my brothers grew being told, life isn't fair, we're starting behind the eight-ball, family member "x" was arrested or killed for being black, etc. and we'll have to work twice as hard to achieve success.
For me, in my younger years, it led to me not even voting in elections because my hood had always been the hood regardless of what party was in office. Not believing in the concept of trickle down economics, based on personal life experience, is one of the primary reasons I'm an independent today. However, all that childhood preaching, combined with seeing others in the hood turn out working labor jobs for little cash, living check to check or in prison has turned into drive for me now.
TMZ has some good coverage of the verdict, hell more factual and newsworthy than MSNBC
www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1U6x5Y0aVw
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 16, 2013, 03:03:13 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on July 16, 2013, 02:59:08 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 16, 2013, 02:50:19 PM
I am glad you are back to making reasonable points. I agree the laws are the biggest problem in this case.
I am still wondering when he cocked that slide? Certainly the contention isn't that he pulled the gun during the fisticuffs (that were in this one magical instance going to lead to death), released the safety, operated the two hand action of the slide but then couldn't execute a warning shot or a leg shot instead of a perfect "one shot one kill" style shot to the middle of TM's heart.
Serious question: Have you ever fired a pistol? Or a firearm?
Shotguns many times, a rifle twice and the only hand guns were for BBs and pellets. Clay pigeons and a few failed hunting trips.
My question was serious as well is that not a two hand action gun?
No. It's double action with no external safety. As long as there is a round in the chamber it will fire if the trigger is pulled. A round would be chambered before the weapon is holstered. Not many concealed carry guns have traditional safeties or require a round be chambered immediately before firing, those features would defeat the purpose.
Additionally, firing any sort of warning shot is extremely bad practice and illegal.
Thank you for you words and insight. If I may Ennis, I think it is the volatile double standard when it comes to the use of racially charge words like ni@@er that bothers many non Blacks along with some sense of discrimination toward Whites who simply because they are White are thought to harbor racist feelings or indifferent to the struggles of low income individuals including Blacks. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
I don't know if you have been over to the "profiling" thread, but there is an overlap discussion there about this issue. When you get the time will you check out the conversation there and respond. I am wondering if there is a way to move the conversation on the profile thread to this one to maintain clarity? I also intend to engage other portions of your post as well. :)
I think thats fair.
I think what occurred was a tragedy. I think the efforts to paint Zimmerman or Martin as a saint or villain are misplaced.
Martain was not just a poor little kid with Skittles and Arizona Iced tea. He was a cocksure, wanna be thug who decided to confront the "cracker" who was bothering him. I dont think anyone should be harassed while walking around, and I dont know what I might have done in his shoes.
Conversely, I have been in Zimmermans shoes. He was trying to do a good thing. He was perhaps a bit too agressive, but not the point of confronting anyone. Yes, he probably should not have gotten out of his car, but there is no law against that either.
There are a lot of different ways things could have gone down that night. There was no racism. There was simply a series of moderately bad decisions on behalf of two people. Zimmermans mistake getting out his car, and Martins was to jump someone who he had no idea if he was armed or not. This led to one life ended, and the other one basically ruined.
Its sad, and as much as we try to paint it as a black and white issue, its so nuanced that its a folly to try to make it seem simple.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 16, 2013, 03:57:06 PM
Thank you for you words and insight. If I may Ennis, I think it is the volatile double standard when it comes to the use of racially charge words like ni@@er that bothers many non Blacks along with some sense of discrimination toward Whites who simply because they are White are thought to harbor racist feelings or indifferent to the struggles of low income individuals including Blacks. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
I don't know. This stuff is ingrained in many after years of injustices. For all I know, to some, the level of hopelessness can be so great that it could feel like that word is all they have. It took centuries to get to where we're at today and it could take centuries to turn things around. However, keep in mind, you're dealing with a situation where you're looking at a portion of the population that has a higher poverty rate and lower access to educational opportunities many take for granted. It's an environment and economic situation that many will never truly understand or grasp.
However, I know this. Change the environment and economic status, change the results for future generations. That not only applies to the example I gave with my grandfather but also well known families, such as the Kennedys.
QuoteI don't know if you have been over to the "profiling" thread, but there is an overlap discussion there about this issue. When you get the time will you check out the conversation there and respond. I am wondering if there is a way to move the conversation on the profile thread to this one to maintain clarity?
I haven't had time to look. Partially because I've been working today and partially because some of the opinions/ignorance infuriates me.
^ When you do look, I think you will see we have many parallel thoughts.
Jeffrey,
Here is the Florida "Use of Force by Aggressor" law:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
I think that there is some confusion also in what Zimmerman was tried under. He did not claim innocent under the Shoot First law. He claimed self defense.
Be mad at shoot first all you want, but it wasnt what got him acquitted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DreD3TjByv4
Quote from: NotNow on July 16, 2013, 04:19:48 PM
Jeffrey,
Here is the Florida "Use of Force by Aggressor" law:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
Thanks for sharing this NN.
Thanks NN, I can't see why if that were requested to be in the jury instructions there would be an issue with it.
Quote from: Demosthenes on July 16, 2013, 04:02:30 PM
There are a lot of different ways things could have gone down that night. There was no racism. There was simply a series of moderately bad decisions on behalf of two people. Zimmermans mistake getting out his car, and Martins was to jump someone who he had no idea if he was armed or not. This led to one life ended, and the other one basically ruined.
Its sad, and as much as we try to paint it as a black and white issue, its so nuanced that its a folly to try to make it seem simple.
You can pretty much say the same thing about a person who's had too many drinks at the bar and accidentally kills someone as a result of DUI. Innocent mistakes. Most of the discussion on black vs white issues taking place right now is most likely a major result of GZ walking free. GZ gets hit with manslaughter and does prison time, then he's no different from Mr. DUI or Southside Chicago murderer who's caught and put behind bars.
Jeffrey, I didn't see the trial and I have no idea why any motion ws denied or granted.
As previously stated, the Florida "Stand Your Ground" law" FSS 776.013 does not directly apply to this case. This was tried as self defense as codified in FSS 776.012:
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
I don't believe that this case has anything to do with "stand your ground". It does provide a discussion over the use of force in self defense. It can also be used to discuss the "aggressor" theory. Did Mr. Zimmerman's pursuit of Mr. Martin constitute a "provocation"? Could that pursuit be said to "provoke the use of force against himself"? Both Zimmerman and Martin were legally positioned and both had a right of travel. I didn't see the trial, but was Martin's fear of Zimmerman clearly discussed and what rights he had as far as self defense? Obviously, the jury saw the testimony of a break in the pursuit as stopping any aggression by Zimmerman. The racial discussion seems to be discounted by the available evidence...(the fact that Zimmerman only identified race when asked, the fact that he seemed not to be sure of Martins race, and the FBI finding of no racial overtones in the case).
This case was clearly decided on self defense only, even according to the jurors who have spoken out. They apparently decided to discard the pursuit as a cause of the homicide. The right of Zimmerman to carry a concealed firearm seems to me to be settled law. Whether he misused that right by using deadly force when it was unwarranted has been decided by the jury.
So the central questions here, whether we agree with them are not, have been settled.
-The prosecutor, jury, and FBI saw no racial animus.
-The fact that Zimmerman pursued Martin, even to the point of exiting his vehicle, was not recognized by the jury as an element of "crime".
MANSLAUGHTER
782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.—
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
In this case, the jury apparently did not see culpable negligence or attach "unlawful justification" to the pursuit.
-The jury, as has been stated, agreed that Zimmerman felt "in fear of his life or great bodily harm" while on his back with Martin on top physically striking him.
The argument against any one of these three points was apparently either not made, or was too weak, or did not conform to the available evidence enough for the jurors to convict.
I think the laws are suitable. The system we have looked at these statutes and decided to acquit. I don't believe that weakening the current laws on the justifiable use of force would be advantageous to the citizens of the state.
I believe that the actions of both parties contributed to the tragic death of Mr. Martin that night. I believe that Mr. Zimmermans actions in pursuing Martin were reckless, and again lacking access to the evidence, appeared negligent. Based on what I have heard, I would hesitate to criticize the use of force by a citizen on their back being beaten. Such physical confrontations can easily lead to great bodily harm or even death. I wouldn't question Martin stopping and challenging someone following him as well. But, again absent contradictory testimony, according to Zimmerman no warning or questioning was spoken. I just don't see how we could responsibly change laws to avert a tragic set of events such as this. Just my 2 cents.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 16, 2013, 04:08:23 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 16, 2013, 03:57:06 PM
Thank you for you words and insight. If I may Ennis, I think it is the volatile double standard when it comes to the use of racially charge words like ni@@er that bothers many non Blacks along with some sense of discrimination toward Whites who simply because they are White are thought to harbor racist feelings or indifferent to the struggles of low income individuals including Blacks. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
I don't know. This stuff is ingrained in many after years of injustices. For all I know, to some, the level of hopelessness can be so great that it could feel like that word is all they have. It took centuries to get to where we're at today and it could take centuries to turn things around. However, keep in mind, you're dealing with a situation where you're looking at a portion of the population that has a higher poverty rate and lower access to educational opportunities many take for granted. It's an environment and economic situation that many will never truly understand or grasp.
However, I know this. Change the environment and economic status, change the results for future generations. That not only applies to the example I gave with my grandfather but also well known families, such as the Kennedys.
I honestly think you've cracked it, Ennis. I'd also go a step further & say that keeping "business as usual" is part of the harsh reality. Prisons need filled, crimes need to be committed, etc in order to sustain what is currently in place. And you dont get that by empowering people, of any race, to truly take control of their situation. Education is also key, but de-funding is the name of that game as well. We can apparently fund endless wars that do nothing, security farces up the wazoo, prisons, etc, but not education. That should tell you something right there.
And it's unfortunate that many blacks (and many under class whites too) aren't educated enough to see the reality of this. So instead, they turn their anger on each other, some random person on the street, or an entire group of regular everyday people for their woes. Its what I was sorta alluding to in my earlier comment on how many blacks are all of a sudden riled up because a black man/teen was shot by a non-black. When blacks killing blacks happens every single day, all over the country. Some go to jail for it, yes. But some don't. And besides, dead is dead. And even the people that get sent to prisons for these crimes are "dead" in a way. Its just another waste of life.
That's why I've mostly kept my mouth shut about this stuff lately when talking to anyone. I feel, although an important case, that it's a huge distraction from the ugly realities of day to day life for many people. And the people arguing about it are completely misguided & not seeing the forest for one single tree.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 16, 2013, 04:29:33 PM
Quote from: NotNow on July 16, 2013, 04:19:48 PM
Jeffrey,
Here is the Florida "Use of Force by Aggressor" law:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
Thanks for sharing this NN.
I don't think anyone can deny the bolded part. GZ's injuries were not consistent with this thought but it's hard to prove he didn't think TM would kill him. After all, to him, TM was a thug looking to rob someone in his community.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 16, 2013, 05:00:43 PM
Quote from: Demosthenes on July 16, 2013, 04:02:30 PM
There are a lot of different ways things could have gone down that night. There was no racism. There was simply a series of moderately bad decisions on behalf of two people. Zimmermans mistake getting out his car, and Martins was to jump someone who he had no idea if he was armed or not. This led to one life ended, and the other one basically ruined.
Its sad, and as much as we try to paint it as a black and white issue, its so nuanced that its a folly to try to make it seem simple.
You can pretty much say the same thing about a person who's had too many drinks at the bar and accidentally kills someone as a result of DUI. Innocent mistakes. Most of the discussion on black vs white issues taking place right now is most likely a major result of GZ walking free. GZ gets hit with manslaughter and does prison time, then he's no different from Mr. DUI or Southside Chicago murderer who's caught and put behind bars.
I would actually put it the other way Lake.
In DUI cases, the act of drinking and then getting behind the wheel establishes negligence.
In this case, the act of pursuit, continuous surveillance without questioning or verbal contact, even to the point of exiting the vehicle without identification visually or verbally, actually searching for Martin on foot, and the resulting fear that placed in a young Mr. Martin. That would seem to be the argument that establishes negligence on the part of Mr. Zimmerman leading to manslaughter.
Quote from: stephendare on July 16, 2013, 02:54:56 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 16, 2013, 02:54:18 PM
No one is disputing the fact that he should have stayed in the car.
then thats the end of the story.
Stephen, if you ever want to get out of jury duty if it ever comes up for you, just provide them with your post here. Pure genius man.
QuoteAnd it's unfortunate that many blacks (and many under class whites too) aren't educated enough to see the reality of this. So instead, they turn their anger on each other, some random person on the street, or an entire group of regular everyday people for their woes.
I don't think this is the case either. The situation stems from economics. People still have kids, have to pay bills and still need places to live and cars for access. This requires money regardless of whether you have a college degree/job or not. You're broke, behind on the bills, the car needs to be repaired, and there's no food in the frige for the kids. What are you going to do? For many, doing illegal things are simply a desperate means of survival. However, the flip end of that, is it also leads to felonies (which screw you up long term even more) and confrontations. In many circumstances, those confrontations (could be as simple as fighting over turf to make illegal money) result in death. It's a pretty bad cycle but it's an economic and environmental one. Not racial.
QuoteIts what I was sorta alluding to in my earlier comment on how many blacks are all of a sudden riled up because a black man/teen was shot by a non-black.
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 glad that Jesse Jackson is actually doing something worthwhile today. He's in town concerning the lady who got twenty years for a warning shot. I'll give credit when it's due, esp when it's rare.
Quote from: NotNow on July 16, 2013, 05:06:55 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 16, 2013, 05:00:43 PM
Quote from: Demosthenes on July 16, 2013, 04:02:30 PM
There are a lot of different ways things could have gone down that night. There was no racism. There was simply a series of moderately bad decisions on behalf of two people. Zimmermans mistake getting out his car, and Martins was to jump someone who he had no idea if he was armed or not. This led to one life ended, and the other one basically ruined.
Its sad, and as much as we try to paint it as a black and white issue, its so nuanced that its a folly to try to make it seem simple.
You can pretty much say the same thing about a person who's had too many drinks at the bar and accidentally kills someone as a result of DUI. Innocent mistakes. Most of the discussion on black vs white issues taking place right now is most likely a major result of GZ walking free. GZ gets hit with manslaughter and does prison time, then he's no different from Mr. DUI or Southside Chicago murderer who's caught and put behind bars.
I would actually put it the other way Lake.
In DUI cases, the act of drinking and then getting behind the wheel establishes negligence.
In this case, the act of pursuit, continuous surveillance without questioning or verbal contact, even to the point of exiting the vehicle without identification visually or verbally, actually searching for Martin on foot, and the resulting fear that placed in a young Mr. Martin. That would seem to be the argument that establishes negligence on the part of Mr. Zimmerman leading to manslaughter.
The prosecution argued this very point aggressively but they failed to make their case. Actually, the only verbal exchange between Zimmerman and Martin that was testified to was that when Trayvon approached Zimmerman he was alleged to have stated "Do you have a problem with me?" and Zimmerman responded "No I don't have a problem with you?" and then Trayvon punched him. The jury believed what Zimmerman said about Trayvon being the the one to initiate the physical attack and they also felt that the evidence and forensics as well as professional testimony backed up Zimmerman's explanation of how the physical altercation went down.
Quote from: NotNow on July 16, 2013, 05:06:55 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 16, 2013, 05:00:43 PM
Quote from: Demosthenes on July 16, 2013, 04:02:30 PM
There are a lot of different ways things could have gone down that night. There was no racism. There was simply a series of moderately bad decisions on behalf of two people. Zimmermans mistake getting out his car, and Martins was to jump someone who he had no idea if he was armed or not. This led to one life ended, and the other one basically ruined.
Its sad, and as much as we try to paint it as a black and white issue, its so nuanced that its a folly to try to make it seem simple.
You can pretty much say the same thing about a person who's had too many drinks at the bar and accidentally kills someone as a result of DUI. Innocent mistakes. Most of the discussion on black vs white issues taking place right now is most likely a major result of GZ walking free. GZ gets hit with manslaughter and does prison time, then he's no different from Mr. DUI or Southside Chicago murderer who's caught and put behind bars.
I would actually put it the other way Lake.
In DUI cases, the act of drinking and then getting behind the wheel establishes negligence.
In this case, the act of pursuit, continuous surveillance without questioning or verbal contact, even to the point of exiting the vehicle without identification visually or verbally, actually searching for Martin on foot, and the resulting fear that placed in a young Mr. Martin. That would seem to be the argument that establishes negligence on the part of Mr. Zimmerman leading to manslaughter.
Yes. Much better description than mine!
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 16, 2013, 05:23:46 PM
The prosecution argued this very point aggressively but they failed to make their case. Actually, the only verbal exchange between Zimmerman and Martin that was testified to was that when Trayvon approached Zimmerman he was alleged to have stated "Do you have a problem with me?" and Zimmerman responded "No I don't have a problem with you?" and then Trayvon punched him. The jury believed what Zimmerman said about Trayvon being the the one to initiate the physical attack and they also felt that the evidence and forensics as well as professional testimony backed up Zimmerman's explanation of how the physical altercation went down.
The juror I heard on tv, said none of the events leading up to GZ shooting TM mattered to her as much as if GZ felt his life was in danger the instant he fired the shoot killing TM. I'm sure everyone believes that. I don't agree with the outcome but I certain believe GZ feared for his life at that moment. However, she also saw GZ and TM as equal victims.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 16, 2013, 05:24:57 PM
Quote from: NotNow on July 16, 2013, 05:06:55 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 16, 2013, 05:00:43 PM
Quote from: Demosthenes on July 16, 2013, 04:02:30 PM
There are a lot of different ways things could have gone down that night. There was no racism. There was simply a series of moderately bad decisions on behalf of two people. Zimmermans mistake getting out his car, and Martins was to jump someone who he had no idea if he was armed or not. This led to one life ended, and the other one basically ruined.
Its sad, and as much as we try to paint it as a black and white issue, its so nuanced that its a folly to try to make it seem simple.
You can pretty much say the same thing about a person who's had too many drinks at the bar and accidentally kills someone as a result of DUI. Innocent mistakes. Most of the discussion on black vs white issues taking place right now is most likely a major result of GZ walking free. GZ gets hit with manslaughter and does prison time, then he's no different from Mr. DUI or Southside Chicago murderer who's caught and put behind bars.
I would actually put it the other way Lake.
In DUI cases, the act of drinking and then getting behind the wheel establishes negligence.
In this case, the act of pursuit, continuous surveillance without questioning or verbal contact, even to the point of exiting the vehicle without identification visually or verbally, actually searching for Martin on foot, and the resulting fear that placed in a young Mr. Martin. That would seem to be the argument that establishes negligence on the part of Mr. Zimmerman leading to manslaughter.
Yes. Much better description than mine!
This is a good analogy. I would add though,,, if the car gets on top of you and starts to bash your head into the ground,,, you have the right to put it in a salvage yard compactor till it stops.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 16, 2013, 05:15:11 PM
QuoteAnd it's unfortunate that many blacks (and many under class whites too) aren't educated enough to see the reality of this. So instead, they turn their anger on each other, some random person on the street, or an entire group of regular everyday people for their woes.
I don't think this is the case either. The situation stems from economics. People still have kids, have to pay bills and still need places to live and cars for access. This requires money regardless of whether you have a college degree/job or not. You're broke, behind on the bills, the car needs to be repaired, and there's no food in the frige for the kids. What are you going to do? For many, doing illegal things are simply a desperate means of survival. However, the flip end of that, is it also leads to felonies (which screw you up long term even more) and confrontations. In many circumstances, those confrontations (could be as simple as fighting over turf to make illegal money) result in death. It's a pretty bad cycle but it's an economic and environmental one. Not racial.
QuoteIts what I was sorta alluding to in my earlier comment on how many blacks are all of a sudden riled up because a black man/teen was shot by a non-black.
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 agree that poverty can undoubtedly lead to crime. What I think is missing in this equation is the fact that there are services in place to help feed and house people though they are admittedly lacking especially in view of the fact that many families, including the middle class are struggling to get by. So the question becomes why do some turn to crime and others do not? Do you think it goes beyond poverty and also includes education which directly effects ones status in the job market? I know many people who have to work two and three jobs to get by, but do that rather than resort to crime.
To your second point, I do believe that some people feel that the Trayvon death is another chapter in a sad long history of someone who was responsible for the death of a Black man and that someone walking. But the reality is that he walked because of how the laws are written and not because of his race. I personally think it is unfortunate that this case became the "bellwether" for racial reform when it is more about how our laws written and applied. I don't know who thinks everything is peaches and cream though? I think and have expressed our society has some serious problems to overcome. Can your clarify a bit more? Thanks.
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.
If we have learned anything from this trial it is to make a video telling your side of the story. That way you can testify without being cross examined. That is one rare gift GZ will be eternally greatful to the police for.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 16, 2013, 05:42:03 PM
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.
Doesn't this go back to the law though? I don't think this ruling impacts ones ability to defend themselves. I think it says that if you are the aggressor in a physical altercation you are not the victim at that moment and have become the aggressor. That's what it seems like in my view. Not defending either person here by the way just suggesting another perspective.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 16, 2013, 05:40:39 PM
I agree that poverty can undoubtedly lead to crime. What I think is missing in this equation is the fact that there are services in place to help feed and house people though they are admittedly lacking especially in views of the fact that many families, including the middle class are struggling to get by.
The assumption here is that every actual knows what resources are available, has access to them and that certain services aren't restricting certain segments of the population they are intended to serve.
QuoteSo the question becomes why do some turn to crime and others do not? Do you think it goes beyond poverty and also includes education which directly effects ones status in the job market? I know many people who have to work two and three jobs to get by, but do that rather than resort to crime.
I can't answer why mankind resorts to crime. I know many people of various races who work multiple jobs and others with criminal records longer than the length of the St. Johns River. However, from what I can tell, there's a direct correlation between crime, money and power, regardless of skin color.
QuoteTo your second point, I do believe that some people feel that the Trayvon death is another chapter in a sad long history of someone who was responsible for the death of a Black man and that someone walking. But the reality is that he walked because of how the laws are written and not because of his race.
Of course. The laws that led to similar outcomes to the black community in the past were also written a certain way. So, the challenge is the change them, if you're in the segment of the population that doesn't agree with them. My guess, is that's where all the debate and protesting will ultimately end up.
QuoteI personally think it is unfortunate that this case became the "bellwether" for racial reform when it is more about how are laws are written and applied. I don't know who thinks everything is peaches and cream though. I think and have expressed our society has some serious problems to overcome. Can your clarify a bit more? Thanks.
Whenever, I hear or read someone say everyone in this city, state or country has equal opportunity and access to certain things, in my mind, I believe that person is looking at the world with blinders on. It's even worse when someone born and living with a golden spoon in their mouth decides to lecture a specific population living in an economic situation they've never had to personally deal with. I felt the same way about Oprah when she'd lecture people on raising kids. We have our challenges but we'll never overcome them if we're not willing to have a serious discussion about addressing and resolving our faults.
Thanks Ennis, this better helps me understand another viewpoint. :)
Quote from: stephendare on July 16, 2013, 06:02:14 PM
What is literally sickening is that people seem to think this is an opportunity for them to decide whether or not the dead child was a 'good' person.
This is the problem with this kind of nonsense. It puts people in the position of passing judgement on the actual 'value' of the life of this child rather than on the circumstances of the murder.
If it turned out that Trayvon was a bad person, would it be ok to attack and then murder him?
Really?
And then who would be the judge of whether or not a persons life was worth getting worked up about?
Thats the literal opposite of rule by Law.
Unfortunately Stephen there are people who are prone to blame or judge in this manner. It reminds me of so many cases where a woman is assaulted or raped and then finds her character attacked and victimized all over again. I hear you loud and clear.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 16, 2013, 05:42:03 PM
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.
Quote from: stephendare on July 16, 2013, 06:13:40 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 16, 2013, 06:09:33 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 16, 2013, 06:02:14 PM
What is literally sickening is that people seem to think this is an opportunity for them to decide whether or not the dead child was a 'good' person.
This is the problem with this kind of nonsense. It puts people in the position of passing judgement on the actual 'value' of the life of this child rather than on the circumstances of the murder.
If it turned out that Trayvon was a bad person, would it be ok to attack and then murder him?
Really?
And then who would be the judge of whether or not a persons life was worth getting worked up about?
Thats the literal opposite of rule by Law.
Unfortunately Stephen there are people who are prone to blame or judge in this manner. It reminds me of so many cases where a woman is assaulted or raped and then finds her character attacked and victimized all over again. I hear you loud and clear.
Yes. Its unbelievable, really.
Everyone feels entitled until it happens to one of their own.
A couple of the comments on this thread have literally sickened me. Especially the ones along the lines of 'people are portraying the 17 year old as some kind of 'good' person....'
Shame. Seriously, Shame. To my mind its the sign of someone who has completely lost their moral compass.
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
Quote from: Demosthenes on July 16, 2013, 06:23:10 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 16, 2013, 05:42:03 PM
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 sense and self preservation.
Demo, I know you were speaking to Stephen. I hope you don't mind me chiming in on the issue of the first punch thrown. Trayvon was a 17 year old boy who was at the age when they are raging with testosterone and trying to define their prowess as a man. I know this because I have two sons. The combination of maturity (i.e. he's a kid), hormones and fear are understandable and likely the reason he did what he did. I don't condone it but I sure as heck can understand it. Just think of yourself as a teenager. If there is not a list of things you did or said that you should not have and that in fact were potentially dangerous you may be an angel. Remember that kids don't think things through when excited and that's the reality for Trayvon I believe.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 16, 2013, 06:27:41 PM
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.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 16, 2013, 05:15:11 PM
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.
Quote from: Demosthenes on July 16, 2013, 06:23:10 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 16, 2013, 05:42:03 PM
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.
Quote from: MEGATRON on July 16, 2013, 09:00:33 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 16, 2013, 06:27:41 PM
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.
Quote from: MEGATRON on July 16, 2013, 09:00:33 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 16, 2013, 06:27:41 PM
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.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 16, 2013, 09:10:17 PM
Quote from: MEGATRON on July 16, 2013, 09:00:33 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 16, 2013, 06:27:41 PM
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
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 16, 2013, 09:11:22 PMGeorge 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.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 16, 2013, 09:07:22 PM
Quote from: Demosthenes on July 16, 2013, 06:23:10 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 16, 2013, 05:42:03 PM
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.
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 16, 2013, 09:11:22 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 16, 2013, 09:07:22 PM
Quote from: Demosthenes on July 16, 2013, 06:23:10 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 16, 2013, 05:42:03 PM
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.
^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.
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.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 16, 2013, 09:23:54 PM
^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.
How can there be "moving on?" It is inconceivable.
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?
Quote from: thelakelander on July 16, 2013, 09:23:54 PM
^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.
Quote from: peestandingup on July 16, 2013, 09:59:45 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 16, 2013, 09:23:54 PM
^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.:)
Quote from: thelakelander on July 16, 2013, 09:18:26 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 16, 2013, 09:11:22 PMGeorge 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.
Look I'm sorry Trayvon Martin is dead and the pain his Family and Friends will feel for the rest of their lives. But I also must feel sorry for the Zimmerman Family it's the Right thing to do. The Martin family are church going Christians who believe in God. If you really believe in God you must Forgive the person that has hurt you. If you don't they win. "To be a Christian means to forgive the inexcusable because God has forgiven the inexcusable in you."
― C.S. Lewis
I don't think I will move on until the laws are changed so that murders similar to the one GZ committed are punished as criminal behavior.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 16, 2013, 10:17:56 PM
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.
There's was enough proof. In this unique case it was a situation where the law allowed it, for how it played out.
As for the media, the media is going to highlight whatever generates views. It's always been that way. However, media or not, for a certain segment of the population, it is about race. Up until the Emmett Till murder, legalized lynching came a dime a dozen in the certain areas of the country. Like now, it went big when the media got a hold of it. In the end, change for the better ended up happening. I believe the same could happen now.
I'm not sure of what the exact change could be. It could be as simple as modifying a portion of the aggressor rule Not Now posted. It could be something greater. Or maybe we sweep everything under the rug until something similar happens again? Only time will tell.
Quote from: peestandingup on July 16, 2013, 09:59:45 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 16, 2013, 09:23:54 PM
^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"??
No. It means there's no reason to isolate problems along racial lines when the real underlying issue to tackle is economic and environmental. If we can work on those, you'll dramatically improve whatever color on color we attempt to assign to a crime.
Boy .... lots of discussion since I've dropped by. The killing and the verdict is all over the media .... all over the world.
It's good though .... raises issues needing discussion and resolution.
Too bad there is no clear evidence at this point to convict GZ. Maybe someone, out of the blue, will come forth as a witness, or will come up with a good video of the events ... with sound .... so that a jury can convict based on what actually happened. As we've seen, its difficult to convict based on assumptions or emotional aspects. And I am so happy for all citizens that murder convictions cannot be based on assumptions, but must rely on facts and on clear evidence.
Even without a conviction, the movers and shakers can now work on needed changes in any laws about guns and stuff.... and maybe about related societal problems.
I still think that the FBC had something to do with this thing.
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 16, 2013, 10:43:29 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 16, 2013, 09:18:26 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 16, 2013, 09:11:22 PMGeorge 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.
Look I'm sorry Trayvon Martin is dead and the pain his Family and Friends will feel for the rest of their lives. But I also must feel sorry for the Zimmerman Family it's the Right thing to do. The Martin family are church going Christians who believe in God. If you really believe in God you must Forgive the person that has hurt you. If you don't they win. "To be a Christian means to forgive the inexcusable because God has forgiven the inexcusable in you."
― C.S. Lewis
If one is a church going person, then they should have no problem with those who want, advocate and work to see laws modified that will help limit tragedies like this.
Quote from: ronchamblin on July 16, 2013, 11:30:22 PM
Boy .... lots of discussion since I've dropped by. The killing and the verdict is all over the media .... all over the world.
It's good though .... raises issues needing discussion and resolution.
Too bad there is not clear evidence to convict GZ.
All the evidence is there. The cause and effect is clear as day. In this case, you just have a situation where it was legal for one to kill another, even if the victim didn't start the confrontation.
QuoteEven without a conviction, the movers and shakers can now work on needed changes in any laws about guns and stuff.... and maybe about related societal problems.
This is my hope as opposed to this stuff being swept under the rug again.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 16, 2013, 11:32:02 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 16, 2013, 10:43:29 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 16, 2013, 09:18:26 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 16, 2013, 09:11:22 PMGeorge 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.
Look I'm sorry Trayvon Martin is dead and the pain his Family and Friends will feel for the rest of their lives. But I also must feel sorry for the Zimmerman Family it's the Right thing to do. The Martin family are church going Christians who believe in God. If you really believe in God you must Forgive the person that has hurt you. If you don't they win. "To be a Christian means to forgive the inexcusable because God has forgiven the inexcusable in you."
― C.S. Lewis
If one is a church going person, then they should have no problem with those who want, advocate and work to see laws modified that will help limit tragedies like this.
Every positive value has its price in negative terms... the genius of Einstein leads to Hiroshima."
― Pablo Picasso
What was the negative of allowing women to vote?
Profiling.... I must admit that, thirty or forty years ago, being in the retail business, I found myself being more suspicious of young black fellows simply wandering around in my store; that is, as compared to white fellows. However, over the years I've found so many white fellows as thieves, exceeding in number that of the young black fellows, that my profiling of young black has gone to zero. The whites and blacks have become equal ... and that's the way it should be in all aspects of life.
My observations in other aspects of society have allowed me, certainly, to much more easily avoid the pre-judgements of others due to color -- and this .... in spite of what was taught us southern whites by the generation before us.
We should, if we are able and of a mind, strive to be free -- free from prejudice against other colors and ethnics ... free from the restrictions and narrowness of mind due to religions ..... free from blind and "excessive" ties to one's ethnicity or country.
Failure to do so allows or encourages suspicion, division, hatred, and ultimately conflict and even war. We should imagine ourselves to be citizens of the world, else we will, through our suspicions and divisions, make decisions resulting in the destruction of it.
At the risk of sounding so ignorant, I believe that this whole tragedy could have been avoided. I admit I was once one of the least street smart people I knew, which led to quite a few problems (I was actually pretty savagely beaten by members of a different race when I didn't understand that their asking me for my cell phone was a clue that they were up to no good...I was also alone in an environment not favorable to me).
I don't think GZ was "out to kill black men" that night. He actually led the charge to protest the killing of another black male by the same Sanford police a couple years back. He was 50% Hispanic with a little black in him himself. He lived in as diverse a neighborhood as it can get, with blacks, Hispanics, whites and a few Asians sprinkled in, and they all elected him to be neighborhood watch years ago, and they (along with GZ's coworkers) all stood by him for character support (which I think says a lot). When GZ called in incidents to police, he never volunteered race until asked specifically, and there were never any incidents before.
I don't factually know what happened that night...all I know is what was testimony, what was withheld (now), what was presented, and what the outcome was. I truly believe that a guy like GZ wasn't out to shoot innocent victims. I understand where both parties are coming from - perhaps TM was completely innocent and naive and GZ was acting on many past incidents and experience. I don't think GZ was trigger happy, but I also don't think TM did a good enough job dispelling the situation (many here say they would "fight", but really? Well-placed words do so much more!).
In a land where it's legal and highly protected to conceal and carry, and in stand your ground states with high crime, I would think it prudent to make sure you aren't pressing anyone's buttons or sending any signals off. Unfortunately due to statistics and perhaps some sad stereotypes and whatever conditions which may be unfair that lead to these things, if you are a young black male (wearing a hoodie at night in a targeted neighborhood walking in backyards as opposed to the sidewalk, in the rain I might add) I would be extra careful to avoid confrontation and make your presence and intentions known (as a very innocent looking blonde-haired blue-eyed white male, even I would avoid this sitation and jog or walk briskly on a public sidewalk with an obvious destination in my head if it were raining, or sunny!!). Sad but this is reality. Neither party is completely innocent or completely guilty. Maybe laws need to be changed, but this so far has been an issue that further divides people rather than unites them.
Simms, I'm not sure of how hard it was raining or if the rain started after he was already away from home but wearing a hoodie on a cold rainy night in February is appropriate attire.
Quoteif you are a young black male (wearing a hoodie at night in a targeted neighborhood walking in backyards as opposed to the sidewalk, in the rain I might add) I would be extra careful to avoid confrontation and make your presence and intentions known
If GZ was a uniformed officer, this would make sense. While we all know who GZ is, due to the media, he was nothing more than a street thug up to no good that night, from the victim's perspective.
According to his lady friend on the phone with him at the time, GZ was a creep seeking to mug or rape him. He even quickened his pace to get away, only to have GZ quicken his to follow. Well-placed words in that situation (remember, GZ's a thug to the victim at this point) aren't going to do anything.
TM was also visiting his dad, who lived in this gated community. I don't know if anyone is aware that he knew neighborhood vigilantes were over zealously profiling black youths in the area. Perhaps if he did, the situation would have ended up differently. Unfortunately, we'll never know.
QuoteMaybe laws need to be changed, but this so far has been an issue that further divides people rather than unites them.
From my perspective, the laws need to be changed and yes, it divides people rather than unites, but it's something that has to be addressed sooner or later.
GZ was told not to pursue TM but he did anyway. Funny how people seem to forget this.
I'm gonna say my unpopular, and unbiased take on this whole Zimmerman thing for the last time, because I don't see colors unlike alot of people. To be honest, I'm sick and tired of this entire situation. I'm aware of Seminole County's history of racism, the reason that Duval had to take over, although IMO this was the wrong case at the wrong time, and a mountain was made out of a molehill, thanks to the 'gotcha' media, and the outrage. Duval, or Seminole, the outcome would still be the same.
This was a railroad attempt from the get-go; CSX, Norfolk Southern, and Union Pacific all together don't have the track mileage that this Zimmerman railroad attempt has. Why you ask? Because Angela Corey clearly withheld key evidence, Trayvon's capability in MMA ie punch in the nose, and mount & ground and pound (from his cell phone). Like it or not, that was evidence that was supposed to be turned over. What's a more significant event, getting out of a car (which isn't illegal) not following through a comment from a dispatcher (again not illegal) or getting blasted in the face, mounted and beaten the crap out of? Enough of that. People say that 'Angela Corey should've pursued manslaughter'. Well, in this railroad attempt, the judge put manslaughter on the table at the last minute along with the original charge murder 2. So I don't get why people are mad with Corey on that, I don't believe that this methodical jury was 'confused' whatsoever.
I don't see any additional charges on Zimmerman. Eric Holder from the NAACP pretty much conceded that in the Orlando convention (Federal charges) as he focused on 'changing laws' to keep the masses in check. What laws changed? I dunno. Besides, the Feds already looked through this case. Regarding a civil case, a self defense case (which this is, don't know why some or talking 'stand your ground') Zimmerman should have immunity. These protests are classic 'selective outrage' from the black community. Hundreds and hundreds of Trayvon's are murdered in black on black violence throughout the US, yet this Zimmerman thing (which can be argued either way, and that evidence pointing mainly ONE way) remains the focal point. I'm done with this overblown trial, SMH...
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 16, 2013, 10:13:17 PM
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?
CHARLES M. BLOW says it much better than I could.
New York Times
Op-Ed Columnist
The Whole System Failed Trayvon Martin
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/opinion/the-whole-system-failed.html?_r=0
Quote
.......
Sometimes people just need a focal point. Sometimes that focal point becomes a breaking point.
The idea of universal suspicion without individual evidence is what Americans find abhorrent and what black men in America must constantly fight. It is pervasive in policing policies — like stop-and-frisk, and in this case neighborhood watch — regardless of the collateral damage done to the majority of innocents. It's like burning down a house to rid it of mice.
As a parent, particularly a parent of black teenage boys, I am left with the question, "Now, what do I tell my boys?"
We used to say not to run in public because that might be seen as suspicious, like they'd stolen something. But according to Zimmerman, Martin drew his suspicion at least in part because he was walking too slowly.
So what do I tell my boys now? At what precise pace should a black man walk to avoid suspicion?
And can they ever stop walking away, or running away, and simply stand their ground? Can they become righteously indignant without being fatally wounded?
Is there anyplace safe enough, or any cargo innocent enough, for a black man in this country? Martin was where he was supposed to be — in a gated community — carrying candy and a canned drink.
The whole system failed Martin. What prevents it from failing my children, or yours?
I feel that I must tell my boys that, but I can't. It's stuck in my throat. It's an impossibly heartbreaking conversation to have. So, I sit and watch in silence, and occasionally mouth the word, "breathe," because I keep forgetting to.
That's just a stupid article, and I hope you can say it better than that.
One horrible event that likely had nothing to do with race, and now no African American is safe in this country. Never mind that Florida law led to the acquittal, and not every state has the same laws.
Here is a link to a good article:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/trayvon_martin_verdict_racism_hate_crimes_prosecution_and_other_overreactions.html
"You Are Not Trayvon Martin
His death wasn't about race, guns, or your pet issue. It was about misjudgment and overreaction—exactly what we're doing now to the verdict."
This article and post #481 by thelakelander make some good points from TM's perspective that I had not considered before. Specifically, what GZ could have done differently to prevent the situation from escalating even after he left his car and started following/ looking for TM. (Announce that he was with Neighborhood Watch and let TM know that he was reaching for his phone before he got hit by TM. The Slate article makes the point that it is possible that TM hit GZ after perceiving that he was reaching for some type of weapon instead of his phone).
Quote from: I-10east on July 17, 2013, 05:50:06 AM
I'm gonna say my unpopular, and unbiased take on this whole Zimmerman thing for the last time, because I don't see colors unlike alot of people. To be honest, I'm sick and tired of this entire situation. I'm aware of Seminole County's history of racism, the reason that Duval had to take over, although IMO this was the wrong case at the wrong time, and a mountain was made out of a molehill, thanks to the 'gotcha' media, and the outrage. Duval, or Seminole, the outcome would still be the same.
This was a railroad attempt from the get-go; CSX, Norfolk Southern, and Union Pacific all together don't have the track mileage that this Zimmerman railroad attempt has. Why you ask? Because Angela Corey clearly withheld key evidence, Trayvon's capability in MMA ie punch in the nose, and mount & ground and pound (from his cell phone). Like it or not, that was evidence that was supposed to be turned over. What's a more significant event, getting out of a car (which isn't illegal) not following through a comment from a dispatcher (again not illegal) or getting blasted in the face, mounted and beaten the crap out of? Enough of that. People say that 'Angela Corey should've pursued manslaughter'. Well, in this railroad attempt, the judge put manslaughter on the table at the last minute along with the original charge murder 2. So I don't get why people are mad with Corey on that, I don't believe that this methodical jury was 'confused' whatsoever.
I don't see any additional charges on Zimmerman. Eric Holder from the NAACP pretty much conceded that in the Orlando convention (Federal charges) as he focused on 'changing laws' to keep the masses in check. What laws changed? I dunno. Besides, the Feds already looked through this case. Regarding a civil case, a self defense case (which this is, don't know why some or talking 'stand your ground') Zimmerman should have immunity. These protests are classic 'selective outrage' from the black community. Hundreds and hundreds of Trayvon's are murdered in black on black violence throughout the US, yet this Zimmerman thing (which can be argued either way, and that evidence pointing mainly ONE way) remains the focal point. I'm done with this overblown trial, SMH...
I won't go through all of this, other to say we need to worry about all crime, black-on-black, white-on-white, green-on-green, whatever. Let's stop acting like one skin color has problems and no others do. Being black, it's kind of insulting. As people, we're all the same. Crime isn't racial. The stronger correlation is economic and environmental. Even with GZ, one can argue the environment helped lead GZ to being an over zealous neighborhood watch dude.
As for this particular case, the law allows the killing. That's the main problem most people have with the outcome. Nevertheless, it's pretty easy to see that they'll eventually hit GZ with something else like a civil suit as the process works it's way through the system. He'll live out the rest of his days in fear, hiding and being broke.
However, the ongoing issue for those in opposition will be to modify whatever allows for aggressors to start a conflict and kill the victim in self defense as soon as the victim gets the best of them.
I suppose I see it as "stand your ground" is a symptom of a larger problem. And it most definitely needs to go away. But when it is gone, what will take its place?
Already there are boycotts called against Florida and its merchants.
I love living in the south, the heat and the humidity even. The spanish moss dripping from cool looking trees. Things that scurry around in the low lying vegetation as I walk by.
I love the thunderstorms which open up in the midst of sunny skies and leave you wondering what will happen next, and the way the world sounds sort of muffled sometimes by the canopy of humidity.
But I don't love the oppressive racism which is so prevalent and yet so denied -- the rest of the world sees it. But we don't?
I am a transplant from up north. Perhaps that alters my world view.
At the end of it all, this case validates the idea that is it appropriate to be afraid of a young black man.
Quote from: sheclown on July 17, 2013, 08:53:35 AM
But I don't love the oppressive racism which is so prevalent and yet so denied -- the rest of the world sees it. But we don't?
I am a transplant from up north. Perhaps that alters my world view.
At the end of it all, this trial tells us that is it appropriate to be afraid of a young black man.
Yeah, the North is just known as the bastion of racial harmony.
And no, the trial didn't tell us that.
Quote from: sheclown on July 17, 2013, 08:53:35 AM
But I don't love the oppressive racism which is so prevalent and yet so denied -- the rest of the world sees it. But we don't?
What a ridiculous statement.
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 09:12:21 AM
Quote from: duvalbill on July 17, 2013, 09:02:31 AM
Quote from: sheclown on July 17, 2013, 08:53:35 AM
But I don't love the oppressive racism which is so prevalent and yet so denied -- the rest of the world sees it. But we don't?
I am a transplant from up north. Perhaps that alters my world view.
At the end of it all, this trial tells us that is it appropriate to be afraid of a young black man.
Yeah, the North is just known as the bastion of racial harmony.
And no, the trial didn't tell us that.
Perhaps it didnt tell you that.
So one man using lethal force in response to being attacked told you it's, "appropriate to be afraid of young, Black men"?
What did the OJ decision tell you?
Is it really that hard to allow a single decision to be just that?
The trial tells me that if I have a concealed weapons permit, I can go provoke duvalbill into an altercation and if I feel my life is being threatened, I can then use my weapon to end duvalbill's existence (in the name of self defense of course) and not worry about doing any time behind bars. Seems pretty unreasonable to me. Personally, I believe something allowing this exact situation to happen should be changed.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 17, 2013, 09:25:46 AM
The trial tells me that if I have a concealed weapons permit, I can go provoke duvalbill into an altercation and if I feel my life is being threatened, I can then use my weapon to end duvalbill's existence (in the name of self defense of course) and not worry about doing any time behind bars. Seems pretty unreasonable to me. Personally, I believe something allowing this exact situation to happen should be changed.
This I can agree with, but I don't know why racial overtones were thrust into this matter to begin with.
Zimmerman's friend even tried to go on air to show that his friend wasn't racist, but that didn't stop people from asserting "profiling." In fact, many in the media seemingly suggested that he was an "Uncle Tom," or not a good friend to him.
The irony was and is palpable. On one hand, many in the media labeled Zimmerman a racist without knowing him, and then seek to discredit a person who actually knew him.
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 09:34:34 AM
When some psychotic white guy kills classrooms full of small children, we are told not to worry: its just a psycho---not typical, not rational, doesnt pertain to the rest of responsible gun owners.
And people, while hesitant, reluctantly decide on the side of reasonableness and optimism and acquiesce.
But here is an example of a person who has shot another child to death, a person who we are now being assured is a reasonable, typical, and rational gun owner, and what are we being told about the child killing?
He deserved to die, and the killer should have no consequences.
In a country where reasonable people are already uneasy about these murders happening with accelerating frequency, its really shocking how tone deaf the radicals are.
Says Zimmerman deserves to die, then calls others "radicals."
Ridiculous.
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 16, 2013, 11:17:21 PM
I don't think I will move on until the laws are changed so that murders similar to the one GZ committed are punished as criminal behavior.
How, exactly, would you rewrite the law?
Quote from: thelakelander on July 16, 2013, 11:32:02 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 16, 2013, 10:43:29 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 16, 2013, 09:18:26 PM
Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on July 16, 2013, 09:11:22 PMGeorge 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.
Look I'm sorry Trayvon Martin is dead and the pain his Family and Friends will feel for the rest of their lives. But I also must feel sorry for the Zimmerman Family it's the Right thing to do. The Martin family are church going Christians who believe in God. If you really believe in God you must Forgive the person that has hurt you. If you don't they win. "To be a Christian means to forgive the inexcusable because God has forgiven the inexcusable in you."
― C.S. Lewis
If one is a church going person, then they should have no problem with those who want, advocate and work to see laws modified that will help limit tragedies like this.
Lake,
I would ask you the same question...how, exactly, would you rewrite the law?
NN, can you repost it again?
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 09:47:34 AM
Quote from: duvalbill on July 17, 2013, 09:38:47 AM
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 09:34:34 AM
When some psychotic white guy kills classrooms full of small children, we are told not to worry: its just a psycho---not typical, not rational, doesnt pertain to the rest of responsible gun owners.
And people, while hesitant, reluctantly decide on the side of reasonableness and optimism and acquiesce.
But here is an example of a person who has shot another child to death, a person who we are now being assured is a reasonable, typical, and rational gun owner, and what are we being told about the child killing?
He deserved to die, and the killer should have no consequences.
In a country where reasonable people are already uneasy about these murders happening with accelerating frequency, its really shocking how tone deaf the radicals are.
Says Zimmerman deserves to die, then calls others "radicals."
Ridiculous.
are you delusional? Who said this?
I misread, apologies.
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 09:34:34 AM
and what are we being told about the child killing?
He deserved to die
You are better than this sort of hyperbole.
Quote from: NotNow on July 17, 2013, 09:40:25 AM
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 16, 2013, 11:17:21 PM
I don't think I will move on until the laws are changed so that murders similar to the one GZ committed are punished as criminal behavior.
How, exactly, would you rewrite the law?
Good question. Each state has murder, manslaughter, and self-defense laws. Is there a state statutory scheme on those issues that should be Florida's model?
Here you go:
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.—A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
These are the statutes that I believe apply to civilians. To see all of Chapter 776:
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/Chapter776
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 10:08:33 AM
Quote from: MEGATRON on July 17, 2013, 10:03:13 AM
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 09:34:34 AM
and what are we being told about the child killing?
He deserved to die
You are better than this sort of hyperbole.
um. a little late to the ball game. look up and check out the above statements.
No, I was addressing what you really meant to say: that we are told that Martin deserved to die.
No one has said anything resembling that statement.
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 10:10:26 AM
The traditional requirement to avoid lethal force served us pretty well for a hundred years or so. what was wrong with that?
For the record, I am in complete agreement with this statement.
Quote from: MEGATRON on July 17, 2013, 10:03:13 AM
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 09:34:34 AM
and what are we being told about the child killing?
He deserved to die
You are better than this sort of hyperbole.
Is he?
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 10:10:26 AM
The traditional requirement to avoid lethal force served us pretty well for a hundred years or so. what was wrong with that?
Did it? I don't know whether that is the case or not. Avoid lethal force: (1) completely?; (2) unless you reasonably fear that you will die if you don't use lethal force?; (3) unless you reasonably fear that you will die if you don't use lethal force AND something else -- you did not (a) cause; (b) provoke; or (c) escalate the situation?
I suspect these legal standards have always been controversial, especially since they deal with matters of life and death.
The question is. "Is self defense color blind?"
Quote from: sheclown on July 17, 2013, 10:28:54 AM
The question is. "Is self defense color blind?"
How is that the question?
Quote776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
This is the part that I believe would be relevant to Zimmerman. I think that it is a given that he was initially the aggressor and so the passage above gives him the protection even though he initialed the conflict. It is why I think that under the current law, the protection of "stand or ground" or what actions can be defined as self-defense switch back and forth between two in conflict depending upon whom is winning. Of course, accurate and honest eye witness testimony would also determine that but without real evidence to the contrary, it ends up being the one who wins to tell his story. Doesn't seem like a very well written law to me.
Quote from: MEGATRON on July 17, 2013, 10:41:33 AM
Quote from: sheclown on July 17, 2013, 10:28:54 AM
The question is. "Is self defense color blind?"
How is that the question?
If Martin had knocked out Zimmerman with his first punch and put him in the hospital, would Martin be in jail right now?
QuoteAlready there are boycotts called against Florida and its merchants.
I doubt many will cancel Disney plans because of this.
Quote from: fsquid on July 17, 2013, 11:13:46 AM
QuoteAlready there are boycotts called against Florida and its merchants.
I doubt many will cancel Disney plans because of this.
My plans for Sanford are on hold though...
In those other threads most who took great issue with the outcome of the trial defined Zimmerman as the aggressor. Meaning that the act of following someone deemed suspicious is enough to warrant the label as "aggressor". IMHO the only modification to the law would be to more clearly define aggressor.
Quote776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 09:34:34 AM
When some psychotic white guy kills classrooms full of small children, we are told not to worry: its just a psycho---not typical, not rational, doesnt pertain to the rest of responsible gun owners.
And people, while hesitant, reluctantly decide on the side of reasonableness and optimism and acquiesce.
But here is an example of a person who has shot another child to death, a person who we are now being assured is a reasonable, typical, and rational gun owner, and what are we being told about the child killing?
He deserved to die, and the killer should have no consequences.
In a country where reasonable people are already uneasy about these murders happening with accelerating frequency, its really shocking how tone deaf the radicals are.
The Aurora Movie theater shootings and the Newtown shootings were both committed by mentally unstable people.
In Aurora, they already had the strictest gun laws. Holmes knew that when he stood up and started shooting in the theater that there was going to be no one shooting back at him. Do you think he would have attempted the same stunt if the possibility was there of 3-4 people might have opened fire back at him? No. He wouldn't. Because he is a coward.
A week after Aurora, this happened. A "gun nut" saved lives:
http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx
In Newtown, Adam Lanza killed his mother and stole her guns to commit his disgusting act. He was a crazy person who obtained his guns illegally - by killing someone else and taking guns from their home. How would stricter gun laws have prevented that? It wouldn't. He was mentally ill. And just like Holmes, he knew that when he got to his destination, that there would be no one there to stop him. No resource officer, no security, nothing. And when he started to hear police sirens, he off'd himself. Coward.
The real issue in regards to Holmes and Lanza is mental illness. How many times have people come out after the fact and said "I wish I would have said something"? It is up to us to be aware of our surroundings and report odd behavior if we see it. Along with that, no one seems to want to talk about the side effects of the medications they were on. Nope. Because it's all about guns.
Would stricter gun laws have stopped Herman Pickens from killing Robert Sutton at Mojo No.4 a couple of weeks ago? He was a convicted felon who has been arrested every year of his adult life who used a stolen gun.
Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country yet 54 people were shot dead during the Zimmerman trial. The majority of their murders are gang, robbery, or drug related. You think that gang members go through background checks to obtain their weapons?
Just last week, a 16 year old was shot dead for refusing to join a gang. (Did Chicago hold a rally to show their disdain about his senseless killing? No. But they did have a rally to protest the Zimmerman verdict over 1,000 miles away.)
You say: "
But here is an example of a person who has shot another child to death, a person who we are now being assured is a reasonable, typical, and rational gun owner, and what are we being told about the child killing? He deserved to die, and the killer should have no consequences.[/b]"
Maybe I've missed something in the 30+ pages of this thread, but at
NO point have I read anyone say that Trayvon "deserved to die". People pointing out facts about Trayvon's past (just like you have done to Zimmerman as far back as page 2) does not mean that the kid deserved to die.
It's a tragedy. No one wins.
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 11:49:27 AM
Quote from: Jameson on July 17, 2013, 11:46:09 AM
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 09:34:34 AM
When some psychotic white guy kills classrooms full of small children, we are told not to worry: its just a psycho---not typical, not rational, doesnt pertain to the rest of responsible gun owners.
And people, while hesitant, reluctantly decide on the side of reasonableness and optimism and acquiesce.
But here is an example of a person who has shot another child to death, a person who we are now being assured is a reasonable, typical, and rational gun owner, and what are we being told about the child killing?
He deserved to die, and the killer should have no consequences.
In a country where reasonable people are already uneasy about these murders happening with accelerating frequency, its really shocking how tone deaf the radicals are.
The Aurora Movie theater shootings and the Newtown shootings were both committed by mentally unstable people.
In Aurora, they already had the strictest gun laws. Holmes knew that when he stood up and started shooting in the theater that there was going to be no one shooting back at him. Do you think he would have attempted the same stunt if the possibility was there of 3-4 people might have opened fire back at him? No. He wouldn't. Because he is a coward.
A week after Aurora, this happened. A "gun nut" saved lives:
http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx
In Newtown, Adam Lanza killed his mother and stole her guns to commit his disgusting act. He was a crazy person who obtained his guns illegally - by killing someone else and taking guns from their home. How would stricter gun laws have prevented that? It wouldn't. He was mentally ill. And just like Holmes, he knew that when he got to his destination, that there would be no one there to stop him. No resource officer, no security, nothing. And when he started to hear police sirens, he off'd himself. Coward.
The real issue in regards to Holmes and Lanza is mental illness. How many times have people come out after the fact and said "I wish I would have said something"? It is up to us to be aware of our surroundings and report odd behavior if we see it. Along with that, no one seems to want to talk about the side effects of the medications they were on. Nope. Because it's all about guns.
Would stricter gun laws have stopped Herman Pickens from killing Robert Sutton at Mojo No.4 a couple of weeks ago? He was a convicted felon who has been arrested every year of his adult life who used a stolen gun.
Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country yet 54 people were shot dead during the Zimmerman trial. The majority of their murders are gang, robbery, or drug related. You think that gang members go through background checks to obtain their weapons?
Just last week, a 16 year old was shot dead for refusing to join a gang. (Did Chicago hold a rally to show their disdain about his senseless killing? No. But they did have a rally to protest the Zimmerman verdict over 1,000 miles away.)
You say: "But here is an example of a person who has shot another child to death, a person who we are now being assured is a reasonable, typical, and rational gun owner, and what are we being told about the child killing? He deserved to die, and the killer should have no consequences.[/b]"
Maybe I've missed something in the 30+ pages of this thread, but at NO point have I read anyone say that Trayvon "deserved to die". People pointing out facts about Trayvon's past (just like you have done to Zimmerman as far back as page 2) does not mean that the kid deserved to die.
It's a tragedy. No one wins.
thank you for proving my post, literally point by point.
Because I point out the fact that your chest-pounding for stricter gun laws would have prevented none of the above because the issue is much deeper than that? Got it.
The fact that will ignore the illegal gun exploits of people like Herman Pickens and Chicago gang members while at the same time trying to lump people like Adam Lanza, James Holmes, GZ, and Joe Anybody who happens to be a law-abiding citizen with a concealed weapons permit who is a gun enthusiast who only uses his guns at the range or to go hunting and has never been accused or convicted of any crime - much less one involving a gun - together into the same category to fit your "gun nut" argument is not only ridiculous, but stereotypical.
But hey, stereotypes are a real time-saver.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 17, 2013, 11:41:52 AM
In those other threads most who took great issue with the outcome of the trial defined Zimmerman as the aggressor. Meaning that the act of following someone deemed suspicious is enough to warrant the label as "aggressor". IMHO the only modification to the law would be to more clearly define aggressor.
Quote776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—
+1
Let's say Zimmerman had been simply sitting on a park bench hanging out and Martin approached him, threatened his life ("you're going to die tonight"), and attacked him. If Zimmerman found himself being strangled, assaulted to the point of fearing for his life, or had reasonable suspicion that Martin was armed with a deadly weapon, I'd have zero problem with Zimmerman using deadly force to stop the attack. Conversely, let's say that on that tragic evening, Zimmerman had instigated the physical confrontation with Martin after following him through the neighborhood. If Martin would have been in legitimate fear for his life, I'd have no problem with him using deadly force either. If you instigate a sustained physical attack without provocation, particularly on a stranger, or if you break into someone's home or vehicle, I don't think you deserve the benefit of the doubt.
It's Zimmerman initial pursuit that muddies everything to me in this case, and the reason that "aggressor" needs to be more clearly defined to take provocation into account before further similar incidents can take place.
Even then though, there are just so many shades of gray, and so much room for misinterpretation and he-said/she-said, that these things really need to be handled on a case-by-case basis.
Quote from: ronchamblin on July 16, 2013, 11:30:22 PM
Boy .... lots of discussion since I've dropped by. The killing and the verdict is all over the media .... all over the world.
It's good though .... raises issues needing discussion and resolution.
Too bad there is no clear evidence at this point to convict GZ. Maybe someone, out of the blue, will come forth as a witness, or will come up with a good video of the events ... with sound .... so that a jury can convict based on what actually happened. As we've seen, its difficult to convict based on assumptions or emotional aspects. And I am so happy for all citizens that murder convictions cannot be based on assumptions, but must rely on facts and on clear evidence.
Even without a conviction, the movers and shakers can now work on needed changes in any laws about guns and stuff.... and maybe about related societal problems.
I still think that the FBC had something to do with this thing.
More info will come about about the character of everyone involved during the civil trial and the burden of proof will be much different.
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 12:07:30 PM
QuoteBut hey, stereotypes are a real time-saver.
youve summed up your position perfectly, and its the very reason why your point of view makes us less safe, not more safe.
Im sorry Jameson, but you sound irresponsible and reckless with other people's lives.
You continue to offer no facts. Just opinion.
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 12:21:41 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 17, 2013, 12:17:19 PM
You continue to offer no facts. Just opinion.
simply saying that repeatedly doesnt make it any more true, it just makes you sound like you are in an autistic fugue.
You have resorted to calling me insults in this thread many times and this one is the most disgusting of all.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 17, 2013, 12:16:38 PM
Quote from: ronchamblin on July 16, 2013, 11:30:22 PM
Boy .... lots of discussion since I've dropped by. The killing and the verdict is all over the media .... all over the world.
It's good though .... raises issues needing discussion and resolution.
Too bad there is no clear evidence at this point to convict GZ. Maybe someone, out of the blue, will come forth as a witness, or will come up with a good video of the events ... with sound .... so that a jury can convict based on what actually happened. As we've seen, its difficult to convict based on assumptions or emotional aspects. And I am so happy for all citizens that murder convictions cannot be based on assumptions, but must rely on facts and on clear evidence.
Even without a conviction, the movers and shakers can now work on needed changes in any laws about guns and stuff.... and maybe about related societal problems.
I still think that the FBC had something to do with this thing.
More info will come about about the character of everyone involved during the civil trial and the burden of proof will be much different.
Assuming there is one.
It doesn't make much sense to sue someone that doesn't have money.
Quote from: NotNow on July 17, 2013, 09:41:45 AM
Lake,
I would ask you the same question...how, exactly, would you rewrite the law?
I'd probably start here.
Quote from: NotNow on July 17, 2013, 10:18:11 AM
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
These are the statutes that I believe apply to civilians. To see all of Chapter 776:
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/Chapter776
Quote from: thelakelander on July 17, 2013, 01:32:19 AM
Simms, I'm not sure of how hard it was raining or if the rain started after he was already away from home but wearing a hoodie on a cold rainy night in February is appropriate attire.
Quoteif you are a young black male (wearing a hoodie at night in a targeted neighborhood walking in backyards as opposed to the sidewalk, in the rain I might add) I would be extra careful to avoid confrontation and make your presence and intentions known
If GZ was a uniformed officer, this would make sense. While we all know who GZ is, due to the media, he was nothing more than a street thug up to no good that night, from the victim's perspective.
According to his lady friend on the phone with him at the time, GZ was a creep seeking to mug or rape him. He even quickened his pace to get away, only to have GZ quicken his to follow. Well-placed words in that situation (remember, GZ's a thug to the victim at this point) aren't going to do anything.
TM was also visiting his dad, who lived in this gated community. I don't know if anyone is aware that he knew neighborhood vigilantes were over zealously profiling black youths in the area. Perhaps if he did, the situation would have ended up differently. Unfortunately, we'll never know.
QuoteMaybe laws need to be changed, but this so far has been an issue that further divides people rather than unites them.
From my perspective, the laws need to be changed and yes, it divides people rather than unites, but it's something that has to be addressed sooner or later.
Not sure about being aware of other "vigilantes" in the community profiling Blacks comment Ennis. :) This is a racially mixed community with Blacks in residence. Unless you have proof of their being "vigilantes" in that community perhaps that descriptive is unfair. During and after the trial several month's of reports detailing criminal activity in the community were presented into evidence. In one case, a woman from that community testified to the case which directly impacted her, which had to do with two teenage Black kids who broke into her home while she was in it. One of the teens was caught and charge and as it turned out he lived in the self same neighborhood. It also turns out that the other crimes also had young Blacks as the perp and this is a matter of record. In that light, I don't think we can truly claim there were
vigilante attitudes at work here and Zimmerman was feeding into them. I think many in the neighborhood were on alert to suspicious behavior, especially after the break in with the woman and child home alone. As it turns out the police got there in time and grabbed the offender.
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 12:29:52 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 17, 2013, 12:26:08 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 12:21:41 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 17, 2013, 12:17:19 PM
You continue to offer no facts. Just opinion.
simply saying that repeatedly doesnt make it any more true, it just makes you sound like you are in an autistic fugue.
You have resorted to calling me insults in this thread many times and this one is the most disgusting of all.
I dont think anyone has called you 'insults', Jameson. But Im surprised that you can actually be offended while defending the murder of a child. But, hey, different strokes, i guess.
Spin spin spin, Stephen. I have not defended the murder of a child. That is simply how you interpret anyone who has a differing opinion from you in regards to any portion of the Zimmerman case.
And in typical liberal fashion, the debate ends with you resorting to name-calling.
Quote from: Keith-N-Jax on July 17, 2013, 02:43:32 AM
GZ was told not to pursue TM but he did anyway. Funny how people seem to forget this.
No one has forgotten this and it has be discussed at length here on the forum. He was asked by police if he was following the person he thought suspicious. He answered that he was the police told him "we don't need you to do that". He was not directly told to stop following him. I think what may have helped push him forward is that the officer then asked him twice about where Trayvon was located and for a street name.
I have yet to hear anyone say that Zimmerman getting out of the car to follow was not what set all of this in motion. It did.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 17, 2013, 12:31:19 PM
Not sure about being aware of other "vigilantes" in the community profiling Blacks comment Ennis. :) This is a racially mixed community with Blacks in residence. Unless you have proof of their being "vigilantes" in that community perhaps that descriptive is unfair.
Maybe, but what else do you call an over zealous neighborhood watch person who keeps going after someone they've personally profiled despite being told not too? Nevertheless, by the same token, there's no proof that the victim (who was not a permanent resident) knew black youth were being profiled by people like GZ. All the documented evidence suggests the victim thought GZ was a creepy guy following him to do bodily harm.
Btw, how did GZ get the position of neighborhood watch guy? Was he elected or appointed by some home owner's association or did a few guys in the area take this task upon themselves?
QuoteDuring and after the trial several month's of reports detailing criminal activity in the community were presented into evidence. In one case, a woman from that community testified to the case which directly impacted her, which had to do with two teenage Black kids who broke into her home while she was in it. One of the teens was caught and charge and as it turned out he lived in the self same neighborhood. It also turns out that the other crimes also had young Blacks as the perp and this is a matter of record. In that light, I don't think we can truly claim there were
vigilante attitudes at work here and Zimmerman was feeding into them. I think many in the neighborhood were on alert to suspicious behavior, especially after the break in with the woman and child home alone. As it turns out the police got there in time and grabbed the offender.
This doesn't suggest that the victim knew anything about this. All he had was a weird guy, he did not know, following him on a dark rainy and cold night in a little country town he wasn't as familiar with.
Quote from: I-10east on July 17, 2013, 05:50:06 AM
I'm gonna say my unpopular, and unbiased take on this whole Zimmerman thing for the last time, because I don't see colors unlike alot of people. To be honest, I'm sick and tired of this entire situation. I'm aware of Seminole County's history of racism, the reason that Duval had to take over, although IMO this was the wrong case at the wrong time, and a mountain was made out of a molehill, thanks to the 'gotcha' media, and the outrage. Duval, or Seminole, the outcome would still be the same.
This was a railroad attempt from the get-go; CSX, Norfolk Southern, and Union Pacific all together don't have the track mileage that this Zimmerman railroad attempt has. Why you ask? Because Angela Corey clearly withheld key evidence, Trayvon's capability in MMA ie punch in the nose, and mount & ground and pound (from his cell phone). Like it or not, that was evidence that was supposed to be turned over. What's a more significant event, getting out of a car (which isn't illegal) not following through a comment from a dispatcher (again not illegal) or getting blasted in the face, mounted and beaten the crap out of? Enough of that. People say that 'Angela Corey should've pursued manslaughter'. Well, in this railroad attempt, the judge put manslaughter on the table at the last minute along with the original charge murder 2. So I don't get why people are mad with Corey on that, I don't believe that this methodical jury was 'confused' whatsoever.
I don't see any additional charges on Zimmerman. Eric Holder from the NAACP pretty much conceded that in the Orlando convention (Federal charges) as he focused on 'changing laws' to keep the masses in check. What laws changed? I dunno. Besides, the Feds already looked through this case. Regarding a civil case, a self defense case (which this is, don't know why some or talking 'stand your ground') Zimmerman should have immunity. These protests are classic 'selective outrage' from the black community. Hundreds and hundreds of Trayvon's are murdered in black on black violence throughout the US, yet this Zimmerman thing (which can be argued either way, and that evidence pointing mainly ONE way) remains the focal point. I'm done with this overblown trial, SMH...
Actually, your view is shared by many and most of the points you are pointing to are points with which I agree. I think the Zimmerman case has become a dumping ground for long felt injustices that are valid at their core but are not bred of this case as much as this case has been tied to a legacy of past hurts, outrages and victimization.
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 12:39:41 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 17, 2013, 12:37:51 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 12:29:52 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 17, 2013, 12:26:08 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 12:21:41 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 17, 2013, 12:17:19 PM
You continue to offer no facts. Just opinion.
simply saying that repeatedly doesnt make it any more true, it just makes you sound like you are in an autistic fugue.
You have resorted to calling me insults in this thread many times and this one is the most disgusting of all.
I dont think anyone has called you 'insults', Jameson. But Im surprised that you can actually be offended while defending the murder of a child. But, hey, different strokes, i guess.
Spin spin spin, Stephen. I have not defended the murder of a child. That is simply how you interpret anyone who has a differing opinion from you in regards to any portion of the Zimmerman case.
And in typical liberal fashion, the debate ends with you resorting to name-calling.
Yawn.
So what are you defending Jameson?
Why don't you state that clearly for the record?
Are you kidding? I've been posting since page 18.
I agree with the verdict, yet at the same time I see both sides of it and I think it is a tragedy that a 17 year old died.
That is it in a nutshell. Anyone can see that by my second post in this thread on page 18.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 17, 2013, 12:40:17 PM
I think what may have helped push him forward is that the officer then asked him twice about where Trayvon was located and for a street name.
If you're neighborhood watch guy, shouldn't you be familiar with your neighborhood? One would think, someone familiar with their neighborhood would be able to answer those questions immediately and without any type of movement on their part.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 17, 2013, 12:44:36 PM
Actually, your view is shared by many and most of the points you are pointing to are points with which I agree. I think the Zimmerman case has become a dumping ground for long felt injustices that are valid at their core but are not bred of this case as much as this case has been tied to a legacy of past hurts, outrages and victimization.
From what I can tell, the verdict based upon the state law legally allowing what happened is what has really fanned the fire. GZ goes to jail for murder, manslaughter or what ever, then life goes on. However, profile and kill black youth minding his own business, then get verdict of not guilty by all white jury and you have all the necessary ingredients for what's taking place now.
For many, this situation is a harsh reminder of many past injustices. If the focus of the issue is the law and working to change it, then the discussion being bred from this case is valid.
QuoteIt's Zimmerman initial pursuit that muddies everything to me in this case
The key word here is "pursuit". Does the act of following someone constitute pursuit? As a neighborhood watch person... should he have the right to follow to find out where the "suspicious" person is headed? Is this overzealous? Is it overzealous enough to be addressed in the law above?
Not sure why everyone is so upset with the Stand Your Ground Law. It was not applicable in this case and it disproportionately BENEFITS black suspects more than white suspects in Florida.
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 09:46:18 AM
Original Jury Count: Five of the six believed Zimmerman was guilty.
And now the other jury members are distancing themselves from the woman who spoke on Anderson Cooper.
By the way, her attorney husband had already signed a book deal for her about her experiences on the trial.
http://news.yahoo.com/zimmerman-jury-initially-split-3-2-1-verdict-005342718.html
QuoteNEW YORK (Reuters) - The jury in George Zimmerman's trial initially had three votes for not guilty, two votes for manslaughter and one vote for second-degree murder when deliberations began, juror B-37 told CNN on Monday.
The jury later reached a unanimous verdict of not guilty.
"There was a couple of them in there that wanted to find him guilty of something. And after hours and hours and hours of deliberating over the law, and reading it over and over and over again, we just decided there's no other way or place to go," she told CNN.
Original count had three not guilty's, two for manslaughter and one for murder 2. The book deal was pulled according to reporting by CNN. Four other jurors made the statement that the juror on Anderson Coopers CNN show did not speak for them just herself.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 17, 2013, 12:28:03 PM
Quote from: NotNow on July 17, 2013, 09:41:45 AM
Lake,
I would ask you the same question...how, exactly, would you rewrite the law?
I'd probably start here.
Quote from: NotNow on July 17, 2013, 10:18:11 AM
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
These are the statutes that I believe apply to civilians. To see all of Chapter 776:
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/Chapter776
OK, it looks like the most applicable to this case. Would you simply erase this exception or word it differently?
Quote from: Mitch Weaver on July 17, 2013, 12:49:56 PM
Not sure why everyone is so upset with the Stand Your Ground Law. It was not applicable in this case and it disproportionately BENEFITS black suspects more than white suspects in Florida.
It's not about black vs white suspects. This type of thinking helps fan divide and flames as well. The major issue is the state law allowing the aggressor to pursue and kill the victim and then go home without any punishment. Race is then dumped into it when you start looking at our history and a ton of public policies that have been based upon skin color. It then goes haywire when all the self interest groups and media on both sides jump into the mix.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 17, 2013, 12:41:56 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 17, 2013, 12:31:19 PM
Not sure about being aware of other "vigilantes" in the community profiling Blacks comment Ennis. :) This is a racially mixed community with Blacks in residence. Unless you have proof of their being "vigilantes" in that community perhaps that descriptive is unfair.
Maybe, but what else do you call an over zealous neighborhood watch person who keeps going after someone they've personally profiled despite being told not too? Nevertheless, by the same token, there's no proof that the victim (who was not a permanent resident) knew black youth were being profiled by people like GZ. All the documented evidence suggests the victim thought GZ was a creepy guy following him to do bodily harm.
Btw, how did GZ get the position of neighborhood watch guy? Was he elected or appointed by some home owner's association or did a few guys in the area take this task upon themselves?
QuoteDuring and after the trial several month's of reports detailing criminal activity in the community were presented into evidence. In one case, a woman from that community testified to the case which directly impacted her, which had to do with two teenage Black kids who broke into her home while she was in it. One of the teens was caught and charge and as it turned out he lived in the self same neighborhood. It also turns out that the other crimes also had young Blacks as the perp and this is a matter of record. In that light, I don't think we can truly claim there were
vigilante attitudes at work here and Zimmerman was feeding into them. I think many in the neighborhood were on alert to suspicious behavior, especially after the break in with the woman and child home alone. As it turns out the police got there in time and grabbed the offender.
This doesn't suggest that the victim knew anything about this. All he had was a weird guy, he did not know, following him on a dark rainy and cold night in a little country town he wasn't as familiar with.
The victim would have known nothing of this. My question was geared toward the statement that there were other vigilantes profiling Blacks. There is no proof of that. That's what I am saying. I think if we are to get through this conversation and keep our heads on straight, we need to speak to the situation as factually as we can and this case is really short of facts. :)
Quote from: NotNow on July 17, 2013, 12:56:24 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 17, 2013, 12:28:03 PM
Quote from: NotNow on July 17, 2013, 09:41:45 AM
Lake,
I would ask you the same question...how, exactly, would you rewrite the law?
I'd probably start here.
Quote from: NotNow on July 17, 2013, 10:18:11 AM
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
These are the statutes that I believe apply to civilians. To see all of Chapter 776:
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/Chapter776
OK, it looks like the most applicable to this case. Would you simply erase this exception or word it differently?
I'd leave this up to those more well versed in law but I'd probably erase this exception. However, before that can be done, this would have to be properly reviewed in context with other laws on the books. Just isolating and erasing it would be cherry picking and could have negative impacts elsewhere.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 17, 2013, 12:59:55 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 17, 2013, 12:41:56 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 17, 2013, 12:31:19 PM
Not sure about being aware of other "vigilantes" in the community profiling Blacks comment Ennis. :) This is a racially mixed community with Blacks in residence. Unless you have proof of their being "vigilantes" in that community perhaps that descriptive is unfair.
Maybe, but what else do you call an over zealous neighborhood watch person who keeps going after someone they've personally profiled despite being told not too? Nevertheless, by the same token, there's no proof that the victim (who was not a permanent resident) knew black youth were being profiled by people like GZ. All the documented evidence suggests the victim thought GZ was a creepy guy following him to do bodily harm.
Btw, how did GZ get the position of neighborhood watch guy? Was he elected or appointed by some home owner's association or did a few guys in the area take this task upon themselves?
QuoteDuring and after the trial several month's of reports detailing criminal activity in the community were presented into evidence. In one case, a woman from that community testified to the case which directly impacted her, which had to do with two teenage Black kids who broke into her home while she was in it. One of the teens was caught and charge and as it turned out he lived in the self same neighborhood. It also turns out that the other crimes also had young Blacks as the perp and this is a matter of record. In that light, I don't think we can truly claim there were
vigilante attitudes at work here and Zimmerman was feeding into them. I think many in the neighborhood were on alert to suspicious behavior, especially after the break in with the woman and child home alone. As it turns out the police got there in time and grabbed the offender.
This doesn't suggest that the victim knew anything about this. All he had was a weird guy, he did not know, following him on a dark rainy and cold night in a little country town he wasn't as familiar with.
The victim would have known nothing of this. My question was geared toward the statement that there were other vigilantes profiling Blacks. There is not proof of that is what I am saying. I think if we are to get through this conversation and keep our heads on straight, we need to speak to the situation as factually as we can and this case is really short of facts. :)
That's not what I was meaning to imply when I wrote this:
TM was also visiting his dad, who lived in this gated community. I don't know if anyone is aware that he knew neighborhood vigilantes were over zealously profiling black youths in the area. Perhaps if he did, the situation would have ended up differently. Unfortunately, we'll never know.Maybe it should have been written like this:
TM was also visiting his dad, who lived in this gated community. I don't know if anyone is aware that he knew a neighborhood vigilante was over zealously profiling black youths in the area. Perhaps if he did, the situation would have ended up differently. Unfortunately, we'll never know.
Quote from: duvalbill on July 17, 2013, 12:27:11 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 17, 2013, 12:16:38 PM
Quote from: ronchamblin on July 16, 2013, 11:30:22 PM
Boy .... lots of discussion since I've dropped by. The killing and the verdict is all over the media .... all over the world.
It's good though .... raises issues needing discussion and resolution.
Too bad there is no clear evidence at this point to convict GZ. Maybe someone, out of the blue, will come forth as a witness, or will come up with a good video of the events ... with sound .... so that a jury can convict based on what actually happened. As we've seen, its difficult to convict based on assumptions or emotional aspects. And I am so happy for all citizens that murder convictions cannot be based on assumptions, but must rely on facts and on clear evidence.
Even without a conviction, the movers and shakers can now work on needed changes in any laws about guns and stuff.... and maybe about related societal problems.
I still think that the FBC had something to do with this thing.
More info will come about about the character of everyone involved during the civil trial and the burden of proof will be much different.
Assuming there is one.
It doesn't make much sense to sue someone that doesn't have money.
I don't quite agree. It does make sense if one is interested in justice, not money. But if it is about money, this type of suit means that if Zimmerman is found guilty he can possibly serve time depending upon Florida Law, but if there is a financial finding that would mean that if Zimmerman ever wrote a book or took a movie deal along with a complete variety of money making endeavors, that money would go to the financial judgement i.e. the Martin's.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 17, 2013, 12:46:19 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 17, 2013, 12:40:17 PM
I think what may have helped push him forward is that the officer then asked him twice about where Trayvon was located and for a street name.
If you're neighborhood watch guy, shouldn't you be familiar with your neighborhood? One would think, someone familiar with their neighborhood would be able to answer those questions immediately and without any type of movement on their part.
Agreed. But Zimmerman may have seen this as some sort of an indicator to move forward.
I think I said earlier in this thread that this discussion is a necessary one and one that can only be had with civility. There is a tendency on the part of some to feel as though statements outside of their viewpoint are attacks on their point of view. I think allowing ourselves to get caught up in a contest of words and dragging up statements made by posters in the past on other issues really does nothing to enhance the discussion but rather derails an important conversation and replaces it with personal tit for tat exchanges. I think everyone should be allowed the courtesy of their opinion without being called names or supporters of child murder or any other thing that is insulting. Reasonable people can look at a single situation and have reasonable differences in their views. Can we please keep this about the issues at hand and not about insults? Can we also agree not to take personal insult from others views but rather to actually listen to what their feelings are? We don't have to agree with them but I promise you, understanding others views and why they may feel the way they do is key to unlocking the differences among people, including perceptions of race. :)
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 17, 2013, 01:03:26 PM
Quote from: duvalbill on July 17, 2013, 12:27:11 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 17, 2013, 12:16:38 PM
Quote from: ronchamblin on July 16, 2013, 11:30:22 PM
Boy .... lots of discussion since I've dropped by. The killing and the verdict is all over the media .... all over the world.
It's good though .... raises issues needing discussion and resolution.
Too bad there is no clear evidence at this point to convict GZ. Maybe someone, out of the blue, will come forth as a witness, or will come up with a good video of the events ... with sound .... so that a jury can convict based on what actually happened. As we've seen, its difficult to convict based on assumptions or emotional aspects. And I am so happy for all citizens that murder convictions cannot be based on assumptions, but must rely on facts and on clear evidence.
Even without a conviction, the movers and shakers can now work on needed changes in any laws about guns and stuff.... and maybe about related societal problems.
I still think that the FBC had something to do with this thing.
More info will come about about the character of everyone involved during the civil trial and the burden of proof will be much different.
Assuming there is one.
It doesn't make much sense to sue someone that doesn't have money.
I don't quite agree. It does make sense if one is interested in justice, not money. But if it is about money, this type of suit means that if Zimmerman is found guilty he can possibly serve time depending upon Florida Law, but if there is a financial finding that would mean that if Zimmerman ever wrote a book or took a movie deal along with a complete variety of money making endeavors, that money would go to the financial judgement i.e. the Martin's.
Debtor jail doesn't exist anymore (Unless it pertains to child support), so he's not getting any jail time.
Florida is considered a debtor's paradise, so it would likely be a waste of money to pursue a civil suit.
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 02:03:10 PM
Quote from: duvalbill on July 17, 2013, 01:44:33 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 17, 2013, 01:03:26 PM
Quote from: duvalbill on July 17, 2013, 12:27:11 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 17, 2013, 12:16:38 PM
Quote from: ronchamblin on July 16, 2013, 11:30:22 PM
Boy .... lots of discussion since I've dropped by. The killing and the verdict is all over the media .... all over the world.
It's good though .... raises issues needing discussion and resolution.
Too bad there is no clear evidence at this point to convict GZ. Maybe someone, out of the blue, will come forth as a witness, or will come up with a good video of the events ... with sound .... so that a jury can convict based on what actually happened. As we've seen, its difficult to convict based on assumptions or emotional aspects. And I am so happy for all citizens that murder convictions cannot be based on assumptions, but must rely on facts and on clear evidence.
Even without a conviction, the movers and shakers can now work on needed changes in any laws about guns and stuff.... and maybe about related societal problems.
I still think that the FBC had something to do with this thing.
More info will come about about the character of everyone involved during the civil trial and the burden of proof will be much different.
Assuming there is one.
It doesn't make much sense to sue someone that doesn't have money.
I don't quite agree. It does make sense if one is interested in justice, not money. But if it is about money, this type of suit means that if Zimmerman is found guilty he can possibly serve time depending upon Florida Law, but if there is a financial finding that would mean that if Zimmerman ever wrote a book or took a movie deal along with a complete variety of money making endeavors, that money would go to the financial judgement i.e. the Martin's.
Debtor jail doesn't exist anymore (Unless it pertains to child support), so he's not getting any jail time.
Florida is considered a debtor's paradise, so it would likely be a waste of money to pursue a civil suit.
hardly. there are book deals and movie rights already in the offering. THis murderer is going to walk scot free and make a milion dollars for killing a kid in the suburbs. Welcome to America bro.
The exploitation of this tragedy is already shameful and growing. Pierce Morgan on CNN had the young lady friend of Trayvon on his show. The first thing out of his mouth to her was "You know you are famous now right"? So it goes. Politicians and folks looking to profit are all over this right now.
Lake,
I agree that negative impacts are a likely result. "Provoking" can mean a lot of things. If StephenDare! is following someone down the street calling them an "autistic fugue" and commences to get pounded to the point of losing his life, does he forfeit his right to self defense of his life by his in ital actions? (Sorry Dare!, just a recent example ;) )
I can see many situations where the current law would seem to fit, and many where the current law does not seem correct. Like many areas of law, it is a judgement call. We can't legislate every detail. I understand the history of race relations and the need for attention to equal treatment. It must be tough to try to write these laws to fit in every case. It must be tough to be a juror in such a case and make a decision to the best of your ability. Our system has a series of decisions that have to be made before a conviction takes place. Normally, a Police Officer must feel there is probable cause for arrest. This decision is reviewed by both Police supervisors and in most cases of violence by the State Attorney's office. The Prosecutor must agree not only with the probable cause but that there is sufficient evidence for conviction. The Police and the State Attorney are also responsible for ensuring that any evidence which tends to exonerate the accused is collected and shared as well as any incriminating evidence. A Grand Jury may be consulted. A Judge will decide any motions and oversee the selection of a jury of peers. A fair trial must be held. A LOT of decisions and a LOT of people must decide before guilt is assigned. In order for this system to be accepted, the people have to be reasonably certain that the people making the decisions are fair. The people have to be reasonably certain that the laws are fair and equally apply as written. This is where we are at. The jury has spoken in the Zimmerman trial. But it is apparent that a substantial number of the public does not have confidence in the system, be it the people making the decisions or the fairness and equality of the laws.
What I am attempting to do here is establish any logical argument against the laws...the applicable Florida State Statutes. I agree with Lake as to what actual statute applies, but I would hesitate to change the laws. I recognize that there are many who would disagree with me. But I am confident in my logic. I believe that we now have to work on the confidence of the people in the legal system that we have. I am still willing to entertain any suggested changes in the law as well.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 17, 2013, 02:09:04 PM
The exploitation of this tragedy is already shameful and growing. Pierce Morgan on CNN had the young lady friend of Trayvon on his show. The first thing out of his mouth to her was "You know you are famous now right"? So it goes. Politicians and folks looking to profit are all over this right now.
^Tom Joyner is going to pay to help her finish high school and her tuition for college. Last night, he mentioned EWC, FAMU, BCC, and Florida Memorial as possibilities through a program he offers for inner city kids. This is one of the resulting storylines that will ultimately be ignored. She'll have an opportunity to change her economic and environmental situation through continued education.
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 02:17:06 PM
Quote from: NotNow on July 17, 2013, 02:11:01 PM
Lake,
I agree that negative impacts are a likely result. "Provoking" can mean a lot of things. If StephenDare! is following someone down the street calling them an "autistic fugue" and commences to get pounded to the point of losing his life, does he forfeit his right to self defense of his life by his in ital actions? (Sorry Dare!, just a recent example ;) )
I can see many situations where the current law would seem to fit, and many where the current law does not seem correct. Like many areas of law, it is a judgement call. We can't legislate every detail. I understand the history of race relations and the need for attention to equal treatment. It must be tough to try to write these laws to fit in every case. It must be tough to be a juror in such a case and make a decision to the best of your ability. Our system has a series of decisions that have to be made before a conviction takes place. Normally, a Police Officer must feel there is probable cause for arrest. This decision is reviewed by both Police supervisors and in most cases of violence by the State Attorney's office. The Prosecutor must agree not only with the probable cause but that there is sufficient evidence for conviction. The Police and the State Attorney are also responsible for ensuring that any evidence which tends to exonerate the accused is collected and shared as well as any incriminating evidence. A Grand Jury may be consulted. A Judge will decide any motions and oversee the selection of a jury of peers. A fair trial must be held. A LOT of decisions and a LOT of people must decide before guilt is assigned. In order for this system to be accepted, the people have to be reasonably certain that the people making the decisions are fair. The people have to be reasonably certain that the laws are fair and equally apply as written. This is where we are at. The jury has spoken in the Zimmerman trial. But it is apparent that a substantial number of the public does not have confidence in the system, be it the people making the decisions or the fairness and equality of the laws.
What I am attempting to do here is establish any logical argument against the laws...the applicable Florida State Statutes. I agree with Lake as to what actual statute applies, but I would hesitate to change the laws. I recognize that there are many who would disagree with me. But I am confident in my logic. I believe that we now have to work on the confidence of the people in the legal system that we have. I am still willing to entertain any suggested changes in the law as well.
and it would be even more compelling if there was a meteor shower striking earth and we were being invaded by north korea, right? Laws are not made for the extremes, isnt that what you constantly imply when it comes to limiting gun sales, but apparently when we are considering how to shoot kids, then we must always put ourselves in the most extreme scenario? Whatever, notnow, this is some of the worst sophistry possible.
I have no idea what you are trying to say. If you think the laws should be changed, then a useful input would be to suggest what change that should be.
Please be civil.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 17, 2013, 02:14:24 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 17, 2013, 02:09:04 PM
The exploitation of this tragedy is already shameful and growing. Pierce Morgan on CNN had the young lady friend of Trayvon on his show. The first thing out of his mouth to her was "You know you are famous now right"? So it goes. Politicians and folks looking to profit are all over this right now.
^Tom Joyner is going to pay to help her finish high school and her tuition for college. Last night, he mentioned EWC, FAMU, BCC, and Florida Memorial as possibilities through a program he offers for inner city kids. This is one of the resulting storylines that will ultimately be ignored. She'll have an opportunity to change her economic and environmental situation through continued education.
Good to hear some good that will result from all of this.
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 01:55:38 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 17, 2013, 12:46:00 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 12:39:41 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 17, 2013, 12:37:51 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 12:29:52 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 17, 2013, 12:26:08 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 12:21:41 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 17, 2013, 12:17:19 PM
You continue to offer no facts. Just opinion.
simply saying that repeatedly doesnt make it any more true, it just makes you sound like you are in an autistic fugue.
You have resorted to calling me insults in this thread many times and this one is the most disgusting of all.
I dont think anyone has called you 'insults', Jameson. But Im surprised that you can actually be offended while defending the murder of a child. But, hey, different strokes, i guess.
Spin spin spin, Stephen. I have not defended the murder of a child. That is simply how you interpret anyone who has a differing opinion from you in regards to any portion of the Zimmerman case.
And in typical liberal fashion, the debate ends with you resorting to name-calling.
Yawn.
So what are you defending Jameson?
Why don't you state that clearly for the record?
Are you kidding? I've been posting since page 18.
I agree with the verdict, yet at the same time I see both sides of it and I think it is a tragedy that a 17 year old died.
That is it in a nutshell. Anyone can see that by my second post in this thread on page 18.
Well good for you then, what are you arguing about if thats all?
Now you're acting aloof and oblivious to anything and everything I've offered to the debate throughout 20 pages of this thread. Not surprising.
Quote from: NotNow on July 17, 2013, 02:11:01 PM
Lake,
I agree that negative impacts are a likely result. "Provoking" can mean a lot of things. If StephenDare! is following someone down the street calling them an "autistic fugue" and commences to get pounded to the point of losing his life, does he forfeit his right to self defense of his life by his in ital actions? (Sorry Dare!, just a recent example ;) )
I can see many situations where the current law would seem to fit, and many where the current law does not seem correct. Like many areas of law, it is a judgement call. We can't legislate every detail. I understand the history of race relations and the need for attention to equal treatment. It must be tough to try to write these laws to fit in every case. It must be tough to be a juror in such a case and make a decision to the best of your ability. Our system has a series of decisions that have to be made before a conviction takes place. Normally, a Police Officer must feel there is probable cause for arrest. This decision is reviewed by both Police supervisors and in most cases of violence by the State Attorney's office. The Prosecutor must agree not only with the probable cause but that there is sufficient evidence for conviction. The Police and the State Attorney are also responsible for ensuring that any evidence which tends to exonerate the accused is collected and shared as well as any incriminating evidence. A Grand Jury may be consulted. A Judge will decide any motions and oversee the selection of a jury of peers. A fair trial must be held. A LOT of decisions and a LOT of people must decide before guilt is assigned. In order for this system to be accepted, the people have to be reasonably certain that the people making the decisions are fair. The people have to be reasonably certain that the laws are fair and equally apply as written. This is where we are at. The jury has spoken in the Zimmerman trial. But it is apparent that a substantial number of the public does not have confidence in the system, be it the people making the decisions or the fairness and equality of the laws.
What I am attempting to do here is establish any logical argument against the laws...the applicable Florida State Statutes. I agree with Lake as to what actual statute applies, but I would hesitate to change the laws. I recognize that there are many who would disagree with me. But I am confident in my logic. I believe that we now have to work on the confidence of the people in the legal system that we have. I am still willing to entertain any suggested changes in the law as well.
I'm sorry, but Stephen the liberal doesn't see calling someone an "autistic fugue" as an insult. You now owe him an apology.
It would place fear in me if I were being followed by an unknown person in a vehicle on a lonely dark night. Zimmerman's decision to "follow" what he thought was a suspicious person, even to the point of dismounting and walking, places some responsibility on him in my eyes. While Martin certainly should not have responded by going to immediate blows, his age and lack of experience while in fear would explain such a decision to me. A CCW should be aware of what situations they are entering into.
The jury has spoken in this case. I did not hear all of the testimony and this is just my two cents.
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 02:28:24 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 17, 2013, 02:23:49 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 01:55:38 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 17, 2013, 12:46:00 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 12:39:41 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 17, 2013, 12:37:51 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 12:29:52 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 17, 2013, 12:26:08 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 12:21:41 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 17, 2013, 12:17:19 PM
You continue to offer no facts. Just opinion.
simply saying that repeatedly doesnt make it any more true, it just makes you sound like you are in an autistic fugue.
You have resorted to calling me insults in this thread many times and this one is the most disgusting of all.
I dont think anyone has called you 'insults', Jameson. But Im surprised that you can actually be offended while defending the murder of a child. But, hey, different strokes, i guess.
Spin spin spin, Stephen. I have not defended the murder of a child. That is simply how you interpret anyone who has a differing opinion from you in regards to any portion of the Zimmerman case.
And in typical liberal fashion, the debate ends with you resorting to name-calling.
Yawn.
So what are you defending Jameson?
Why don't you state that clearly for the record?
Are you kidding? I've been posting since page 18.
I agree with the verdict, yet at the same time I see both sides of it and I think it is a tragedy that a 17 year old died.
That is it in a nutshell. Anyone can see that by my second post in this thread on page 18.
Well good for you then, what are you arguing about if thats all?
Now you're acting aloof and oblivious to anything and everything I've offered to the debate throughout 20 pages of this thread. Not surprising.
Dude, I clearly asked you to state your points. You did. Do you need some time to finish your post or something?
I have been posting my points for 20+ pages! If you choose to act aloof like you haven't read them and haven't responded to them, then that is your issue.
Quote from: NotNow on July 17, 2013, 02:11:01 PM
Lake,
I agree that negative impacts are a likely result. "Provoking" can mean a lot of things. If StephenDare! is following someone down the street calling them an "autistic fugue" and commences to get pounded to the point of losing his life, does he forfeit his right to self defense of his life by his in ital actions? (Sorry Dare!, just a recent example ;) )
I can see many situations where the current law would seem to fit, and many where the current law does not seem correct. Like many areas of law, it is a judgement call. We can't legislate every detail. I understand the history of race relations and the need for attention to equal treatment. It must be tough to try to write these laws to fit in every case. It must be tough to be a juror in such a case and make a decision to the best of your ability. Our system has a series of decisions that have to be made before a conviction takes place. Normally, a Police Officer must feel there is probable cause for arrest. This decision is reviewed by both Police supervisors and in most cases of violence by the State Attorney's office. The Prosecutor must agree not only with the probable cause but that there is sufficient evidence for conviction. The Police and the State Attorney are also responsible for ensuring that any evidence which tends to exonerate the accused is collected and shared as well as any incriminating evidence. A Grand Jury may be consulted. A Judge will decide any motions and oversee the selection of a jury of peers. A fair trial must be held. A LOT of decisions and a LOT of people must decide before guilt is assigned. In order for this system to be accepted, the people have to be reasonably certain that the people making the decisions are fair. The people have to be reasonably certain that the laws are fair and equally apply as written. This is where we are at. The jury has spoken in the Zimmerman trial. But it is apparent that a substantial number of the public does not have confidence in the system, be it the people making the decisions or the fairness and equality of the laws.
What I am attempting to do here is establish any logical argument against the laws...the applicable Florida State Statutes. I agree with Lake as to what actual statute applies, but I would hesitate to change the laws. I recognize that there are many who would disagree with me. But I am confident in my logic. I believe that we now have to work on the confidence of the people in the legal system that we have. I am still willing to entertain any suggested changes in the law as well.
Good information Not Now.
Also, for the record, I have been informed that there is indeed no jail time adjudicated in a civil trial. That's what I get for listening to a pseudo law professional. lol
Quote from: Jameson on July 17, 2013, 02:23:49 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 01:55:38 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 17, 2013, 12:46:00 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 12:39:41 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 17, 2013, 12:37:51 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 12:29:52 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 17, 2013, 12:26:08 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 12:21:41 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 17, 2013, 12:17:19 PM
You continue to offer no facts. Just opinion.
simply saying that repeatedly doesnt make it any more true, it just makes you sound like you are in an autistic fugue.
You have resorted to calling me insults in this thread many times and this one is the most disgusting of all.
I dont think anyone has called you 'insults', Jameson. But Im surprised that you can actually be offended while defending the murder of a child. But, hey, different strokes, i guess.
Spin spin spin, Stephen. I have not defended the murder of a child. That is simply how you interpret anyone who has a differing opinion from you in regards to any portion of the Zimmerman case.
And in typical liberal fashion, the debate ends with you resorting to name-calling.
Yawn.
So what are you defending Jameson?
Why don't you state that clearly for the record?
Are you kidding? I've been posting since page 18.
I agree with the verdict, yet at the same time I see both sides of it and I think it is a tragedy that a 17 year old died.
That is it in a nutshell. Anyone can see that by my second post in this thread on page 18.
Well good for you then, what are you arguing about if thats all?
Now you're acting aloof and oblivious to anything and everything I've offered to the debate throughout 20 pages of this thread. Not surprising.
Let it go please. Others are reading your posts and you have had some valuable views in my opinion. :)
There is value in everyone's opinion in my view Stephen. I value yours. You don't have to agree with the view being pro offered but the views of each individual play a part in the overall picture of why this trial has been received the way it has and why it seems to be so difficult to discuss issues like race. I learned a long time ago that what may seem preposterous for me because of my values, experience and thought process may not seem that way to another perfectly reasonable human being because their values, experience and thought process is different than mine. That is what is at the core of much dispute on a variety of issues. We can only share our view and hope others may see the value in it. Lambasting their view really doesn't make them more likely to listen to ones own. At least that has been my experience. :)
The jury could only speak on what the particular issue they were tasked to address was about. From what I understand, that issue was if GZ had a legal right to kill TM at the moment he thought his life was in fear. Nothing else involving the incident really mattered.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on July 17, 2013, 11:41:52 AM
In those other threads most who took great issue with the outcome of the trial defined Zimmerman as the aggressor. Meaning that the act of following someone deemed suspicious is enough to warrant the label as "aggressor". IMHO the only modification to the law would be to more clearly define aggressor.
Quote776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—
Good point. I had not looked at it from this angle.
Quote from: NotNow on July 17, 2013, 09:40:25 AM
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 16, 2013, 11:17:21 PM
I don't think I will move on until the laws are changed so that murders similar to the one GZ committed are punished as criminal behavior.
How, exactly, would you rewrite the law?
Exactly is a bit much to ask as laws need to be carefully crafted seems like there are always unintended consequences. However what I would like to get to is some protection or additional consideration for someone who sees a situation as dangerous, creepy, sketchy ect.. and tries to leave the area as a means resolve these feelings. I think if you do this and trouble (or reasonably perceived trouble) stays on your heels it should constitute some form of harassment.
As it would apply to this case is that if Zimmerman's gun were used as a result of harassing TM then it wold not be justifiable for him to use deadly force during the commission of this crime.
Now I also don't want to make it easier for criminals to commit crimes. I think we could set up parameters for reasonable watching out. Obviously someone running off with your stereo in their arms or having just committed an assault should not be afforded this protection.
I think that if we let people bird dog 17 year olds that we can expect some of them to over react. Really I think lots of people might over react perhaps their fight instinct kicks in, perhaps they run to their car and dangerously drive off in a panic or a million other bad decisions someone could make if they feel like they avoiding trouble didn't work.
I find it reasonable for people who choose to leave trouble alone to be left alone.
Quote from: NotNow on July 17, 2013, 02:31:09 PM
It would place fear in me if I were being followed by an unknown person in a vehicle on a lonely dark night. Zimmerman's decision to "follow" what he thought was a suspicious person, even to the point of dismounting and walking, places some responsibility on him in my eyes. While Martin certainly should not have responded by going to immediate blows, his age and lack of experience while in fear would explain such a decision to me. A CCW should be aware of what situations they are entering into.
The jury has spoken in this case. I did not hear all of the testimony and this is just my two cents.
+1
Also keep in mind that SYG played no part in the Zimmerman case as they did not use it as the defense. However using examples from the case to make your point though is fine IMO. And yes, changing the law to more accurately define "aggressor" could very well be all that needs to be done. When I read some of the cases that that Tampa newspaper found, I was appalled. People getting shot in the back, people shooting two or more unarmed people, and all getting away with it.
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 02:33:08 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 17, 2013, 02:28:45 PM
I'm sorry, but Stephen the liberal doesn't see calling someone an "autistic fugue" as an insult. You now owe him an apology.
hmm. if you think im going to react to this angle, you are sadly mistaken. In fact, if you are implying that I think you sound like the worst, most insulting kind of way to call someone a retard, I certainly wouldnt mind if you repeated that.
So I dont know where that leaves you Jameson.
Now do you still need some time to sum up what it is that you are debating, because Im sure I don't know (and it sounds like you might not either)
If you cant, then I think we can go back to assuming this is about your need to blame Trayvon for his own murder.
You think I'm trying to get a reaction out of you? Hardly. I'm simply pointing out that you choose to use a term so loosely to insult someone on a message board that so many find offensive - especially those with mentally handicapped children, friends, etc. I find it offensive. It's disgusting.
But at the same time, I'm not at all surprised. Throughout years of discussion and debating liberals, I've found that in the end, they seem to always resort to name-calling and insults.
As for what I'm debating, I'm still waiting for you to answer the questions I asked on page 37:
Would stricter gun laws have stopped Herman Pickens from killing Robert Sutton at Mojo No.4 a couple of weeks ago? He was a convicted felon who has been arrested every year of his adult life who used a stolen gun. Or to give me an example of how stricter gun laws would stop all of the murders in Chicago:
Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country yet 54 people were shot dead during the Zimmerman trial. The majority of their murders are gang, robbery, or drug related. You think that gang members go through background checks to obtain their weapons? Again, the fact that will ignore the illegal gun exploits of people like Herman Pickens and Chicago gang members while at the same time trying to lump people like Adam Lanza, James Holmes, GZ, and Joe Anybody who happens to be a law-abiding citizen with a concealed weapons permit who is a gun enthusiast who only uses his guns at the range or to go hunting and has never been accused or convicted of any crime - much less one involving a gun - together into the same category to fit your "gun nut" argument is not only ridiculous, but stereotypical.
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 02:54:28 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 17, 2013, 02:45:26 PM
There is value in everyone's opinion in my view Stephen. I value yours. You don't have to agree with the view being pro offered but the views of each individual play a part in the overall picture of why this trial has been received the way it has and why it seems to be so difficult to discuss issues like race. I learned a long time ago that what may seem preposterous for me because of my values, experience and thought process may not seem that way to another perfectly reasonable human being because their values, experience and thought process is different than mine. That is what is at the core of much dispute in a variety of issues. We can only share our view and hope others may see the value in it. Lambasting their view really doesn't make them more likely to listen to ones own. At least that has been my experience. :)
Well, knowing Jameson in real life, I suspect he could probably not give a flying rats ass about race. He's mostly a disgruntled libertarian politically, and he prefers more latitude in people's sense of personal liberties, even to be offensive if they want. (a belief that we share, although we differ on respecting social rules in different settings, I suspect)
I also suspect that he is having the race discussion because he believes in gun rights, isn't really educated on the history of the ALEC sponsored 'stand your ground' laws, and thinks that any infringement on guns is an infringement on the second amendment.
No matter how recent or egregious those laws might be.
Many people think that an anti gun agenda is being furthered by a racial discourse, not realizing that they are two separate issues that are being combined into one issue with this case.
Finally I would predict that Jameson didnt bother to read our early commentary on these exact subjects in the beginning of the thread, jumped in at a trigger word, and finds himself in the position of arguing issues that he would rather not be pigeonholed on.
Not being able to find a graceful exit, hes attempting to man his way out of the conversation with a few gruff words. ;)
I understand Stephen, but he has a right to his voice and people can give value to his words as it suits them. The same goes for anything we post as well. A few of us know several of the other posters personally and may even have opinions of them, but the majority who read here likely do not. I think it is only fair to let each persons statements stand on their own.
Quote from: Jameson on July 17, 2013, 03:01:33 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 02:33:08 PM
Quote from: Jameson on July 17, 2013, 02:28:45 PM
I'm sorry, but Stephen the liberal doesn't see calling someone an "autistic fugue" as an insult. You now owe him an apology.
hmm. if you think im going to react to this angle, you are sadly mistaken. In fact, if you are implying that I think you sound like the worst, most insulting kind of way to call someone a retard, I certainly wouldnt mind if you repeated that.
So I dont know where that leaves you Jameson.
Now do you still need some time to sum up what it is that you are debating, because Im sure I don't know (and it sounds like you might not either)
If you cant, then I think we can go back to assuming this is about your need to blame Trayvon for his own murder.
You think I'm trying to get a reaction out of you? Hardly. I'm simply pointing out that you choose to use a term so loosely to insult someone on a message board that so many find offensive - especially those with mentally handicapped children, friends, etc. I find it offensive. It's disgusting.
But at the same time, I'm not at all surprised. Throughout years of discussion and debating liberals, I've found that in the end, they seem to always resort to name-calling and insults.
As for what I'm debating, I'm still waiting for you to answer the questions I asked on page 37:
Would stricter gun laws have stopped Herman Pickens from killing Robert Sutton at Mojo No.4 a couple of weeks ago? He was a convicted felon who has been arrested every year of his adult life who used a stolen gun.
Or to give me an example of how stricter gun laws would stop all of the murders in Chicago:
Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country yet 54 people were shot dead during the Zimmerman trial. The majority of their murders are gang, robbery, or drug related. You think that gang members go through background checks to obtain their weapons?
Again, the fact that will ignore the illegal gun exploits of people like Herman Pickens and Chicago gang members while at the same time trying to lump people like Adam Lanza, James Holmes, GZ, and Joe Anybody who happens to be a law-abiding citizen with a concealed weapons permit who is a gun enthusiast who only uses his guns at the range or to go hunting and has never been accused or convicted of any crime - much less one involving a gun - together into the same category to fit your "gun nut" argument is not only ridiculous, but stereotypical.
You have said your peace. Everyone has heard both views. Time for all parties to stand down. :)
I am not offering advice Stephen, just commentary. I hope that is okay. :)
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 03:11:30 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 17, 2013, 03:08:13 PM
I am not offering advice Stephen, just commentary. I hope that is okay. :)
yes of course! also I finished my post, it posted before I could (blame a small teacup chuhuahua, im taking my mother her lunch while she is ill).
Would you be interested?
Yes that would be lovely, but it would have to be when these bones of mine allow me to. I am in the middle of an illness relapse right now which is difficult but not new to me. lol However I would be more than pleased to when I feel stronger. When were you thinking time wise?
It would be helpful if the Tampa piece had just let the commentary go and given just the facts of the cases. I won't put too much into that bit of journalism until I see unbiased case briefs.
Why thank you Stephen. What topic do you have in mind? Perhaps I can be thinking about it. You may want to take a poll on how fascinating I might be on video though. lmao
Well politics is always an interesting topic for me. :) I have a love/hate thing going on with them.
Speaking of politics, what do others think the politics surrounding and within this case are? Do you think there are any and if so how have the influenced this trial and public opinion?
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 02:54:28 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 17, 2013, 02:45:26 PM
There is value in everyone's opinion in my view Stephen. I value yours. You don't have to agree with the view being pro offered but the views of each individual play a part in the overall picture of why this trial has been received the way it has and why it seems to be so difficult to discuss issues like race. I learned a long time ago that what may seem preposterous for me because of my values, experience and thought process may not seem that way to another perfectly reasonable human being because their values, experience and thought process is different than mine. That is what is at the core of much dispute in a variety of issues. We can only share our view and hope others may see the value in it. Lambasting their view really doesn't make them more likely to listen to ones own. At least that has been my experience. :)
Well, knowing Jameson in real life, I suspect he could probably not give a flying rats ass about race. He's mostly a disgruntled libertarian politically, and he prefers more latitude in people's sense of personal liberties, even to be offensive if they want. (a belief that we share, although we differ on respecting social rules in different settings, I suspect)
I also suspect that he is having the race discussion because he believes in gun rights, isn't really educated on the history of the ALEC sponsored 'stand your ground' laws, and thinks that any infringement on guns is an infringement on the second amendment.
No matter how recent or egregious those laws might be.
Many people think that an anti gun agenda is being furthered by a racial discourse, not realizing that they are two separate issues that are being combined into one issue with this case.
Finally I would predict that Jameson didnt bother to read our early commentary on these exact subjects in the beginning of the thread, jumped in at a trigger word, and finds himself in the position of arguing issues that he would rather not be pigeonholed on.
Not being able to find a graceful exit, hes attempting to man his way out of the conversation with a few gruff words. ;)
Diane, you are very wise and I applaud you for seeing that we are all entitled to our own opinions and that we should try to refrain from lambasting others.
Stephen, you are correct - I could care less about race. That is why I find it so frustrating that so many people have looked at the Zimmerman case racially instead of logically.
I believe in gun rights. I am a gun owner. I also think that in order for people to possess a certain type of firearm (AR-15, for example) that they should have to pass a psychological exam.
I don't see the gun issue as being fueled by racial discourse.
I did read the earlier commentary and jumped in where I saw fit. I'll debate any issue, not just the Zimmerman case, gun laws, etc.
Really, any type of debate ended when you resorted to insults. It should have stopped there and I should have discontinued posting.
Lastly, yes, I am a Libertarian but no, I am not disgruntled. I do not want people to think like me. I want people to simply think. Our individuality is what makes us unique as a whole.
Quote from: Jameson on July 17, 2013, 03:48:29 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 02:54:28 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 17, 2013, 02:45:26 PM
There is value in everyone's opinion in my view Stephen. I value yours. You don't have to agree with the view being pro offered but the views of each individual play a part in the overall picture of why this trial has been received the way it has and why it seems to be so difficult to discuss issues like race. I learned a long time ago that what may seem preposterous for me because of my values, experience and thought process may not seem that way to another perfectly reasonable human being because their values, experience and thought process is different than mine. That is what is at the core of much dispute in a variety of issues. We can only share our view and hope others may see the value in it. Lambasting their view really doesn't make them more likely to listen to ones own. At least that has been my experience. :)
Well, knowing Jameson in real life, I suspect he could probably not give a flying rats ass about race. He's mostly a disgruntled libertarian politically, and he prefers more latitude in people's sense of personal liberties, even to be offensive if they want. (a belief that we share, although we differ on respecting social rules in different settings, I suspect)
I also suspect that he is having the race discussion because he believes in gun rights, isn't really educated on the history of the ALEC sponsored 'stand your ground' laws, and thinks that any infringement on guns is an infringement on the second amendment.
No matter how recent or egregious those laws might be.
Many people think that an anti gun agenda is being furthered by a racial discourse, not realizing that they are two separate issues that are being combined into one issue with this case.
Finally I would predict that Jameson didnt bother to read our early commentary on these exact subjects in the beginning of the thread, jumped in at a trigger word, and finds himself in the position of arguing issues that he would rather not be pigeonholed on.
Not being able to find a graceful exit, hes attempting to man his way out of the conversation with a few gruff words. ;)
Diane, you are very wise and I applaud you for seeing that we are all entitled to our own opinions and that we should try to refrain from lambasting others.
Stephen, you are correct - I could care less about race. That is why I find it so frustrating that so many people have looked at the Zimmerman case racially instead of logically.
I believe in gun rights. I am a gun owner. I also think that in order for people to possess a certain type of firearm (AR-15, for example) that they should have to pass a psychological exam.
I don't see the gun issue as being fueled by racial discourse.
I did read the earlier commentary and jumped in where I saw fit. I'll debate any issue, not just the Zimmerman case, gun laws, etc.
Really, any type of debate ended when you resorted to insults. It should have stopped there and I should have discontinued posting.
Lastly, yes, I am a Libertarian but no, I am not disgruntled. I do not want people to think like me. I want people to simply think. Our individuality is what makes us unique as a whole.
+1
Speaking to politics and political fallout. I wonder if Scott bargained for all the attention his office would be getting when he stepped into this case?
From The Daily Record: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=540017
Quoteby Margie Menzel, The News Service of Florida
About 40 students sat in Tuesday at the governor's office, waiting for Gov. Rick Scott to return from a trip to New York and take up their demand for a special legislative session addressing laws they say unfairly affect minority youth.
As of shortly before 5 p.m., they were leaving Scott's waiting area and making plans to spend the night in the Capitol rotunda.
The students, part of a group called the Dream Defenders, said they're responding to the "not guilty" verdict in the trial of George Zimmerman, who was charged with second-degree murder in the shooting death last year of black teen Trayvon Martin in Seminole County.
They want Florida's controversial "stand your ground" self-defense law changed. They asked for a meeting with Scott, and when told he was unavailable, vowed to wait for his return.
They want Scott to call a special session to create a Trayvon Martin Civil Rights Act and address "stand your ground vigilantism, racial profiling and a war on youth that paints us as criminals and funnels us out of schools and into jails."
Scott's office put out a statement suggesting the governor is unlikely to meet their demands.
"As the governor has said, as a father and a grandfather, his heart goes out to Trayvon Martin's family and all those affected by his death," said communications director Melissa Sellers in an email.
"We are grateful that people across our great nation have the right to assemble and share their views. ... Immediately following Trayvon Martin's death, Gov. Scott called a bi-partisan special task force with 19 citizens to review Florida's Stand Your Ground law. This task force listened to Floridians across the state and heard their viewpoints and expert opinions on this law. The task force recommended that the law should not be overturned, and Gov. Scott agrees," she said.
The governor's task force did not include opponents of the controversial "stand your ground" law, although Senate Minority Leader Chris Smith (D-Fort Lauderdale) had asked to be appointed. The panel recommended few changes, and the 2013 Legislature refused to hear any bills that would have changed "stand your ground."
"Even the governor's task force filed legislation that wasn't heard," Smith said. "There was a fear of even discussing it. But I think the more and more pressure that's put on Florida to at least have the discussion, I think (it) will happen this year."
The "stand-your-ground" law drew widespread publicity when Zimmerman was not arrested for 44 days after shooting the 17-year-old Martin. The law says people have a right to meet "force with force" if they reasonably believe such steps are necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.
While Zimmerman ultimately was arrested and charged with second-degree murder, a six-member jury Saturday found him not guilty.
The students sat in the governor's waiting room from 11 a.m. until shortly before close of business. As Capitol police looked on, they sang and chanted and took turns describing their own encounters with racism.
"So you're telling me — again — that people who look like me, we don't matter," said Shamile Louis, 21, a student at the University of Florida who came from Gainesville to participate.
"Our bodies don't matter. We can lie in the street and be dead and it's cool. I had a friend killed about a month ago in Orlando. Still no arrest. Still no nothing. Another black man gone. Another young black boy without a father. And so that's why I'm here today," Louis said.
Dorothy Inman-Johnson, a retired poverty-agency administrator and former mayor of Tallahassee, said she she'll keep protesting until "stand your ground" is abolished.
"If 'stand your ground' was doing what these legislators said it was supposed to do, the presumption of self-defense should have been Trayvon's, not George Zimmerman's," she said.
There were about 100 protestors when they first marched to Scott's office, but their numbers dwindled as the day wore on. They ate pizza and played cards while waiting. Some said they expect buses to add to their numbers Wednesday, with groups coming from Miami, Boca Raton, Orlando and Alabama.
Which law is the "outrage" about? The one that doesn't apply to this case? The jury didn't see Zimmerman as the aggressor.
Any other "outrage" is simply an outside agenda.
Not Now, what is the legal age for gun ownership in Florida or for concealed weapon permitting? I know kids can own rifles, is that the same for handguns?
Stephen, the juror on CNN with Anderson Cooper said that the initial vote of the jury was three for not guilty, two for manslaughter and one for murder two. What is the source for five jurors wanting convictions initially? I count three initially for a conviction of some type and in the end one holdout who finally went not guilty.
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 04:38:24 PM
Quote from: NotNow on July 17, 2013, 04:32:53 PM
Which law is the "outrage" about? The one that doesn't apply to this case? The jury didn't see Zimmerman as the aggressor.
Any other "outrage" is simply an outside agenda.
actually. you are saying that either the jurors who have spoken up are lying or you simply don't know what you are talking about.
five of the six looked for convictions.
And the legal system which allows you to take up for your buddy who shot kiko battles to death in front of his grandmother is what I'm referring to.
Now if you would like to re discuss the long history of precedents pushed forward by cops killing people on this basis that came before the stand your ground measures that were part of the jury instructions, then I will be glad to oblige you by linking to Chrisw's 900 different articles about cops killing young men.
But hopefully ive been able to clearly define what i am alluding to without having to retread the old conversations.
I know exactly what I am talking about. The jury found Mr. Zimmerman "not guilty". Your speculation on the case means absolutely nothing.
I will not respond to your goading about Officer involved shootings other than to say the accuracy of your facts remains consistently poor. It has nothing to do with the conversation on this thread.
I will repeat myself, at the risk of engaging in foolishness with you...which law, specifically, are you "outraged" about?
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 17, 2013, 04:38:30 PM
Not Now, what is the legal age for gun ownership in Florida or for concealed weapon permitting? I know kids can own rifles, is that the same for handguns?
18 for rifles, 21 for handguns I believe.
Quote from: NotNow on July 17, 2013, 04:48:39 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 17, 2013, 04:38:30 PM
Not Now, what is the legal age for gun ownership in Florida or for concealed weapon permitting? I know kids can own rifles, is that the same for handguns?
18 for rifles, 21 for handguns I believe.
Thank you Not Now. So is it then illegal for a child under 18 to use a hunting rifle. (outside of this discussion I know but just curious.
Mitch, according to what Not Now just shared, had Trayvon brought a gun to the fight that night he would have done so illegally. Just a point worth considering when talking about that particular interaction and what may have happened. ;)
Quote from: Mitch Weaver on July 17, 2013, 04:54:42 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 04:38:24 PM
Quote from: NotNow on July 17, 2013, 04:32:53 PM
Which law is the "outrage" about? The one that doesn't apply to this case? The jury didn't see Zimmerman as the aggressor.
Any other "outrage" is simply an outside agenda.
actually. you are saying that either the jurors who have spoken up are lying or you simply don't know what you are talking about.
five of the six looked for convictions.
And the legal system which allows you to take up for your buddy who shot kiko battles to death in front of his grandmother is what I'm referring to.
Now if you would like to re discuss the long history of precedents pushed forward by cops killing people on this basis that came before the stand your ground measures that were part of the jury instructions, then I will be glad to oblige you by linking to Chrisw's 900 different articles about cops killing young men.
But hopefully ive been able to clearly define what i am alluding to without having to retread the old conversations.
94% of black people murdered are murdered by black people. Couldn't we make more of an impact by focusing on that number than the other 6% by (presumably) Hispanics, whites, and cops? I get it. Murder is bad. Period. I don't want to see anyone murdered. But I don't need a bunch of people who make a living by race baiting and their "look at me, I know a black person, but didn't grow up with any" white guilted counterparts in the media telling me I should be outraged by a guy being found not guilty of murder.
For the purpose of discussion, what is the source of the facts in this statement and will you please share them with a link? Thanks
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 17, 2013, 05:01:27 PM
Quote from: NotNow on July 17, 2013, 04:48:39 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 17, 2013, 04:38:30 PM
Not Now, what is the legal age for gun ownership in Florida or for concealed weapon permitting? I know kids can own rifles, is that the same for handguns?
18 for rifles, 21 for handguns I believe.
Thank you Not Now. So is it then illegal for a child under 18 to use a hunting rifle. (outside of this discussion I know but just curious.
Mitch, according to what Not Now just shared, had Trayvon brought a gun to the fight that night he would have done so illegally. Just a point worth considering when talking about that particular interaction and what may have happened. ;)
Children can hunt with their parents. Or other responsible adults.
Thanks for the more reasoned response. I certainly understand the frustration felt. I could recount many, many jury verdicts that I did not personally agree with, along with many more State Attorney or judicial decisions. I have learned to live with our imperfect system, as you have.
A point that I have been meaning to bring up to Lake...Black people or Gay people aren't the only ones who have an honest fear about walking places not only in the South but throughout the country. Some of the posts you see here reflect the feeling of many whites that they are targeted and taken advantage of. Even your implication of "yuppie apartments" is an example. Blacks don't have the sole claim on being poor either. The vast majority of whites struggle economically as well.
I think we can all agree that racism in any form is detrimental. And that despite the failings and constant attention that our criminal justice system requires, it is still the best system we have yet devised.
We can continue to disagree on political issues like gun control. But we can only communicate when we are exchanging ideas based on facts. Shouting matches result in...shouting matches. I know I have been guilty of many of them.
Quote from: Mitch Weaver on July 17, 2013, 05:23:57 PM
I actually agree with most of what you said. I'm all about victim advocacy. Would you disagree that had Zimmerman not had a gun he may have been the victim? Although it is likely none of us would be familiar with the case.
Since everyone is pretty much making assumptions now, GZ would not have died. He just would have been a victim of a good ass kicking for a fight he started.
Quote from: NotNow on July 17, 2013, 05:28:50 PM
A point that I have been meaning to bring up to Lake...Black people or Gay people aren't the only ones who have an honest fear about walking places not only in the South but throughout the country. Some of the posts you see here reflect the feeling of many whites that they are targeted and taken advantage of. Even your implication of "yuppie apartments" is an example. Blacks don't have the sole claim on being poor either. The vast majority of whites struggle economically as well.
I really don't understand why everyone keeps saying race isn't an issue but keeps isolating events and people based on skin color. I've been pretty consistent on all of these threads with my claim that crime isn't skin color specific. The real relationship focuses on economics and environment.
QuoteI think we can all agree that racism in any form is detrimental. And that despite the failings and constant attention that our criminal justice system requires, it is still the best system we have yet devised.
There's always room for improvement. Tragedies like this will continue to push us to improve and tweek laws where needed.
QuoteWe can continue to disagree on political issues like gun control. But we can only communicate when we are exchanging ideas based on facts. Shouting matches result in...shouting matches. I know I have been guilty of many of them.
Definitely agree here. My head is about to pop as I keep reading posts featuring cherry picked statistical data (clearly taken out of context), like black-on-black crime.
I agree that economics is the main driver. The social problems have to be solved as well though. It seems so simple...focus on jobs and education. I suppose the difference between most of us would be just how to get people to work and how to keep kids in line and in school.
Well Ennis, don't let your head explode. We all need you. I would agree several of the ongoing threads are at the very least a challenge to walk though emotionally and intellectually, but this forum is doing far better in these conversations than any other social exchange I have seen currently taking place.
As far as statistics go, they are literally all over the place depending on who is doing the counting. The only ones I can currently have in faith in are those that are in the hands of the Sheriffs office which are based on the records of crime, arrests, convictions and incarcerations for Jacksonville. I don't have the recent numbers but they may be available on the JSO site. However they would only represent Duval.
Quote from: NotNow on July 17, 2013, 05:44:48 PM
I agree that economics is the main driver. The social problems have to be solved as well though. It seems so simple...focus on jobs and education. I suppose the difference between most of us would be just how to get people to work and how to keep kids in line and in school.
Social is based off of economics and environment. What you have now is the result of several economic, political and environmental factors in place over several previous generations. The focus is simple. However, I think many of us may be too impatient in the wait for large scale results. It took us generations to get to where we are today and it could take just as many to go in an opposite direction.
For those who are interested, here is a link to the JSO where you can find stats and info about our community including crime. You can also contact JSO through this page and request information on criminal statistics, including breakdown by race.
http://www.coj.net/departments/sheriffs-office/crime-statistics.aspx
There are two ways to make money... earn it or take it. Earning it takes time. Taking it gets you killed.
I'm a firm believer in motivation. I think EVERYBODY wants to be successful, they just need a clear path and motivation. Simply reward the positive, discourage the negative.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 17, 2013, 05:50:30 PM
Quote from: NotNow on July 17, 2013, 05:44:48 PM
I agree that economics is the main driver. The social problems have to be solved as well though. It seems so simple...focus on jobs and education. I suppose the difference between most of us would be just how to get people to work and how to keep kids in line and in school.
Social is based off of economics and environment. What you have now is the result of several economic, political and environmental factors in place over several previous generations. The focus is simple. However, I think many of us may be too impatient in the wait for large scale results. It took us generations to get to where we are today and it could take just as many to go in an opposite direction.
Indeed it will take a long time Ennis. I don't know as I will be here to see the results but they will come with hard and insightful work. I do believe your children will reap the benefit and the ones following them will marvel at these days and wonder why.
I said "make money". I'm not talking about those that already have it. And I'm not talking about 'fabulous wealth". I'm talking about an increasing net worth that allows for a good life and a reasonable retirement. The poverty stricken..don't have to be.
Indeed, but inheriting is not that bad. :)
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 17, 2013, 06:02:54 PM
Indeed, but inheriting is not that bad. :)
I wouldn't know.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 17, 2013, 05:52:58 PM
For those who are interested, here is a link to the JSO where you can find stats and info about our community including crime. You can also contact JSO through this page and request information on criminal statistics, including breakdown by race.
http://www.coj.net/departments/sheriffs-office/crime-statistics.aspx
Maybe I missed it but I couldn't find the corresponding laying information on economic/environmental factors such as household income/educational levels, density, etc. It's kind of hard to evaluate criminal statistics without understanding the context.
I know we don't have this, but it would be cool to see how public policy has impacted areas of higher than average crime over the years. For example, historically, have certain neighborhoods been the victim of real estate redlining, meaning long time families have not seen much gain in wealth in property owned since WWII? Are some areas dealing with the placement of federally funded housing projects where high densities of low income households are grouped together in a compact setting?
To some, these questions may seem crazy but if this information was overlayed with crime data, combined they could tell an interesting story. Such data could also be used in the planning of our city, revitalization of economically distressed neighborhoods, turning around stagnant neighborhoods, and preserving economically viable areas. Such data could also look at the economic status of neighborhoods where schools and libraries have already been closed. This could help us make rational decisions when it comes to our local budget cutting process that rears its ugly head every summer.
Anyway, I'm just brainstorming out loud. I'd love to see what others have to think about this.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 17, 2013, 06:08:11 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 17, 2013, 05:52:58 PM
For those who are interested, here is a link to the JSO where you can find stats and info about our community including crime. You can also contact JSO through this page and request information on criminal statistics, including breakdown by race.
http://www.coj.net/departments/sheriffs-office/crime-statistics.aspx
Maybe I missed it but I couldn't find the corresponding laying information on economic/environmental factors such as household income/educational levels, density, etc. It's kind of hard to evaluate criminal statistics without understanding the context.
I know we don't have this, but it would be cool to see how public policy has impacted areas of higher than average crime over the years. For example, historically, have certain neighborhoods been the victim of real estate redlining, meaning long time families have not seen much gain in wealth in property owned since WWII? Are some areas dealing with the placement of federally funded housing projects where high densities of low income households are grouped together in a compact setting?
To some, these questions may seem crazy but if this information was overlayed with crime data, combined they could tell an interesting story. Such data could also be used in the planning of our city, revitalization of economically distressed neighborhoods, turning around stagnant neighborhoods, and preserving economically viable areas. Such data could also look at the economic status of neighborhoods where schools and libraries have already been closed. This could help us make rational decisions when it comes to our local budget cutting process that rears its ugly head every summer.
Anyway, I'm just brainstorming out loud. I'd love to see what others have to think about this.
That may not be online Ennis. It may have been a hand out during a meeting some time back. I will try and remember what department put it together. There is a crime mapping overlay I believe online. If I can remember the department that had the economic overlay info perhaps you can create an overlay.
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 06:09:15 PM
Quote from: NotNow on July 17, 2013, 06:01:47 PM
I said "make money". I'm not talking about those that already have it. And I'm not talking about 'fabulous wealth". I'm talking about an increasing net worth that allows for a good life and a reasonable retirement. The poverty stricken..don't have to be.
Some one has to be, notnow. the system is based on a 15% poverty level or below constant. Until we eliminate human labor, you have to have cheap labor for it to work the way it does now.
Hence illegal immigration, poverty zones and the prison industry.
"The system"? What is your source? I would postulate that such activity is because of the poverty, rather than in support of it. Illegal immigration undercuts wages in this country in some areas. (Meatpacking as an example.) I'm not sure what "poverty zones" you are speaking of...and prisons...are not an industry. They are a drag on society that should be greatly reformed into something completely different for most prisoners. I am sure that we will disagree on this.
No one is "doomed" to poverty. There is no law saying any one individual or group cannot get an education, training, and a job. What stops them? That is where our efforts need to be focused. Eradicate what stops people from accomplishing success. Be brave enough to expect success.
I am pretty familiar with prisons, or at least the concept. Perhaps you misunderstand. My statement is meant to emphasize that "prison" cannot be a useful industry. Locking up human potential is very wasteful, no matter how many guards you employ.
I know why the incarceration rate is rising. And we can do a lot locally to reduce that, while changing our system of punishment.
but the discussion is about poverty and its relationship with crime...don't forget.
Are you really convinced that 15% of the population must live in poverty?
Again, if you would simply stick to exchanging facts and ideas rather than speaking down to people, some might actually consider some of your points.
As for prison industry, I can point you to the Florida State Prison PRIDE site:
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/annual/9596/pride.html
And yes, Arizona's imigration laws were about border security. The controversial part was allowing state and local officers to enforce federal immigration laws. Immigration violators are returned to their home country.
Once again, you are becoming argumentative without accurate information.
Now, last chance for a real exchange of information, are you ready to discuss the original subject, which is economic status and its effect on crime?
Quote from: Mitch Weaver on July 17, 2013, 12:49:56 PM
Not sure why everyone is so upset with the Stand Your Ground Law. It was not applicable in this case and it disproportionately BENEFITS black suspects more than white suspects in Florida.
Why Stand Your Ground Is Central To George Zimmerman's Case After All
By Nicole Flatow on Jul 15, 2013 at 1:59 pm (found on Think Progress)
The Stand Your Ground law that gained notoriety in the wake of Trayvon Martin's shooting became central to the case again last week, when written instructions advised the jury that found shooter George Zimmerman not guilty to take the law's central provision into account.The law that authorizes the use of unfettered deadly force with no "duty to retreat" sparked
national outcry last year when police cited the statute as grounds for not arresting George Zimmerman for more than a month. Since then, reports and studies have shown that similar laws on the books in at least 21 states are discriminatory, applied arbitrarily, and associated with a higher rate of homicides. But the law faded from center stage after police pursued arrest of Zimmerman 44 days later, and Zimmerman's lawyers opted not to specifically raise the law as a defense during trial. Had the lawyers moved to formally raise Stand Your Ground as a defense, the judge would have held a hearing devoted to whether the law immunized Zimmerman from criminal liability, and the case might have ended without ever going to a jury.
Zimmerman's lawyer chose instead to go to trial, once again declining to specifically raise "Stand Your Ground" as a defense and keeping the law out of the trial. But the principle's irrelevance ended the moment the jury received their instructions for deciding the case.
As Ta-Nehisi Coates reveals, the written instructions that sat with the jurors as they deliberated made very clear that under Florida law, a shooter has a right to stand his ground:
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Since Zimmerman's lawyers opted not to invoke Stand Your Ground as a defense, observers have characterized this case as a regular old "self-defense" case, rather than a "Stand Your Ground" case. But what these jury instructions make clear is that, in Florida, there is no longer an effective distinction. Stand Your Ground is the state's self-defense law, whether or not a defendant opts to hold a hearing specifically on the question. In fact, this section on the "Justifiable Use of Deadly Force" is the only place in all 27 pages of jury instructions in which the phrase "self-defense" is used.
And self-defense now means shooters may stand their ground not just to prevent death or great bodily harm, but also to prevent the "commission of a forcible felony." Those who wonder why jurors didn't expect that a reasonable person in George Zimmerman's situation should have taken lesser action than firing a deadly shot at a kid whose arsenal consisted of candy and a soft drink – regardless of whether or not he attacked Zimmerman — may find their answer on page 11 of the jury instructions.
Given this instruction, it is worth pointing out that George Zimmerman was studying criminal justice at an online college, including Florida's Stand Your Ground law. After jurors watched the recording of a Fox News interview in which Zimmerman claimed to have no knowledge of Florida's Stand Your Ground law, his college professor testified that the law was covered extensively in his class, and that Zimmerman was "probably one of the better students in the class" and received an A.
Regardless of whether Zimmerman was well-versed in the statute and exploited it to his advantage, it remains the law in Florida. Its inclusion in the jury instructions as an explanation of self-defense makes all the more compelling the jury's reasonable doubt about Zimmerman's legal culpability, even if, as Emily Bazelon suggests, Florida is undoubtedly guilty.
The Stand Your Ground law may once again play a pivotal role in civil lawsuits against Zimmerman. As legal commentators have pointed out, the Stand Your Ground law provides the same opportunity for defendants to seek immunity from civil liability that it does from criminal, if a judge finds the defendant's use of force was justifiable under the law's standards. And as in this case, even if a judge doesn't find Zimmerman immune, a jury would once again be instructed to take the Stand Your Ground rule into account.
UPDATE
In an interview on Anderson Cooper 360 Monday night, an anonymous juror from the Zimmerman panel said the Stand Your Ground law was a major factor in their deliberation.
NotNow, is there a established state definition of the term aggressor? I know sometimes government definitions differ from what the normal publicly accepted definition is.
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 06:57:18 PM
Quote from: NotNow on July 17, 2013, 06:52:21 PM
I am pretty familiar with prisons, or at least the concept. Perhaps you misunderstand. My statement is meant to emphasize that "prison" cannot be a useful industry. Locking up human potential is very wasteful, no matter how many guards you employ.
I know why the incarceration rate is rising. And we can do a lot locally to reduce that, while changing our system of punishment.
but the discussion is about poverty and its relationship with crime...don't forget.
Well not now, what do you think we do with prisoners? They don't go do something socially useful anymore. Perhaps some of the local jails do....
But the prison work force is a paid for facility subsidized by the american taxpayer designed to create a perfect low wage non unionized assett for industrial production. Many of them have been retooled to manufacture parts for industry, and the private groups that own the prisons simply charge the corporations for providing them with low cost production and goods (based on slave labor) and pocket the profits. Voila. Its a huge industry based on enforced impoverization. something like a million souls who arent getting out of prison anytime soon, because they are now too highly skilled at their jobs to be let go.
Did you seriously think Arizona's immigration laws were about border security?
lol.
Nothing to do with this thread but this is just a false impression of prisons fostered by years of corruption. The number of beds and inmates has been decreasing the last two years and will continue to this year. Once the Crosby incident happened in 2006 the Florida DC underwent what could now be considered a paradigm shift. This is a subject I am intimately involved with and have every report, statistic and consult done on DC since 2000 filling my den. But like I said, has nothing to do with this thread but had to put my $.02 in on such a large discrepancy.
Quote from: NotNow on July 17, 2013, 03:17:32 PM
It would be helpful if the Tampa piece had just let the commentary go and given just the facts of the cases. I won't put too much into that bit of journalism until I see unbiased case briefs.
m
Agreed, I had thought same
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 07:02:32 PM
Quote from: NotNow on July 17, 2013, 06:54:08 PM
Are you really convinced that 15% of the population must live in poverty?
How do you think the system of the past twenty years works?
Once again, you are living in the past. I am discussing the future.
When you shrink the middle class and concentrate the majority of the wealth into a few hands, there really isnt enough total wealth to support more than about 80% of the Americans in a lower to middle class lifestyle.
A statement made with no basis in fact, but simply repeating ideology that you have read. This is a sad point of view.
Its not that there is unlimited money circulating and you need to go dig up a portion of it, you know.
There is a constant demand for skilled labor and knowledge. Our young people should be filling that demand.
http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9231486/10_hot_IT_skills_for_2013
There are very hard working people who will never be worth more than a few thousand people, and it doesnt have anything to do with 'how hard' they want it.
I suppose you meant "a few thousand dollars". I disagree. Anyone can "work smarter". Will you gain wealth cleaning a house for a room + $50 a week? No. How about if you clean five houses for $20 an hour?
Its something I was trying to talk to you about a couple of years ago with the migrant labor issue. Do you really think that most Americans could afford to eat if the food was being harvested and processed by people making American wages? Or even minimum wage?
What do you rely on for this view? You seem to want to speak for the entire agriculture industry, while you are unaware that many farms work at minimum wage or higher. While some dependency on less than legal wages has been developed, why would anyone want to continue such a system? Slave wages for non citizens? In your world if the illegal immigrant is granted citizenship he/she will no longer be able to work, unless they work for illegal wages. None of that drivel is true.
If you think about it, students live in poverty while going through college. Its part of the experience for most people. If they could afford to work a job and pay for their school, why on earth would they be desperate to take on the crippling debts that are more than mortgages used to be in order to get a degree?
Poverty? Debts more than mortgages? Most young people are still supported by their parents. For those of us who financed our own education, there are many options. Mine was the GI Bill. And anyone that is borrowing as much as a mortgage better be finishing medical school. Many states are fighting the rising cost of education. This should be encoraged.
And right now, 1 out of every 6 Americans are getting food stamps. Now thats in addition to all the people who don't really qualify.
Yeah. I don't agree with the democrats ruining opportunity either. And it is getting worse. The answer to food stamps..and welfare is jobs.
What do you think the real statistics are when you factor in migrant labor, 2 million people in prisons, many many more in jails and work farms, and the undocumented poor?
I don't know what "real statistics" you are referring to.
Perhaps you should consider what I suggested several posts ago, completely rethinking how we punish criminals. and again providing a clear step by step path to success to our young people and rewarding productive behavior, while strongly taking a stand against destructive or negative activities.
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 07:30:38 PM
Quote from: JayBird on July 17, 2013, 07:27:50 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 17, 2013, 06:57:18 PM
Quote from: NotNow on July 17, 2013, 06:52:21 PM
I am pretty familiar with prisons, or at least the concept. Perhaps you misunderstand. My statement is meant to emphasize that "prison" cannot be a useful industry. Locking up human potential is very wasteful, no matter how many guards you employ.
I know why the incarceration rate is rising. And we can do a lot locally to reduce that, while changing our system of punishment.
but the discussion is about poverty and its relationship with crime...don't forget.
Well not now, what do you think we do with prisoners? They don't go do something socially useful anymore. Perhaps some of the local jails do....
But the prison work force is a paid for facility subsidized by the american taxpayer designed to create a perfect low wage non unionized assett for industrial production. Many of them have been retooled to manufacture parts for industry, and the private groups that own the prisons simply charge the corporations for providing them with low cost production and goods (based on slave labor) and pocket the profits. Voila. Its a huge industry based on enforced impoverization. something like a million souls who arent getting out of prison anytime soon, because they are now too highly skilled at their jobs to be let go.
Did you seriously think Arizona's immigration laws were about border security?
lol.
Nothing to do with this thread but this is just a false impression of prisons fostered by years of corruption. The number of beds and inmates has been decreasing the last two years and will continue to this year. Once the Crosby incident happened in 2006 the Florida DC underwent what could now be considered a paradigm shift. This is a subject I am intimately involved with and have every report, statistic and consult done on DC since 2000 filling my den. But like I said, has nothing to do with this thread but had to put my $.02 in on such a large discrepancy.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44936562/ns/business-cnbc_tv/t/private-prison-industry-grows-despite-critics/#.Ueco7pU_7PY
After I posted that I thought I should have gone back and edited. I was speaking purely in terms of Florida. Each state is responsible for the operation of their own prisons and the federal government (illegal immigrants fall here) for their own facilities.
I read your link about private prison industries. I can see how you could come to the conclusions that you have. Are you aware that only 16% of the prison population (Federal) work in such industries? Most perform sundry duties around the prison for less money (meal prep, etc.).
What "digging" have you done? I have shown you the demand for skills and skilled labor in this country. Your argument that "there's not enough money to go around" has no basis in reality. Is there any study that substantiates such a claim? Your characterization of both the need for illegal wages and the "poverty" of college students was ... just.... incorrect. Off the cuff? Your statements exemplify "off the cuff".
I do not accept that we can not defeat poverty and all of the injuries that it causes people. I refuse to accept that nothing can be done. We have a federal government that freely spends TRILLIONS of dollars. We can change this.
The jury spoke. The jury system, a jury of peers, goes back some 800 years, peers mean citizens, and is a color blind term, eg. one does not have a jury based on a racial, age or other makeup, it is made up of people qualified who are then vetted by both the prosecutors and defense. It may be open to discussion as to whether racial makeup should be considered. Both sides present their evidence within the rules of evidence. Both sides bring forth witnesses, depending on the ability and the quality of the attorney's, some witnesses are better prepped than others, though all are supposed to tell the truth as they know it to be, in fact are sworn to tell the truth. Having lost a grandson, I grieve for the family who in this case lost their son, but the jury heard all the evidence and the arguments and the jury spoke.
Now, personally, I think that GZ was overcharged and the prosecutor could not overcome that decision, I thought he would get manslaughter, but never thought the elements of 2nd degree murder were in play. I further think that it would be improper for the justice department now to file charges against GZ, again, the elements for Civil Rights violations will not be in play.
My heart goes out to Trayvon's parents. I am only lucky that at 17 I did not get into a situation like that.
Quote from: strider on July 17, 2013, 07:26:17 PM
NotNow, is there a established state definition of the term aggressor? I know sometimes government definitions differ from what the normal publicly accepted definition is.
I am not aware of a definition in the statutes.
Quote from: NotNow on July 17, 2013, 08:31:47 PM
Quote from: strider on July 17, 2013, 07:26:17 PM
NotNow, is there a established state definition of the term aggressor? I know sometimes government definitions differ from what the normal publicly accepted definition is.
I am not aware of a definition in the statutes.
True there isn't and I even believe it is up to the police officer or state attorney's interpretation of the events to define and determine "aggressor" case by case
Yall heard about this "Boycott Florida" stuff because of the stand your ground law. Although Florida isn't exactly the only state with stand your ground with twenty-thirty some odd states using this law. I guess that the backlash is from all of these high profile cases; Even though the most high profile one, the law wasn't used.
^I am still undetermined as to whether its a real thing or media hyperbole. Surprisingly enough, there is a true stand your ground defense going to through Duval right now that has recieved very little media attention. It was the teenager shot at the gas station, the name is escaping me right now.
^^^Jordan Davis. All of the posts I saw on TU (which kinda have a rep for conservative posters) think that the Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis cases are 'apples and oranges' with the Davis case being clearly the 'slam dunk' one as Michael Dunn was dead wrong, and the other case arguments can be made either way. I have to agree with that sentiment.
Michael Dunn shot Jordan Davis at the Gate. Did Dunn's attorney make a motion for a SYG dismissal?
Quote from: NotNow on July 17, 2013, 04:32:53 PM
Which law is the "outrage" about? The one that doesn't apply to this case?
If you are saying the stand your ground law didn't apply that is not quite true. Where as GZ did not use the stand your ground defense the passage of that law radically changed jury instructions in self defense cases.
Pre stand your ground instructions:
"The defendant cannot justify the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless he used every reasonable means within his power and consistent with his own safety to avoid the danger before resorting to that force.
The fact that the defendant was wrongfully attacked cannot justify his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating he could have avoided the need to use that force."
Stand your ground current instructions:
If the defendant was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in anyplace where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
I don't know what difference that would have made but yes stand your ground is part of this case.
Quote from: NotNow on July 17, 2013, 09:09:11 PM
Michael Dunn shot Jordan Davis at the Gate. Did Dunn's attorney make a motion for a SYG dismissal?
I do not believe the motion has been filed yet, but it has been claimed as his defense. Of course, being that he has switched lawyers maybe that'll change.
^Now there is an angle I had not considered. Do we have criminal lawyers on MJ? Valid? It does back up Ennis' initial statement that the law is what needs to be changed.
As usual, you are veering waaayy off of the subject. Do you now want to patter back and forth about government spending? Just google us federal spending for the most recent year. You will find SS and medicare/medicade are the largest chunks. Are we done now?
This thread is about the Zimmerman case. Lake and I were discussing the effect of poverty on resulting criminal activity. I hate to chide a moderator but please stick to the subject of the thread.
Returning to my original point, prisons are NOT industries (Perhaps I should have said "not meant to be industries".) We should rethink how punishment for criminal acts is conducted in this country. I reiterate that poverty is NOT a requirement for any percentage of the population or group of the population.
Quote from: JayBird on July 17, 2013, 09:26:38 PM
^Now there is an angle I had not considered. Do we have criminal lawyers on MJ? Valid? It does back up Ennis' initial statement that the law is what needs to be changed.
Here is the link where I found the info I had hear it on the radio first.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/07/16/media-neglect-that-stand-your-ground-is-centerp/194916
For a realistic look at the jury instructions, read them in their entirety here:
http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf
I am not privvy to the facts of that case either. But it appears to be much more clear cut.
NN the PDF contains the exact verbiage I typed save for it replaces "George Zimmerman" for "the defendant".(pg 12 paragraph 5) Thanks for posting the instructions it is an interesting read. Particularly the part about Manslaughter being a higher standard than just negligence.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 13, 2013, 11:27:39 PM
Ock, i don't think those who are disappointed need lectures about what they think and what the laws are. My issue revolves around precedence, the message sent and potential of future conflicts generating similar confrontations like this. Because I've been in situations like this growing up, my personal perspective may be a little different. Nevertheless, I hope this case at least leads to a movement that results in the modification of certain laws and legal interpretations. No one should die from a confrontation generated from being followed in the dark by an armed stranger.
Sorry you got your feathers ruffled, simply expressing an opinion that those that want to try this over, and over, and over, and over again, need to move on. Jessie Jackson made a great point tonight when he spoke of change with dignity, speaking directly to the isolated incidents of violence and rioting. There are indeed messages in the precedence. Attacking someone could prove to be fatal - DON'T DO IT! The guy that kills you might walk away from court as a free man - Which isn't going to help you if your the dead guy.
You completely missed the point of the OJ reference, precedence? Should White women fear for their lives because a Black man many considered guilty was on the loose in LA? NO. Because 'considered guilty' is without standing, OJ was innocent. Likewise Black citizens have nothing to fear from 'White Hispanics' (if they could find one).
This trial was turned into a circus within a couple of days when the media advertised Zimmerman into a new race - 'A White-Hispanic Man.' At that point this whole sorry case devolved into a rebroadcast of every 'White on Black crime' stereotypical story, ever told.
Had both men been Black, Hispanic or White chances are we would have never heard a thing about it only 100 miles up the road. Turn it into a race crime, rather then a cluster F**k with a bad ending and you have people calling for Zimmerman's execution.
OPINION. Do I like the Stand Your Ground Law? I can see where it might be useful in a burglary, robbery, rape or attempted murder where the victim has a weapon. I can also see where it will have a lot of grey area that needs to be tended to.
Ock....I was just being real by offering a common viewpoint typically overlooked by the mainstream. In pages 1-45 of this thread, many of us have already provided our views on the issues you just raised. I'd respond in more detail, but I don't have the energy at the moment.
From Mother Jones
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/07/trayvon-martin-jordan-davis-stand-your-ground
"The Sneetches"
The first story in the collection tells of a group of yellow creatures called Sneetches, some of whom have a green star on their bellies. At the beginning of the story, Sneetches with stars discriminate against and shun those without. A "fix-it-up chappie" named Sylvester McMonkey McBean appears and offers the Sneetches without stars the chance to have them with his Star-On machine, for three dollars. The treatment is instantly popular, but this upsets the original star-bellied Sneetches, as they are in danger of losing their special status. McBean then tells them about his Star-Off machine, costing ten dollars, and the Sneetches who originally had stars happily pay the money to have them removed in order to remain special. However, McBean does not share the prejudices of the Sneetches, and allows the recently starred Sneetches through this machine as well. Ultimately this escalates, with the Sneetches running from one machine to the next,
"until neither the Plain nor the Star-Bellies knew
whether this one was that one... or that one was this one
or which one was what one... or what one was who."
This continues until the Sneetches are penniless and McBean departs a rich man, amused by their folly. Despite his assertion that "you can't teach a Sneetch," the Sneetches learn from this experience that neither plain-belly nor star-belly Sneetches are superior, and they are able to get along and become friend
"The Sneetches" was intended by Seuss as a satire of discrimination between races and cultures, and was specifically inspired by his opposition to antisemitism.
From the above article:
Quote"It's apparent that Michael Dunn is white, it's apparent that Jordan is black," McBath said. "But the issue is the Stand Your Ground laws. The issue is not the racial part of it. We're not going to center and focus on that, because that doesn't do any good for the country. We're not going to incite racism in this country. The bigger picture is making a change in the laws so that...this doesn't continue to happen."
QuoteThe Davis family attorney, John Phillips, told HLN recently that Davis' parents are "freaking out about justice" after the Zimmerman verdict. But in another HLN interview, he cautioned that the two cases aren't identical, saying "the justice process is different for both. You gotta keep them separate."
He's right—there are some crucial distinctions. No one but Zimmerman and Martin himself bore witness to Zimmerman pulling the trigger. But there were several eyewitnesses to the Davis killing, including his three friends who survived. Despite Dunn's claim that one of the victims had a gun, police recovered no weapon, and witnesses say no one involved got out of a vehicle except for Dunn, who allegedly did so as he fired his final shots. Instead of calling 911 or waiting for police to arrive, Dunn then fled the scene with his girlfriend, went back to his hotel and ate pizza, and later returned to his home without calling police. Whereas Zimmerman walked free for nearly six weeks and was only arrested and charged after a national outcry, police arrested Dunn the day after he killed Davis.
I guess my question would be, how can you determine if someone 'feared for their life' or that they honestly believed they were in 'imminent' danger? In a completely erroneous blog that I won't even give the respect of reposting here the writer posed the statement that "I have an deadly allergic reaction to peanuts and more importantly their dust, therefore if I am in Florida and you are eating them I will nicely ask you to leave the area. If you do not, I will utilize my legally owned firearm to protect my life." The writer lives in a town called Tavares which on google I found was in the Tampa metro so I guess that's far enough away from panhandle peanut farmers to say that. At first I chalked it up to Internet idiocy, but then I wondered "do others feel the same way?" And if they do, are they legally allowed to defend themselves with deadly force? And if change to the law does not come, how wide can the interpretation of it get? I would certainly hate to get shot while on a smoke break because the guy passing me has lung cancer.
^I loved that book as a kid. Adults can learn so much from Dr Seuss and kindergarten kids.
Quote from: JayBird on July 18, 2013, 09:48:29 AM
^I loved that book as a kid. Adults can learn so much from Dr Seuss and kindergarten kids.
+1
Quote from: JayBird on July 17, 2013, 08:36:46 PM
Quote from: NotNow on July 17, 2013, 08:31:47 PM
Quote from: strider on July 17, 2013, 07:26:17 PM
NotNow, is there a established state definition of the term aggressor? I know sometimes government definitions differ from what the normal publicly accepted definition is.
I am not aware of a definition in the statutes.
True there isn't and I even believe it is up to the police officer or state attorney's interpretation of the events to define and determine "aggressor" case by case
As there is no officially stated definition, then any generally accepted definition can be used:
QuoteWorld English Dictionary
aggression (əˈɡrɛʃən)
— n
1.
an attack or harmful action, esp an unprovoked attack by one country against another
2.
any offensive activity, practice, etc: an aggression against personal liberty
3.
psychology, a hostile or destructive mental attitude or behavior
[C17: from Latin aggression-, from aggrēdi to attack]
Pretty open to interpretation. If police and courts are going to be faced with "stand your ground" issues, one would think the first step, as someone else suggested, would be to officially define the term aggressor as it applies to "stand your ground".(and therefore, by default, self defense).
Perhaps more importantly, it must be defined when and if a person loses that protection.
With the TM/ Z case, Zimmerman was initially the aggressor so Martin had that protection or right to use deadly force. When did that right switch from Martin to Zimmerman is the big question.
If the law had been better written to account for the many issues we are hearing about, perhaps Martin would never have lost his protection or rights and with the actual result being the death of Martin, Zimmerman would have been found guilty. I think it is the lack of definition that prevented the courts from stating that Zimmerman was the aggressor and therefore at fault. Or. alternatively, stating that Martin was at fault beyond a reasonable doubt. As it is, even with a jury decision, there will always be that doubt.
The law before SYG required a retreat effort often taking away the defense capability makeing you a target for an attack from behind. SYG is a good thing.
Hand ringing and decision making over incomplete information in the news is a bad thing.
Quote from: HisBuffPVB on July 17, 2013, 08:15:06 PM
The jury spoke. The jury system, a jury of peers, goes back some 800 years, peers mean citizens, and is a color blind term, eg. one does not have a jury based on a racial, age or other makeup, it is made up of people qualified who are then vetted by both the prosecutors and defense. It may be open to discussion as to whether racial makeup should be considered. Both sides present their evidence within the rules of evidence. Both sides bring forth witnesses, depending on the ability and the quality of the attorney's, some witnesses are better prepped than others, though all are supposed to tell the truth as they know it to be, in fact are sworn to tell the truth. Having lost a grandson, I grieve for the family who in this case lost their son, but the jury heard all the evidence and the arguments and the jury spoke.
Now, personally, I think that GZ was overcharged and the prosecutor could not overcome that decision, I thought he would get manslaughter, but never thought the elements of 2nd degree murder were in play. I further think that it would be improper for the justice department now to file charges against GZ, again, the elements for Civil Rights violations will not be in play.
My heart goes out to Trayvon's parents. I am only lucky that at 17 I did not get into a situation like that.
Good post, common sense and facts. I agree.
Well I am sure many people have been made aware of the call by some celebrities and others with agendas for folks to "Boycott Florida". Yes, this is the latest outcropping of outrage, injustice or whatever. I don't mean to sound flippant about this but really? Really? The purpose and drive behind this is what? Many claim it has to do with putting pressure on Florida lawmakers to change the law. Will it? No it won't.
Firstly the changes the "people" (citizens) want should come from the people and make themselves manifest in proactive change not via hitting at the entire population of Florida. Here's the deal. Are the thoughts and actions of celebrities, most of them living above the "fray" of financial struggle and day to day real world challenges, what we are going to rely upon for true social change or for equitable discussion of our system of laws? For me the answer is a resounding "No". While attempts at leadership through celebrity may get temporary attention to an issue it is also a great way for celebrities to do what they like which is to "stay in the spotlight".
This whole "Boycott Florida" thing is at it's best a "shortsighted" attempt to payback some "entity" that folks feel has delivered them an injustice. Which as it turns out is the entire State of Florida. The problem is that the only folks that will be impacted by the boycott of celebrities are the fans of those celebrities who may want to see them in live performance. The impact of average citizens could impact tourist income but it won't. People will still vacation here, drawn by weather, beaches, food and fun. Any loss of income via tourism is not going to force legislation because the politicians and legislators will be taking home their sizable paychecks, benefit packages and enjoying their perks, many of them put into office by guess who? Celebrities. lol
http://tlcnaptown.com/2124974/eddie-levert-joins-stevie-wonder-in-boycott-of-florida-stages/
^ I will agree that it could be a good thing if the proper measures are taken to change the law as it is currently written. I do not agree that it is even remotely close to a good thing as it stands today. These laws were seemingly passed across the country in some sort of bid to attract votes and curry political favor instead of actually enabling people to properly defend their lives and property, at least in my opinion.
like most things, the outrage will pass and it will be business as usual.
Quote from: fsquid on July 18, 2013, 01:22:40 PM
like most things, the outrage will pass and it will be business as usual.
Agreed, have been in NYC since Monday afternoon and in all the talk of Zimmerman, haven't heard a peep of the boycott Florida with the exception of Stevie Wonder. And he included all states that have SYG laws, so I believe this may be the case of the media trying to blow it out of proportion. Obviously people are still bringing kids to Disney and people are still happily buying orange juice. Anyone remember Freedom Fries? Look how quickly that faded and the whole country was behind them.
Been in Richmond, VA and there is more talk about the government furloughs starting than this case.
Quote from: fsquid on July 18, 2013, 02:06:31 PM
Been in Richmond, VA and there is more talk about the government furloughs starting than this case.
I was at a family reunion in Alabama when the verdict came in. The next day, the minister in the church the family went to, went on for a good 10 minutes about the verdict and a call for their community to remain calm. Boycotts were not mentioned but they did briefly mention Florida's crazy laws that negatively impact black males moreso than other races.
The largest difference in the Davis and Martin cases is there were a lot of eye witnesses at the gas station. In the Martin killing, no one truly knows what happened except Zimmerman.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 18, 2013, 03:50:32 PM
The largest difference in the Davis and Martin cases is there were a lot of eye witnesses at the gas station. In the Martin killing, no one truly knows what happened except Zimmerman.
+1
Quote from: thelakelander on July 18, 2013, 03:50:32 PM
The largest difference in the Davis and Martin cases is there were a lot of eye witnesses at the gas station. In the Martin killing, no one truly knows what happened except Zimmerman.
Exactly.
Quote from: stephendare on July 18, 2013, 01:58:42 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 18, 2013, 01:07:12 PM
Well I am sure many people have been made aware of the call by some celebrities and others with agendas for folks to "Boycott Florida". Yes, this is the latest outcropping of outrage, injustice or whatever. I don't mean to sound flippant about this but really? Really? The purpose and drive behind this is what? Many claim it has to do with putting pressure on Florida lawmakers to change the law. Will it? No it won't.
Firstly the changes the "people" (citizens) want should come from the people and make themselves manifest in proactive change not via hitting at the entire population of Florida. Here's the deal. Are the thoughts and actions of celebrities, most of them living above the "fray" of financial struggle and day to day real world challenges, what we are going to rely upon for true social change or for equitable discussion of our system of laws? For me the answer is a resounding "No". While attempts at leadership through celebrity may get temporary attention to an issue it is also a great way for celebrities to do what they like which is to "stay in the spotlight".
This whole "Boycott Florida" thing is at it's best a "shortsighted" attempt to payback some "entity" that folks feel has delivered them an injustice. Which as it turns out is the entire State of Florida. The problem is that the only folks that will be impacted by the boycott of celebrities are the fans of those celebrities who may want to see them in live performance. The impact of average citizens could impact tourist income but it won't. People will still vacation here, drawn by weather, beaches, food and fun. Any loss of income via tourism is not going to force legislation because the politicians and legislators will be taking home their sizable paychecks, benefit packages and enjoying their perks, many of them put into office by guess who? Celebrities. lol
http://tlcnaptown.com/2124974/eddie-levert-joins-stevie-wonder-in-boycott-of-florida-stages/
Yeah. Its a tourist state, and weve just advertised that our stupid natives might shoot your freaking kid and get off scott free. What did you expect?
I guess that is one way to look at what happened Stephen, but the same can be said of any other state in which someone was murdered and those prosecuting for the victim were unable to prove their case in a way that would get a prosecution under current laws. The problems this case put in the spotlight are not unique to Florida, that's the reality. This is a single incident and as horrible as it was and is, it has nothing to do with the entire population, nor the thinking and heartfelt convictions of the "majority" of our citizens. Stand your ground is a law in many states, not just Florida and sadly racism is also alive in most states in the union as well. A boycott of Florida is not going to change the behaviors of bigots or the actions of legislators. It's just silly as you so often say. :)
A few days back, when some were saying the system worked and people should accept it and move on, I said the verdict was only the beginning. Buckle your seat belts. Like it or not, more fallout will be on the way. Just hope that it results in something positive, like modifying the proper laws and loopholes.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 18, 2013, 04:52:22 PM
A few days back, when some were saying the system worked and people should accept it and move on, I said the verdict was only the beginning. Buckle your seat belts. Like it or not, more fallout will be on the way. Just hope that it results in something positive, like modifying the proper laws and loopholes.
This is gonna turn on politics like most other things do. The NRA has a huge impact on Florida politics and politicians, both in office and seeking office. This issue also has a huge impact on voter base considering that gun ownership crosses political boundaries these days. Those wanting the law rewritten will have to get top politicians to believe that not supporting their issue will impact their votes and campaign funds. So far Rick Scott has not been appealing to minority voters so unless he and other politicians think this is gonna hit their voter totals in a negative way as well as their pocketbooks come election time, it is going to be very difficult to get rewrites on this law. Abolishing it which many are calling for isn't going to happen.
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 18, 2013, 06:11:25 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 18, 2013, 04:52:22 PM
A few days back, when some were saying the system worked and people should accept it and move on, I said the verdict was only the beginning. Buckle your seat belts. Like it or not, more fallout will be on the way. Just hope that it results in something positive, like modifying the proper laws and loopholes.
This is gonna turn on politics like most other things do. The NRA has a huge impact on Florida politics and politicians, both in office and seeking office. This issue also has a huge impact on voter base considering that gun ownership crosses political boundaries these days. Those wanting the law rewritten will have to get top politicians to believe that not supporting their issue will impact their votes and campaign funds. So far Rick Scott has not been appealing to minority voters so unless he and other politicians think this is gonna hit their voter totals in a negative way as well as their pocketbooks come election time, it is going to be very difficult to get rewrites on this law. Abolishing it which many are calling for isn't going to happen.
You believe Rick Scott will get elected again?
Quote from: thelakelander on July 18, 2013, 06:45:43 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 18, 2013, 06:11:25 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 18, 2013, 04:52:22 PM
A few days back, when some were saying the system worked and people should accept it and move on, I said the verdict was only the beginning. Buckle your seat belts. Like it or not, more fallout will be on the way. Just hope that it results in something positive, like modifying the proper laws and loopholes.
This is gonna turn on politics like most other things do. The NRA has a huge impact on Florida politics and politicians, both in office and seeking office. This issue also has a huge impact on voter base considering that gun ownership crosses political boundaries these days. Those wanting the law rewritten will have to get top politicians to believe that not supporting their issue will impact their votes and campaign funds. So far Rick Scott has not been appealing to minority voters so unless he and other politicians think this is gonna hit their voter totals in a negative way as well as their pocketbooks come election time, it is going to be very difficult to get rewrites on this law. Abolishing it which many are calling for isn't going to happen.
You believe Rick Scott will get elected again?
It's really hard to tell this far out Ennis. Rick Scott has abysmal popularity numbers but he is now under the Republican Brand and has a campaign account that cannot be matched. Republicans who love and hate him will fight for his re election because currently their interests are to get and keep as many of their ranks into the office of State Governor as well as Senate and Congress as they can countrywide. They understand the reality that minorities are not in their voting base and this was proved out by the last two Presidential elections. So Republicans want to take power at the State level and work their agenda's from there. As much as people talk down Crist, he could beat Scott if the voting base is not diluted by another strong Democrat challenger. That is why Republicans are already targeting him. Christ appeals to minority voters, teachers as well as women and the GLBT voters. If he can put fire in minority pulpits and stand strong for women and minority rights he could edge out Scott even with all this money.
Another factor. Charlie Crist has not lost some of his strongest Republican supporters. These are his folks who don't like Scott and have always stood behind him financially. So we can expect to see a bit of fracture on Republican ranks if Charlie runs. Those Republicans who have always been in Charlies corner will support and vote for him if they feel he will work with them and meet their agendas.
Interesting take by Charles Barkley.
Not so much on the verdict, but on the media coverage of the trial:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=shODnGQJ6FU#at=101
It's kinda ironic that the man who is kinda leading the charge on this 'Boycott FL' thing can't see; None other than one Stevie Wonder (not performing in stand your ground states). I wouldn't be shocked if Stevie has an inner-clairvoyance to know exactly when state lines are crossed.
"Is that your bike?"
Know Anyone Who Thinks Racial Profiling Is Exaggerated? Watch This, And Tell Me When Your Jaw Drops.http://www.youtube.com/v/ge7i60GuNRg?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0
LMAO! at that video. Lunican had his bike stolen from the front of his downtown office building a few years back, despite it being locked. None of us could figure out how such a thing could happen in broad daylight in front of an office tower. Watching this video, that was the first thing that popped in my mind.
With that said, yes, profiling can be considered a form of Institutional racism. Before someone who disagrees goes crazy, Institutional racism is distinguished from racial bigotry by the existence of institutional systemic policies, practices and economic and political structures which place non-white racial and ethnic groups at a disadvantage in relation to an institution's white members.
Yes. I agree lake.
I love the guy at the end helping the woman steal the bike.
Two thoughts.
No one interviewed would see their actions as racially motivated. In fact, one could argue they would see their actions as morally right -- worrying about someone's property.
Secondly, I was glad no one had a gun handy, and that the actor was apparently prepared for these reactions. The crowd did get hostile.
Clearly as pasty as I am I can go get a bike.
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 19, 2013, 11:40:50 AM
Clearly as pasty as I am I can go get a bike.
Im thinkin I need one too!
"Is that your bike?"
"Technically it's not, but it's gonna be mine." LOL
Wow, just wow!
Click link for full story.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/17/2308681/stand-your-ground-south-carolina/
Quote
Armed Intruder Who Shot Homeowner Argues 'Stand Your Ground' Defense
By Rebecca Leber on Jul 17, 2013 at 3:30 pm
While the country had its attention turned toward George Zimmerman's trial, an armed intruder in South Carolina attempted to use the same legal defense that gained infamy in the early days of the Zimmerman case.
Gregg Isaac began his trial last week for a confessed home invasion in 2005, where he shot and killed Antonio Corbitt in front of an 8-year-old child. After the trial judge originally denied Isaac's motion that he could use deadly force under the state's version of Stand Your Ground law, the South Carolina Supreme Court agreed to halt the proceedings and hear the case to determine a procedural point.
The reason the Supreme Court will consider the case has to do with exactly when a judge should hold a hearing to determine whether the defendant is immune from going to trial and the defendant's right to immediately appeal; it will not tackle the substance of the law, according to The State. If the Stand Your Ground hearing determines the shooter was protecting himself in a place he had a legal right to be, then the case never proceeds to a trial.
The state's 2006 law is nearly identical to American Legislative Exchange Council model legislation that states a person not engaging in unlawful activity has no duty to retreat and "has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force." (click link above for full story)
^^^Please tell me that's something from the Onion. SMH...
The President speaks to the Zimmerman case. link below.
From my view I think he is saying some of the same things I said earlier on a variety of threads which is that this case touched many deep and old hurts in the Black community. I think that while this is absolutely true it is also important to realize that these comments are being spoken by a mixed race man, considered Black by most, who is currently holding the highest office in the land and of the free world. Old pains and hurts run deep and justifiably so but the realization that things are changing and will keep changing can be heard in the words of our youngest children and highest elected official. While I listened to the words of the President I was also thinking that in spite of the fact that old racist behaviors still exist in this country they are no longer the overlying behavior or sentiment of the majority of it's citizens. It they were, Obama would not be our President and be able to speak to this issue the way he has. I don't think anyone should lose sight of that reality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg5AM2QBEBc&feature=share
http://globalgrind.com/news/kids-react-interracial-cheerios-commercial-video
Just wait till those who don't agree with what the president had to say, responds. I just may tune into FOX news tonight for entertainment purposes.
Quote from: stephendare on July 19, 2013, 03:25:01 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 19, 2013, 03:20:20 PM
The President speaks to the Zimmerman case. link below.
From my view I think he is saying some of the same things I said earlier on a variety of threads which is that this case touched many deep and old hurts in the Black community. I think that while this is absolutely true it is also important to realize that these comments are being spoken by the man holding the highest office in the land and of the free world. Old pains and hurts run deep, justifiably so. But the realization that things are changing and will keep changing can be heard in the words of our youngest children and highest elected official. While I listened to the words of the President I was also thinking that in spite of the fact that old racist behaviors still exist in this country they are no longer the overlying behavior or sentiment of all of it's citizens. It they were, Obama would not be our President and be able to speak to this issue the way he has. I don't think anyone should lose site of that reality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg5AM2QBEBc&feature=share
meh.
I think these are issues you work through and still have to be addressed. Im certain people were thinking similar strides had been made about anti semitism when Bleichroder and Bismark formed such a close affiliation in Germany (even their grandchildren ended up getting married) but that was over by 1929.
Well Stephen, working through is what all of these threads and discussions are about. Why a comment to look at the positives while "working through" rates a "meh", I will never know. Goodness gracious. lol
Quote from: thelakelander on July 19, 2013, 03:26:41 PM
Just wait till those who don't agree with what the president had to say, responds. I just may tune into FOX news tonight for entertainment purposes.
Fox has not yet spoken to this but social media has already "lit up"! I can feel the roller coaster beneath the entire country right now.
Quote from: stephendare on July 19, 2013, 03:36:17 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 19, 2013, 03:34:21 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 19, 2013, 03:25:01 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 19, 2013, 03:20:20 PM
The President speaks to the Zimmerman case. link below.
From my view I think he is saying some of the same things I said earlier on a variety of threads which is that this case touched many deep and old hurts in the Black community. I think that while this is absolutely true it is also important to realize that these comments are being spoken by the man holding the highest office in the land and of the free world. Old pains and hurts run deep, justifiably so. But the realization that things are changing and will keep changing can be heard in the words of our youngest children and highest elected official. While I listened to the words of the President I was also thinking that in spite of the fact that old racist behaviors still exist in this country they are no longer the overlying behavior or sentiment of all of it's citizens. It they were, Obama would not be our President and be able to speak to this issue the way he has. I don't think anyone should lose site of that reality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg5AM2QBEBc&feature=share
meh.
I think these are issues you work through and still have to be addressed. Im certain people were thinking similar strides had been made about anti semitism when Bleichroder and Bismark formed such a close affiliation in Germany (even their grandchildren ended up getting married) but that was over by 1929.
Well Stephen, working through is what all of these threads and discussions are about. Why a comment to look at the positives while "working through" rates a "meh", I will never know. Goodness gracious. lol
because i think it needs pointing out that just because we elected a black president of the us, doesnt mean that racism is over.
Just like electing Hillary in 2 years isnt going to signal the end of sex discrimination, or workplace sexual harrassment.
Well goodness gracious, who is saying that? I certainly am not and I think everyone understands the changes coming to our country will come gradually, but we are moving forward. We can't lose sight of that fact.
Quote from: stephendare on July 19, 2013, 03:36:17 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 19, 2013, 03:34:21 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 19, 2013, 03:25:01 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 19, 2013, 03:20:20 PM
The President speaks to the Zimmerman case. link below.
From my view I think he is saying some of the same things I said earlier on a variety of threads which is that this case touched many deep and old hurts in the Black community. I think that while this is absolutely true it is also important to realize that these comments are being spoken by the man holding the highest office in the land and of the free world. Old pains and hurts run deep, justifiably so. But the realization that things are changing and will keep changing can be heard in the words of our youngest children and highest elected official. While I listened to the words of the President I was also thinking that in spite of the fact that old racist behaviors still exist in this country they are no longer the overlying behavior or sentiment of all of it's citizens. It they were, Obama would not be our President and be able to speak to this issue the way he has. I don't think anyone should lose site of that reality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg5AM2QBEBc&feature=share
meh.
I think these are issues you work through and still have to be addressed. Im certain people were thinking similar strides had been made about anti semitism when Bleichroder and Bismark formed such a close affiliation in Germany (even their grandchildren ended up getting married) but that was over by 1929.
Well Stephen, working through is what all of these threads and discussions are about. Why a comment to look at the positives while "working through" rates a "meh", I will never know. Goodness gracious. lol
because i think it needs pointing out that just because we elected a black president of the us, doesnt mean that racism is over.
Just like electing Hillary in 2 years isnt going to signal the end of sex discrimination, or workplace sexual harrassment.
Well goodness gracious, who is saying that? I certainly am not and I think everyone understands the changes coming to our country will come gradually, but we are moving forward. We can't lose sight of that fact. As far as other comments, I was speaking to the issue of race not sexual assaults.
Quote from: I-10east on July 19, 2013, 02:37:16 PM
^^^Please tell me that's something from the Onion. SMH...
Sorry, can't tell you that. It appears to be all too true.
^Indeed they might but we don't have to be first out of the gate with that discussion do we? lol I think we have enough to talk about just sticking to today's issues.
^^^Whoa, such a dramatic response? I never said that I was pro-stand your ground, I don't know what you're trying to get at....
South Carolina ... Speechless. No offense Diane but I had to actually go check because I thought this was creative cut and paste.
QuoteStephendare
Its not like white people were wandering through a meadow one day, thoughtfully turned to each other and softly whispered: "Its time.". ;)
Of course it isn't and I neither said or implied such. So I will take the statement as an addition by you to the commentary. :) In that spirit there was a time back in the sixties when a bunch of White people looked at each other and said "it's time" and did all they could to break the back of racism. I know because I was one of them. It's going to take much more time than I have on this earth to see true racial equality in this country and around the world but it is coming of it's own accord as the country moves from majority White to a majority minority. We are not far off from the day that will happen. Until it does however there will be discussion to be had and work to be done. To do so wisely and have our efforts matter we must look at both the negatives and positives, acknowledge them and move forward with as much understanding and balance that we can muster.
Come on. To attach any meaning at all to this article other than how stupid the defendant is and how much lawyers like to litigate everything is an intellectual mistake.
This suspect is either wasting everyone's time or (like many people expressing opinions these days) he has absolutely no idea what the "stand your ground" defense is.
ANYBODY can claim ANYTHING. This says NOTHING about the "stand your ground" defense. Just like the fact that the Zimmerman case (remember that?) says NOTHING about SYG either.
Quote from: NotNow on July 19, 2013, 04:57:20 PM
Come on. To attach any meaning at all to this article other than how stupid the defendant is and how much lawyers like to litigate everything is an intellectual mistake.
This suspect is either wasting everyone's time or (like many people expressing opinions these days) he has absolutely no idea what the "stand your ground" defense is.
ANYBODY can claim ANYTHING. This says NOTHING about the "stand your ground" defense. Just like the fact that the Zimmerman case (remember that?) says NOTHING about SYG either.
I for one completely get that Not Now. That is the reason I posted the piece. ;) The whole idea that some joker has a mindset that works this way is breathtakingly stupid yet people will always use anything and everything at their disposal to turn a law in the favor.
Not now, I feel it does apply. Because of the way the law is written, the fact that they can even attempt to use that defense is a waste of money, time and resources. I don't know how SC law is written, but obviously it shows the need for a change. Also, keep in mind that Zimmerman didn't use the SYG, not that it didn't/wouldn't apply. It also makes me question if there is enough precedent to avoid this happening in Florida. Or is it just a matter of time until this nonsense adds to Florida's wonderful legal record.
??? A defendant can make any motion, whether it be a SYG defense or any number of other defenses' against prosecution. A judge has to entertain this crap irregardless of the likelihood of success. This is just another example of useless time delaying motions by an attorney, and has nothing to do with SYG. Do you want to get rid of the mental health defense because so many defense attorney's attempt to use it, even when it is obviously just a ploy?
I have stated repeatedly that the Zimmerman defense did not use the SYG exception to prosecution, and that Zimmerman's acquittal is apparently due to the jury believing that he thought his life was in danger (I am told that was supported by medical testimony).
Of course we can't prevent criminals and their lawyers from using ALL of the different defense's against prosecution. (There are many different "defense to prosecution" clauses in all states.) NO state can. To use one of these frivolous motions as any kind of argument against SYG is just...dumb.
NN, I wonder if South Carolina law is same as the one in Florida? Any idea?
No. Again, this discussion is silly.
Why is it silly to discuss a piece of information that shows there are people in society who try to exploit our laws to their own ends? This is an outrageous example to be sure, but does not take away from the reality that there are some crazy ideas about how the law is applied. :) Even some in the legal community will use a variety of loopholes within laws to defend a client. I agree this claim of self defense has no chance to succeed in the real world of courtroom law, but it is a fantastical exploitation of a law that a blockhead thought could be used to his own ends.
It is silly to highlight this use of a "defense against prosecution" as anything but a frivolous motion by a defense attorney. It says absolutely nothing about the law itself. Now, if you want to discuss the waste of time and money by defending attorney's in our court systems, then we should be able to go many pages with just examples. This is just one.
Quote from: NotNow on July 19, 2013, 07:40:49 PM
It is silly to highlight this use of a "defense against prosecution" as anything but a frivolous motion by a defense attorney. It says absolutely nothing about the law itself. Now, if you want to discuss the waste of time and money by defending attorney's in our court systems, then we should be able to go many pages with just examples. This is just one.
I understand Not Now. It's frivolous, that's was the point. lol
Dionne Warwick Joins Boycott of States w/ Stand Your Ground Laws
Quoteam certain most if not all of you have been bombarded with CNN and the news of the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman trial and i must say i was stunned at the verdict of NOT GUILTY........it took a while for this to settle in my brain since Zimmerman admitted killing this youngster.........my very dear friend Stevie Wonder has decided to keep his incredible talent from those states that carry the "Stand Your Ground" law here in the United States (30) of them and i am going to join him as i feel as seriously concerned as he does that we have to start caring more about each other and conversing with regard to the values we ALL should share with regards to our lives and the well being of each other.............it's really a shame that we feel the need to have to carry a weapon to feel safe around each other.............i will miss those states that have supported my career for these past 50 years but i feel absolutely compelled to show solidarity with Stevie showing him he is not alone in feeling the way he does.
http://www.blackyouthproject.com/2013/07/dionne-warwick-joins-protest-of-states-w-stand-your-ground-laws/
http://www.youtube.com/v/X0EA7a5LqDg?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param%20name
http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/19/under-floridas-stand-your-ground-law-bla
Under Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' Law, Black and White Defendants Fare Equally Well
Jacob Sullum|Jul. 19, 2013 12:17 pm
Video via The Orlando SentinelIn my column last week, I noted two complementary narratives that cloud people's understanding of the George Zimmerman case: one about race, the other about the alleged defects of Florida's self-defense law. Last year the Tampa Bay Times tried to get a sense of how these two factors interact by looking at racial patterns in self-defense cases. Its findings belie the idea that the enforcement of Florida's law is biased against black defendants:
The Times analysis found no obvious bias in how black defendants have been treated:
• Whites who invoked the law were charged at the same rate as blacks.
• Whites who went to trial were convicted at the same rate as blacks.
• In mixed-race cases involving fatalities, the outcomes were similar. Four of the five blacks who killed a white went free; five of the six whites who killed a black went free.
• Overall, black defendants went free 66 percent of the time in fatal cases compared to 61 percent for white defendants—a difference explained, in part, by the fact blacks were more likely to kill another black.
That last point relates to a finding that could be seen as evidence of racial bias: While black and white defendants fared equally well, people who killed blacks were more likely to make successful self-defense claims than people who killed whites. "People who killed a black person walked free 73 percent of the time," the Times reported, "while those who killed a white person went free 59 percent of the time." The Times conceded that its analysis "does not prove that race caused the disparity between cases with black and white victims," since "other factors may be at play." For example, "black victims were more likely to be carrying a weapon when they were killed" and "more likely than whites to be committing a crime, such as burglary, at the time."
Critics of Florida's law may seize upon the numbers regarding victims and cite Zimmerman's acquittal as another example of how the criminal justice system values black people's lives less than white people's. But they will find no support in the numbers regarding defendants for the often heard claim that Trayvon Martin would have been arrested immediately and ultimately convicted if he had shot Zimmerman instead of the other way around. And as Reason Contributing Editor Walter Olson notes in a recent CNN.com essay, anyone who is concerned about racial disparities in the justice system should think twice before responding to Zimmerman's acquittal by supporting legal changes that would make it easier to convict people and send them to prison.
It may be risky drawing any firm conclusions from these numbers, since self-defense claims involving the use of lethal force are pretty rare. The Times found a total of 192 such cases since 2005, or less than 20 a year, which is less than 2 percent of all homicides in Florida. When you get into subgroup analyses, the numbers are tiny. For example, the Times identified "only 26 completed cases in which a black person was killed and only eight fatalities with a Hispanic victim."
The other thing to note about these cases is that it's not clear to what extent, if at all, the new features of Florida's law, such as eliminating the duty to retreat for people attacked outside their homes, affected the outcomes. It is therefore misleading to call them "stand your ground" cases, as the Times does.
Addendum: Speaking of misleading journalistic references to "stand your ground," NPR host Robin Young yesterday explained its relevance to Zimmerman's acquittal this way: "The law was not used by the Zimmerman defense team, but it infused the case." That gloss (which Robert Woolley brought to my attention) is reminiscent of New York Times reporter Cara Buckley's assertion that the trial was "spotlighting Florida's Stand Your Ground law," even though "that law has not been invoked in this case." Attorney General Eric Holder was a bit subtler on Tuesday, saying "it's time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense," although that issue is "separate and apart from the case that has drawn the nation's attention."
[Thanks to John Banzhaf for the tip.]
I guess Dionne is telling Stevie "that's what friends are for..."
QuoteStand Your Ground laws tend to track the existing racial disparities in homicide convictions across the U.S. — with one significant exception: Whites who kill blacks in Stand Your Ground states are far more likely to be found justified in their killings. In non-Stand Your Ground states, whites are 250 percent more likely to be found justified in killing a black person than a white person who kills another white person; in Stand Your Ground states, that number jumps to 354 percent.
Much more statistics and several studies
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/is-there-racial-bias-in-stand-your-ground-laws/ (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/is-there-racial-bias-in-stand-your-ground-laws/)
For anyone whom thinks more white criminals get away with murdering blacks in Stand Your Ground states, that is wrong. They get away with more in every state. And of course that racial bias exists, one of these Zimmerman threads someone posted a great video today with absolute proof that a white person can commit a crime an get away with it easier than a minority. I don't think anyone debates that. The question is, how to change that.
The problem with these studies is that just like in finance, the books are so easy to cook and manipulate and fit whomever the person orchestrating the study needs it to say. Actually, it is exactly rigging say a parking study in Riverside-Avondale.
Quote from: stephendare on July 19, 2013, 03:59:53 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 19, 2013, 03:53:14 PM
^Indeed they might but we don't have to be first out of the gate with that discussion do we? lol I think we have enough to talk about just sticking to today's issues.
Its the same issue. Progress for an individual isn't necessarily progress for everyone. Its not like racism suspended itself in order to elect Obama.
The country was literally in the middle of a free fall collapse caused by 16 years of idiotic, corrupt Republican mismanagement. The economy had literally crashed for the first time in 80 years, while we were in the middle of at least two wars.
Its not like white people were wandering through a meadow one day, thoughtfully turned to each other and softly whispered: "Its time.". ;)
A great sign, yes. But it will be more hopeful in the future, as we work our way through the bigotry that is at the core of so much public policy.
its ridiculous to think of how much politics is expended in making sure that so many different groups don't get a leg up.
this is the funniest thing I've ever read.
I am scared as hell right now to live in this city, especially the side of town that I reside in, which seems to have had a murder almost every single day now for the past 2 weeks. What the hell is going on? I don't know if it's just me, but ever since the Mayor announced the budget cut, BOOM, the shit just hit the fan. My work place, which just so happens to be close to the CVS involved in just one of many robberies/shootings, has got us on a tight leash now. Good thing, sure. But, in all the years I've worked there, it's never been an issue. We are no longer allowed to keep the back door open when receiving a truck. When we walk out to our cars, management wants someone to walk with us and for us to park closer while on break if we're working late. I'm sure a lot of these issues have been discussed here lately, but I just had to come online and vent. Am I the only one who feels this way? I don't own a gun, and with the Stand Your Ground BS going on right now, I don't know how I'd react if someone were to run up on me with a gun, demanding money or something, if I had a gun. I carry a mighty large pocket knife, but would that save me? And, if I used it in self defense, then what? I read somewhere there have been 56 homicides so far this year, and even 1 frightens the hell out of me. I just wonder what's more important right now, the budget? Which, I've already read many opinions on the job that JSO is doing, and I'm still on the fence.. but is there anything they COULD do to put fear into the civilians who are out for blood?
D, Welcome to a redneck city in the southeast with lots of poor and uneducated people who are desperate...and so many of our cities decide to follow the republicans and defund public schools and programs...i see this all as a sample of what happens when kids dont learn and learn early...record amount of babies showing up at school not knowing a thing...
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/travyvonMartinvigil.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/travyvonMartinvigil.jpg.html)
Jacksonville is one of the cities.
For more info:
http://nationalactionnetwork.net/events/563/justice-for-trayvon-national-day-of-action-vigils-in-100-cities/
"Mary Mary" has joined Stevie Wonder's boycott:
http://www.youtube.com/v/V7eZD3TKn_M?version=3&hl=en_US
"Just say no to Florida"
http://goblackcentral.com/2013/07/mary-mary-joins-stevie-wonder-and-eddie-levert-in-florida-boycott-boycottflorida/
...and Eddie Levert
http://www.youtube.com/v/7chvixFu-6I?version=3&hl=en_US
(http://myquesttoteach.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/cantwait.jpg?w=300&h=275)
I Needed to Hear from My Black President
There is a great deal of discussion since the Trayvon Martin
trial about justice, the fear for Black life and if the nation
as a whole understands what message this sends.
George Zimmerman has been cleared of any wrong doing by
a jury of HIS peers, but what about Trayvon Martin's peers?
Trayvon Martin's peers are Jordan Davis, Darius Simmons
and other youth killed by overzealous people with guns.
What message does this send to Black youth? What can Black
boys and girls expect when they walk in their neighborhoods,
when they go to the store? Will they be met with violence,
stalked and challenged when they go out?
The Center for Disease Controls has documented that
among teenagers, non-Hispanic Black males have the highest
death rate (94.1 deaths per 100,000 population).
Homicide is the leading cause of death for non-Hispanic
Black male teenagers. For all other groups, accidents are
the leading cause. Center for Disease Control, deaths of
youth, teens and young adults.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db37.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db37.htm)
Nationally there is a crisis, it has taken the
lives of three young Black men, demanding not just the
Black community to understand, but the community of our
nation that there is a crisis of death and a devaluing of young
Black lives. I struggle as a Black teacher what to tell my
students that ask me my opinion. Looking in their eyes seeing
fear, uncertainty, seeking leadership and guidance from a
leader in the community. Teachers were once seen as leaders
in their communities along with religious leadership.
Teachers were guiding lights of educational empowerment
and community stability. Viewing the documentary,
"We Remember Raines" (Emanuel Washington) this was a
fact in Black communities nationally. I wanted to tell my
students to have hope, to pray and do everything they need
to do to obtain as much education as possible to one day
fight the injustices that they may face in life.
My only recourse is to look them in the eyes and advise them
to talk to their parents, engage them in a serious discussion about
what is happening in their communities and their lives. I personally
waited to hear from the President, not just the President of the
United States, but the same President that stated "if he had a
son, he could be Trayvon Martin." The power of the President
goes beyond just the military power of this country it must extend
to the civic responsibility to first recognize all people of this
country as equal.
I felt and many others did as well that President Obama was
playing it safe, overlooking this issue that by rights he should be
involved in. He went to Sandy Hook and other places, why should
he not go to Sanford, Florida and come to Jacksonville, Florida?
It is good to hear recently that he is coming. I hope he is coming
not just as the President, but as a Black man concerned with
Black children.
Unfortunately too many whites would not understand the need
for him to speak, hopefully after hearing his speech they will.
http://rolandmartinreports.com/blog/2013/07/watch-president-barack-obama-trayvon-martin-could-have-been-me-35-years-ago-video/ (http://rolandmartinreports.com/blog/2013/07/watch-president-barack-obama-trayvon-martin-could-have-been-me-35-years-ago-video/)
At this time of great need President #BarackObama should know
that I and the Black students I teach, the Black students I mentor,
the Black children who are my personal children need to
hear from him. His recent statements should bring comfort and
also should be consistent in the manner of galvanizing Black
youth of this country.
A record number of Blacks voted in both elections so President
Obama can make changes that will benefit this country, now he
needs to focus on the Black community.
Black mothers are scared, Black fathers are scared, Black
grandmothers and grandfathers are scared. Many people that
are white ask what is the difference in what you are going
through and us? The difference is that many Blacks do not have
the legal support system that whites have. The comfort level,
privilege and power based on skin color. This can be seen by
the recent events in the Trayvon Martin case. The ramifications
are a ripple effect across the country that Black young lives are
not as valuable as white lives.
This is NOT a racist statement, but can be seen by the end results
of trials and historical events of this country. Even the events
of Marissa Alexander sentenced to 30 years for standing her
ground. Yes the debate continues:
I personally hoped and prayed to hear from My Black President,
not the President of the United States of America, I needed to
hear from my President that understands what it feels like to be
#profiled, to be stopped and questioned, to be followed in a
store, to be scrutinized and judged by the color of his skin,
not the content of his character. I'm happy to hear that
our Black President did not forget what he is.
As a father of a Black male in college, a rising senior and
father of a Black female a rising high school senior I fear for
both my children. As a #Blackteacher that is not fearful to share
my thoughts, opinions and observations through writing and
community participation, I encourage parents to get out and
participate in rallies, demonstrations and learn, be educated
and empowered.
Malcolm X said these words years ago, before Trayvon Martin,
Jordan Davis and Darius Simmons where fetus in their mothers
wombs.
"If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything."
Elements in the media would have you believe that Trayvon Martin
deserved to be killed, he asked for his fate and George Zimmerman
did his community and the nation a favor. Elements of the media
will soon try to show that Jordan Davis a victim deserved to be
shot and killed and those that where with him where thugs,
criminals, failures in school, society and even in their
communities.
Parents of all colors cannot let this travesty of injustice
continue. You must stand for something, not cower and hide
in fear in your homes. If you have a Black male child, if you
have a black female child, if you have a child of color you need
to be involved. Just as President Obama stated he could have
been Trayvon Martin, he realizes that he could have
been Jordan Davis and Darius Simmons.
The topic educate or die was shared by educator
Hafeeza Majeed from Arkansas.
"COURAGEOUS CONVERSATIONS ABOUT EDUCATION"
ASK A TEACHER to discuss the value and empowerment of
education. What our children need to survive in America. If
parents' do not participate and are not heard they will be ignored
and their children will be targets not just for violence,
substandard education, candidates not for scholarship, but for
prison cells. Blacks are edging close to the danger of Holocaust
similar to World War II, if you do not believe look at the prisons
and the laws. Too many Black youth and men have felonies, they
cannot vote, work, purchase homes nor continue their education.
The economic status for the past several years has forced Blacks
to do whatever is necessary to feed their families, care for their
children and provide basic survival needs. Blacks are loosing
political and voting rights.
Thank you to my President for finally having the courage, the
responsibility and accountability to speak to the nation and
Black community. Black boys and Black girls need to hear and
see #PresidentObama. They need to know the person they are
taught to look up to providing leadership, compassion
and empathy.
Stated by Angie Nixon of Florida New Majority, this is
a "Movement Not a Moment"
This is a Movement Not A Moment http://youtu.be/CPxhNSmkUGs (http://youtu.be/CPxhNSmkUGs)
A Child Asks Why Trayvon Had To Die
http://youtu.be/3NbD84KiN3w (http://youtu.be/3NbD84KiN3w)
TOPIC: EDUCATE OR DIE!
Commentary by: Hafeeza Majeed
I have only these remarks to share relative to the marches,
protests, and boycotts, as a result of the George Zimmerman verdict:
"My dear brothers and sisters, according to the proceedings of the
trial, even George Zimmerman "educated" himself by studying the
requisite laws necessary to serve in the position of "neighborhood
watch captain." "March" if you want, "Protest" if you want, "Boycott"
if you want. But WE, as African American adults, must accept that
we haven't done right by our children because we refuse to properly
educate them, formally or informally, so that they will know how to,
AND DO, "think critically" in every situation.
Honestly, people, WE have killed Trayvon, AND ALL of the others,
and will continue bearing responsibility for killing our own children,
UNTIL, we make sure that our children are properly educated, formally
and informally.
We must hold ourselves accountable, FIRST, while we forever press
forward to seek justice in America's courts and elsewhere.
If we will march and protest in the streets, PLEASE, PLEASE,
PLEASE, march to the schoolhouse (and home), and protest for
equity and excellence in education for our children, formally and
informally, everyday! Hafeeza Majeed
"COURAGEOUS CONVERSATIONS ABOUT EDUCATION"
'Ask A Teacher'
Sunday, July 21, 2013, 7pm, CST; 8pm, EST/MT; 5pm, PT
WEB: http://InstantTeleseminar.com/?eventid=43727385 (http://instantteleseminar.com/?eventid=43727385)
PHONE: (501) 707-0312 OR (206) 402-0100; Pin: 119398#
I don't know what the president has to do with 1 sole murder. Yes, this issue has brought up some important topics, but isn't the issue here really that someone has died? If it was black on black, or white on white, would it have received as much attention? Why does this have to be about race?
According to the CDC, there are 16,259 homicide injury deaths per year in America. Why was this one so important? I put the responsibility of the (small) number or riots and hate crimes that have come about since the trial solely on CNN, Fox, etc. They covered this trial non-stop even though it was of little significance. It was 1 homicide out of 16,259! Shame on the media, and shame on Obama for acknowledging it.
I guess anything to get the minds off of the (much more important) unconstitutional NSA scandal.
Sidenote: I know this opinion won't be popular, but if the mass media would stop making everything about race maybe we could move forward as a country in that regard.
Quote from: stephendare on July 20, 2013, 12:00:19 PM
Quote from: coredumped on July 20, 2013, 11:39:28 AM
I don't know what the president has to do with 1 sole murder. Yes, this issue has brought up some important topics, but isn't the issue here really that someone has died? If it was black on black, or white on white, would it have received as much attention? Why does this have to be about race?
According to the CDC, there are 16,259 homicide injury deaths per year in America. Why was this one so important? I put the responsibility of the (small) number or riots and hate crimes that have come about since the trial solely on CNN, Fox, etc. They covered this trial non-stop even though it was of little significance. It was 1 homicide out of 16,259! Shame on the media, and shame on Obama for acknowledging it.
I guess anything to get the minds off of the (much more important) unconstitutional NSA scandal.
Sidenote: I know this opinion won't be popular, but if the mass media would stop making everything about race maybe we could move forward as a country in that regard.
yawn. so you just don't see any connection between the reaction and the laws that made the murder legal?
you really think this is about a solitary killing, which of course, deserves no attention because, you know.....freedom?
The fact is that the law that "made the murder legal" is the right of self defense. The jury (who heard all of the evidence) decided that Zimmerman rightfully feared for his life while on his back and mounted by Martin. They decided that the events prior to that did not incriminate Zimmerman.
I agree with Coredumped that the major reason for the uproar is meia attention and misinformation. While discussion of race and priviledge is certainly needed, this case is a poor reason for it.
Because you know...truth.
Protesters marching to the courthouse to demand justice.
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/DSCN4004.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/DSCN4004.jpg.html)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/DSCN4010.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/DSCN4010.jpg.html)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/DSCN4013.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/DSCN4013.jpg.html)
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/nopeacenojustice.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/nopeacenojustice.jpg.html)
Quote from: stephendare on July 20, 2013, 12:53:29 PM
Quote from: NotNow on July 20, 2013, 12:17:20 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 20, 2013, 12:00:19 PM
Quote from: coredumped on July 20, 2013, 11:39:28 AM
I don't know what the president has to do with 1 sole murder. Yes, this issue has brought up some important topics, but isn't the issue here really that someone has died? If it was black on black, or white on white, would it have received as much attention? Why does this have to be about race?
According to the CDC, there are 16,259 homicide injury deaths per year in America. Why was this one so important? I put the responsibility of the (small) number or riots and hate crimes that have come about since the trial solely on CNN, Fox, etc. They covered this trial non-stop even though it was of little significance. It was 1 homicide out of 16,259! Shame on the media, and shame on Obama for acknowledging it.
I guess anything to get the minds off of the (much more important) unconstitutional NSA scandal.
Sidenote: I know this opinion won't be popular, but if the mass media would stop making everything about race maybe we could move forward as a country in that regard.
yawn. so you just don't see any connection between the reaction and the laws that made the murder legal?
you really think this is about a solitary killing, which of course, deserves no attention because, you know.....freedom?
The fact is that the law that "made the murder legal" is the right of self defense. The jury (who heard all of the evidence) decided that Zimmerman rightfully feared for his life while on his back and mounted by Martin. They decided that the events prior to that did not incriminate Zimmerman.
I agree with Coredumped that the major reason for the uproar is meia attention and misinformation. While discussion of race and priviledge is certainly needed, this case is a poor reason for it.
Because you know...truth.
Just a big alternate universe you guys live in, I think. It sounds like an interesting place, im sure.
But your interesting world view aside, here's an idea.
Make up a reason people are angry and ignore common sense, the evidence and even what those people themselves are saying is their motivations and go with that.
You seem to be basing your account on what happened with the jury based on the Juror who spoke on anderson cooper's show. Which is interesting, because four of the other jurors signed a public statement (very unusual, btw) refuting her statements, so you are already speaking against the signed statement of the majority of the jurors when you characterize the trial deliberations this way.
Wanna bet you win that big argument you are having with yourself? I think this might explain the very long record you guys have of being wrong on most of the issues and getting blindsided by the outcomes.
I assume that what you are hearing sounds like "I believe in communism and the mortal end of white people' when I write this, so I don't know why bother.
Politically I suppose it works out for my own interests for you to continue to be in the dark about whats happening in the real world, but its still sad.
I have not seen any interview of any juror. None of that matters. The fact is that the jury aquitted. The only defense put forth was self defense. The facts are obvious. Any fantasies about the Zimmerman case are yours. People are angry because they either disagree with the verdict or they disagree with what they see as an unfair system or both. That's OK. I thought this was a manslaughter case myself. But we should all adhere to the same set of facts. Fanning the flames with inaccurate information is irresponsible and will not lead to understanding.
Your later statements make no sense. It appears that you are attempting to call me a racist or bigot without having to say so in english. Such nonsense is also not helpful.
And I'm just kicking aside the bull$hit. ;D
As a poster on many of your threads, I see it everywhere. :)
And so it goes.. Have a good day, StephenDare! :)
I fully support passionate debate, well informed articulated arguments (none of which I have seen here) and the right of everyone to have an opinion but ....
is there a way to block this particular news thread from popping up in the live news feed? Or, can this discussion be taken to a different and perhaps more appropriate venue?
Please and thank you.
There are a lot of things driving the violence and murder in Jacksonville. One thing for certain, at least in my view is that this city leadership needs to get their act together and stop the politics that places our "First Responders", police and fire directly in the bulls eye of cuts which in turns leads to them being made the cause of our financial woes. They are what currently stands between us and continued harm. I thank them all for their service and their willingness to put their lives before us to keep us safe.
deathstar, I can tell you that every effort is being made by the JSO to deal with and stem the violence. I think you should share your deep concern's with the Mayor and the members of council as should everyone who is afraid, concerned or wishes to see things improve. You can contact them via the city website at COJ.com. You can also contact organizations like MADDADS and others who are on the front lines fighting crime and give them your support, interaction and time.
Quote from: stephendare on July 20, 2013, 12:00:19 PM
yawn. so you just don't see any connection between the reaction and the laws that made the murder legal?
you really think this is about a solitary killing, which of course, deserves no attention because, you know.....freedom?
And you (and the nitwits protesting in oakland, shocker) think you know more than a jury who sat on the trial? Comon.
It's just an excuse to riot, no one acted like this then when OJ was acquitted (that was a black on white crime). The jury has found zimmerman innocent of the charge just like OJ was found innocent, both are free of those crimes.
The media should pay more attention to the appalling stat that Mr Jackson above posted, the high number of blacks that are killed. That's a real news story - not 1 murder out of a thousand, which yes, is tragic, all murders are.
I guess it doesn't add up to ratings though.
Have you ever noticed that some of the forum threads kind of end up with this conversation? lol I hope everyone accepts this share in the spirit of fun with which I mean it. :)
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=1394514250766136&set=vb.136336876521150&type=2&theater
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 20, 2013, 02:39:44 PM
Have you ever noticed that some of the forum threads kind of end up with this conversation? lol I hope everyone accepts this share in the spirit of fun with which I mean it. :)
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=1394514250766136&set=vb.136336876521150&type=2&theater
Ha! That does sound like us!
^To demand justice ... What exactly do they propose to get justice?
Quote from: JayBird on July 20, 2013, 03:35:22 PM
^To demand justice ... What exactly do they propose to get justice?
Angela Cory's head on a platter for starters.
Clearly repeal of the "Stand your ground" laws.
Serious question Sheclown, How would either of those = justice?
Quote from: NotNow on July 20, 2013, 03:55:59 PM
Serious question Sheclown, How would either of those = justice?
I think mostly at this early stage (and this is purely conjecture) it is being together to share outrage and pain and find comfort in community.
Thanks Sheclown, I appreciate your opinion. My personal experience and opinion often seems so different from some here. I find it interesting to try to see where people develop their beliefs. Read this article and tell me what you think (I agree with its premis):
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/radical-gun-control-zombies-exploit-grieving-black-community//#more
Quote from: NotNow on July 20, 2013, 03:24:49 PM
Quote from: Cheshire Cat on July 20, 2013, 02:39:44 PM
Have you ever noticed that some of the forum threads kind of end up with this conversation? lol I hope everyone accepts this share in the spirit of fun with which I mean it. :)
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=1394514250766136&set=vb.136336876521150&type=2&theater
Ha! That does sound like us!
I tell you what. I chuckled all the way through this video. :)
Quote from: sheclown on July 20, 2013, 03:53:11 PM
Quote from: JayBird on July 20, 2013, 03:35:22 PM
^To demand justice ... What exactly do they propose to get justice?
Angela Cory's head on a platter for starters.
Clearly repeal of the "Stand your ground" laws.
Angela Corey is completely doable! She can keep her head but take it with her someplace far far away where judgement and agenda by one is the norm.
The reality with regard to a full recall of Stand your Ground is that it will not be repealed. The reason is the politics and the influence the NRA has on them financially and via the public as well as sitting politicians and impact on those seeking office. You know I am not a gun person by any stretch but the most those who are going after SYG can hope to accomplish is a review and with enough pressure a rewrite of some portions. The fact is politicians are not afraid of those currently calling for the repeal. Rick Scott a prime example. Politicians also know that it is not just conservatives who own guns, but liberals and others. Ownership also crosses all racial lines. What Scott told protestors was that he would "not" call a special legislative session nor would he call for a repeal of Stand Your Ground. He did say "I appreciate you" political rhetoric for "go away and shut up, but please vote for me later". He also called for a "Day of Prayer"! I remember Peyton doing that in the face of past struggles here in Jacksonville and so has Brown. This will turn on politics and politicians response to the issue and not pure morality and that is the sad truth in 2013.
Once again the voice of reason Diane, thank you and I fully agree with your analysis
Quote from: deathstar on July 20, 2013, 03:21:25 AM
I don't own a gun, and with the Stand Your Ground BS going on right now, I don't know how I'd react if someone were to run up on me with a gun, demanding money or something, if I had a gun. I carry a mighty large pocket knife, but would that save me? And, if I used it in self defense, then what?
Deathstar,
NEVER BRING A KNIFE TO A GUN FIGHT! ;)
Quote from: stephendare on July 20, 2013, 05:17:20 PM
a child is killed and a florida law lets the murderer walk and you think its about race?
Well ok, coredumped. thats the problem.
I was not one of the people who cheered when OJ Simpson got off for murdering his ex wife. I thought it was a terrible miscarriage of justice, and I was down that entire day.
But he didnt get off because California had a law which created certain circumstances where he could murder his wife and not be guilty of a crime. He got off because the Jury did not believe that he had actually been present for the crime.
Thats not what happened here. Zimmerman admitting to killing the child.
If you cant understand that, I think it says more about your filters than it does about the public reaction.
StephenDare!, to repeat....Zimmerman claimed self defense. The jury, after reviewing the evidence and hearing all of the witnesses as well as the arguments of opposing council, agreed that the available evidence showed him to be not guilty. There is not a state in the union that has a differing law on self defense. Blaming the "law" of Florida for this verdict is a false argument.
Quote from: stephendare on July 20, 2013, 11:35:32 PM
Quote from: NotNow on July 20, 2013, 09:40:14 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 20, 2013, 05:17:20 PM
a child is killed and a florida law lets the murderer walk and you think its about race?
Well ok, coredumped. thats the problem.
I was not one of the people who cheered when OJ Simpson got off for murdering his ex wife. I thought it was a terrible miscarriage of justice, and I was down that entire day.
But he didnt get off because California had a law which created certain circumstances where he could murder his wife and not be guilty of a crime. He got off because the Jury did not believe that he had actually been present for the crime.
Thats not what happened here. Zimmerman admitting to killing the child.
If you cant understand that, I think it says more about your filters than it does about the public reaction.
StephenDare!, to repeat....Zimmerman claimed self defense. The jury, after reviewing the evidence and hearing all of the witnesses as well as the arguments of opposing council, agreed that the available evidence showed him to be not guilty. There is not a state in the union that has a differing law on self defense. Blaming the "law" of Florida for this verdict is a false argument.
Sorry, but the juror instructions included stand your ground law. Just because Zimmerman didnt use it as part of his official defense when it came to trial doesnt mean that the law just blinked out of existence, as you are claiming in your argument.
You are being disingenuous.
Stephen, your problem is you think you know exactly what happened that night when you really don't. The jury heard all of the evidence, listened to all of the testimony, and could not say he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I bet your mind has been made up since this story hit the news months ago.
What if, Martin did attack Zimmerman first as was alleged and he was beating him, it is reasonable that someone could be scared that their life is in danger and react the way Zimmerman did.
The latest is a woman clerk killed in a robbery gone wrong at the Metro PCS on Main. I drove right by it wondering what the hell was going on.
www.news4jax.com/news/jso-clerk-shot-killed-inside-cell-phone-store/-/475880/21086406/-/7chpeq/-/index.html
Two morons duk'n it out. One loses one wins. Let's move on people.
Quote from: carpnter on July 21, 2013, 12:22:22 AMWhat if, Martin did attack Zimmerman first as was alleged and he was beating him, it is reasonable that someone could be scared that their life is in danger and react the way Zimmerman did.
This is where the law needs to be fleshed out more, IMO. The evidence indicates GZ initiated the entire thing by profiling and following TM. No doubt, he feared for his life when the victim turned the tables on him. However, many don't believe the aggressor should be allowed to shoot people, at the point he feels threatened and then walk away free. This is what most of the commotion is about.
I wouldn't take Rick Scott's opinion on the matter as a setback. That should have been expected. I still see some of these laws getting fleshed out a bit. The key will be to see what type of political pressure is received and how long it lasts. This is something that isn't going to simply go away.
BBC News
20 July 2013 Last updated at 21:01 ET
QuoteTrayvon Martin: Protests across US at Zimmerman verdict
Protests have taken place in more than 100 US cities, a week after George Zimmerman was cleared of murdering unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin.
Demonstrators demanded federal charges to be brought against Mr Zimmerman, 29, over the February 2012 incident.
A Florida jury agreed that the neighbourhood watch volunteer killed the 17-year-old in self-defence.
In comments on Friday, President Barack Obama admitted many black men in the US experienced racial profiling.
Today it was my son. Tomorrow it might be yours"
The protests against the court's decision were led by the National Action Network, headed by civil rights activist the Reverend Al Sharpton.
"We are not coming out with violence, we are coming to denounce violence. The violence that was perpetrated on an unarmed, innocent man named Trayvon Martin," Mr Sharpton told at a rally in New York.
Thousands gathered for "Justice for Trayvon" protests in at least 100 other cities across America, including Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles and Miami.
Mr Sharpton told supporters on Saturday morning that he wanted to see the scrapping of "stand your ground" self-defence laws, such as that in force in Florida.
Tracy Martin, the father of Trayvon Martin, speaks at a rally in Miami. Photo: 20 July 2013 Trayvon Martin's father was among those who rallied in Miami
"We are trying to change laws so that this never, ever happens again," he said.
The teenager's mother, Sybrina Fulton, told the crowd: "Today it was my son. Tomorrow it might be yours."
Rapper Jay Z and his wife, the singer Beyonce, appeared on stage at the New York rally.
In Miami, Trayvon Martin's father, Tracy Martin, was among those who gathered to the words of the civil rights song We Shall Overcome.
'Could have been me'
In an unexpected press call on Friday, Mr Obama said very few black men in the US had not experienced racial profiling.
Mr Obama said the pain that African-Americans felt around the case came from the fact that they viewed it through "a set of experiences and a history that doesn't go away".
He said African Americans were also keenly aware of racial disparities in the application of criminal laws.
"That all contributes to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different," Mr Obama said.
"When Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me, 35 years ago."
He shared his experiences of being racially profiled in the past, such as being followed while out shopping.
"There are very few African-American men who haven't had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars.
"There are very few African-Americans who haven't had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she has a chance to get off," he said.
Mr Obama called for the protests to remain peaceful, saying any violence "dishonours what happened to Trayvon Martin".
He said that although criminal matters and law enforcement were traditionally dealt with on a state and not a federal level, it would be useful to examine some state and local laws to see if they encourage confrontation in certain situations.
On Wednesday, US Attorney General Eric Holder cited the case as he urged a nationwide review of the "stand your ground" laws, which permit the use of deadly force if a person feels seriously threatened.
read more:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23390975?ocid=socialflow_facebook_bbcws
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/trayvon2.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/trayvon2.jpg.html)
Quote from: NotNow on July 20, 2013, 04:36:56 PM
Thanks Sheclown, I appreciate your opinion. My personal experience and opinion often seems so different from some here. I find it interesting to try to see where people develop their beliefs. Read this article and tell me what you think (I agree with its premis):
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/radical-gun-control-zombies-exploit-grieving-black-community//#more
First, you visit the stalking thread and give me your insight to this situation.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,18813.0.html
I personally believe that these protests are only being fostered to distract people from demanding that the laws actually be changed. It's been but one week and already the public is becoming numb. Though I can understand and even agree with most of those protesting or advertising and promoting the protests, it is sad to see that they are not really adding to the beneficial outcome. Shouting justice for Trayvon will eventually extinguish itself and because there seems to be no clear goal or mission (except for that of expelling ones personal rage) the laws will not be affected because the professionals can play the wait and see game much longer. This would mean that we must wait for another colossal atrocity to occur and maybe then people will be formulate an actual attack plan to force the law of the people to be changed. And that, in my opinion is the greatest atrocity and injustice of them all.
^To be honest, as a black male I find the article in the legal link NN posted to be pretty insulting on a variety of levels.
Legal Insurrection is usually laughable because they prefer to incite people rather than attempting to build a proper fact based platform in which to educate and foster creative ideas. As I've said before (below), you can make 3 completely different points out of every set of statistics. It just depends on what your end game is as to how you do so.
And like Abraham Lincoln said, "89% of the quotes and statistics you read in Internet forums have no real basis."
Quote from: JayBird on July 19, 2013, 08:15:42 PM
QuoteStand Your Ground laws tend to track the existing racial disparities in homicide convictions across the U.S. — with one significant exception: Whites who kill blacks in Stand Your Ground states are far more likely to be found justified in their killings. In non-Stand Your Ground states, whites are 250 percent more likely to be found justified in killing a black person than a white person who kills another white person; in Stand Your Ground states, that number jumps to 354 percent.
Much more statistics and several studies
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/is-there-racial-bias-in-stand-your-ground-laws/ (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/is-there-racial-bias-in-stand-your-ground-laws/)
For anyone whom thinks more white criminals get away with murdering blacks in Stand Your Ground states, that is wrong. They get away with more in every state. And of course that racial bias exists, one of these Zimmerman threads someone posted a great video today with absolute proof that a white person can commit a crime an get away with it easier than a minority. I don't think anyone debates that. The question is, how to change that.
The problem with these studies is that just like in finance, the books are so easy to cook and manipulate and fit whomever the person orchestrating the study needs it to say. Actually, it is exactly rigging say a parking study in Riverside-Avondale.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 21, 2013, 04:44:43 AM
Quote from: carpnter on July 21, 2013, 12:22:22 AMWhat if, Martin did attack Zimmerman first as was alleged and he was beating him, it is reasonable that someone could be scared that their life is in danger and react the way Zimmerman did.
This is where the law needs to be fleshed out more, IMO. The evidence indicates GZ initiated the entire thing by profiling and following TM. No doubt, he feared for his life when the victim turned the tables on him. However, many don't believe the aggressor should be allowed to shoot people, at the point he feels threatened and then walk away free. This is what most of the commotion is about.
How do we flesh it out? If Zimmerman had started walking back to his truck as was stated then he was no longer the aggressor and Martin had nothing to defend himself from. You can change the law to require a duty to retreat and Martin would have still been in the wrong in that situation because he did not retreat.
You can make it unlawful to follow someone, but that opens a whole different can of worms, what happens when someone just happens to be walking the same direction as another person, but the person thinking they are being followed feels threatened, does that justify attacking the person following?
We do not know what really happened and all we have is the evidence and testimony that was presented at the trial. The jury found him not guilty, that doesn't mean he is innocent, but it means that there was reasonable doubt when it came to the charges against him. Any reasonable person looking at the evidence objectively should come to the same conclusion when it came to those charges.
It has been true though out this country's history that there are only two ways to incite change in laws and policies. The first is to be part of those proverbial smoke filled rooms in which all decisions seem to be made. The second is to fill the room with angry people so loud that they can not be ignored. Civil rights has always been the latter.
If you are fighting money and power and have neither, the voices of many is the only thing that can carry the day.
The bottom line? No one likes discomfort. If you can make the those in power uncomfortable enough, then and only then will they listen. Once they agree to listen, then you can present those fact based platforms, until then, it will be nothing but noise.
We've already been over this a million times over the last week. There's a strong opposing argument that would suggest laws should be possibly modified to keep stuff like this from legally happening. I don't have time to repost all my views that address the points you just raised but they can be found all over the first 40 pages of the Zimmerman thread.
Ok, I will admit, I am not going back through all 58 pages to see what has been discussed.
First, I hope people understand that "stand your ground" and the Zimmerman case are two very different subjects as "stand your ground" was not used in the Zimmerman defense. Based on the evidence presented in the case, not saying that is exactly what happened, but the evidence is the only existing record, Martin was engaged in a forcible felony against another – every state in the United States, and the Federal Government deem it generally acceptable to resist with force, up to deadly force, if it is reasonably necessary to stop the forcible felony.
Both Martin and Zimmerman had other choices that night. Both were involved in criminal activity or documented violence prior to this incident. Neither is an example of prudent, responsible or conservative behavior. Zimmerman acted legally, but not responsibly. That would be the subject of a civil case, but in Florida, statute preempts a civil lawsuit when a shooter is proven to have acted in self-defense.
Now, on the different subject of "stand your ground." I was not in favor of the legislature changing the obligation to retreat in the self-defense statute. I believe that if "you can retreat, you should retreat," and think the law should be change to read with that language. People do not understand the self-defense law (profoundly evident in this discussion) and "stand your ground" significantly complicates it. I hear people say "If I feel threatened, I can use deadly force – that is what the law says." Well, that would be wrong. What the law says is if "you reasonably believed. . ." – a legal standard that is, in and of itself, vague. In this case and others, what is "reasonable" is the determination of a jury. What exactly is a "Reasonable amount of fear?" You are asking a population to follow a legal standard they have never been trained to understand and you are asking them to quantify an emotion – fear – which is perceptual and not quantifiable.
The idea that you should "retreat" before using deadly force provides the population with a behavioral rule that is understandable by a broad cross section of the population. "Reasonable:" legal interpretation. "Stop a forcible felony: legal understanding. "Fear:" perceptual interpretation "Retreat – back up:" a behavioral action.
I have various certifications to teach shooting sports and firearms safety. Including classes that meet the educational standard to apply for a concealed weapons permit. I do not find that most gun owners have a complete understanding of this subject. I think it would also be prudent that Florida Concealed Weapons permits require much more training on the subjects of acceptable, legal use and that there be a written test applicant's must pass to receive a CWP. It's interesting, in Florida (born prior to 6/1/75) you must take and pass an approved hunter safety class to get a hunting license. Part of that, you must pass a 50 question written test. CWP should include a written test as well. I certainly support 2nd amendment rights, but we have the bar set a little too low, in my opinion.
Quote from: Shine on July 21, 2013, 01:27:36 PM
Ok, I will admit, I am not going back through all 58 pages to see what has been discussed.
First, I hope people understand that "stand your ground" and the Zimmerman case are two very different subjects as "stand your ground" was not used in the Zimmerman defense. Based on the evidence presented in the case, not saying that is exactly what happened, but the evidence is the only existing record, Martin was engaged in a forcible felony against another – every state in the United States, and the Federal Government deem it generally acceptable to resist with force, up to deadly force, if it is reasonably necessary to stop the forcible felony.
Both Martin and Zimmerman had other choices that night. Both were involved in criminal activity or documented violence prior to this incident. Neither is an example of prudent, responsible or conservative behavior. Zimmerman acted legally, but not responsibly. That would be the subject of a civil case, but in Florida, statute preempts a civil lawsuit when a shooter is proven to have acted in self-defense.
Now, on the different subject of "stand your ground." I was not in favor of the legislature changing the obligation to retreat in the self-defense statute. I believe that if "you can retreat, you should retreat," and think the law should be change to read with that language. People do not understand the self-defense law (profoundly evident in this discussion) and "stand your ground" significantly complicates it. I hear people say "If I feel threatened, I can use deadly force – that is what the law says." Well, that would be wrong. What the law says is if "you reasonably believed. . ." – a legal standard that is, in and of itself, vague. In this case and others, what is "reasonable" is the determination of a jury. What exactly is a "Reasonable amount of fear?" You are asking a population to follow a legal standard they have never been trained to understand and you are asking them to quantify an emotion – fear – which is perceptual and not quantifiable.
The idea that you should "retreat" before using deadly force provides the population with a behavioral rule that is understandable by a broad cross section of the population. "Reasonable:" legal interpretation. "Stop a forcible felony: legal understanding. "Fear:" perceptual interpretation "Retreat – back up:" a behavioral action.
I actually have various certifications to teach shooting sports and firearms safety. I do not find that most gun owners have a complete understanding of this subject. I think it would also be prudent that Florida Concealed Weapons permits require much more training on the subjects of acceptable, legal use and that there be a written test applicant's must pass to receive a CWP. It's interesting, in Florida (born prior to 6/1/75) you must take and pass an approved hunter safety class to get a hunting license. Part of that, you must pass a 50 question written test. CWP should include a written test as well. I certainly support 2nd amendment rights, but we have the bar set a little too low, in my opinion.
Wow , somebody who can put aside political ideology and who gets it. Nice to see. +1
The only evidence that Martin threw the first punch is the promise of the guy who killed him. The same promise that Z gave Hanity about not knowing about stand your ground laws that has proven to be a lie. So forceable felony is at best a guess when it comes to TM.
Also stand your ground was used in this case as it radically changed the jury instructions.
QuoteFather Michael Pfleger: Racism is in the DNA of America
By Eric W. Dolan
Sunday, July 21, 2013 12:27 EDT
Father Michael Pfleger at Justice for Trayvon rally in Chicago (Screenshot)
As Chicagoans rallied to demand justice for Trayvon Martin on Saturday, Father Michael Pfleger of St. Sabina's Catholic Church urged Americans to "stand your ground" against racism.
"My prayer is that today the rich seed of Trayvon's life will not just be a moment of anger but a launching pad," Pfleger said, "a launching pad to a moment to change America. As I watch people of all races and creeds and ages come together and speak out, I pray that we will finally come together in unity and create a voice of black and white and brown and young and old to come together with a cry for justice and quality that nobody can not listen to in America."
The activist preacher, a prominent critic of Chicago gun violence, said the United States needed to reexamine its soul and confront racism. The country's long history of institutional racism still lingered, despite the advances of the past century.
"Let's finally have the discussion on race and racial profiling because racism is in the DNA of America," Pfleger continued.
He concluded by saying it was not enough to rally in honor of Trayvon.
"We must come here and make up our mind that the bullet that killed Trayvon woke us up, and we ain't going to back to sleep until justice flows down."
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/21/father-michael-pfleger-racism-is-in-the-dna-of-america/
http://www.youtube.com/v/HmoP6XEG5ik?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0
"We must come here and make up our mind that the bullet that killed Trayvon woke us up, and we ain't going to back to sleep until justice flows down."
Quote from: stephendare on July 21, 2013, 04:27:23 PM
while i agree with shine on changing the law, i do not agree with shine that Martin was engaged in a forcible felony. He was standing his ground under the same laws that were given as instructions to the jury.
Simply being followed, and that is all the evidence shows happened, would in no way constitute - (from the law:) "(1) He or she [Maritain] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;." Again, "reasonably believes" is a legal standard based on the "Reasonable Man" Doctrine. But, I would simply pose the question, if you were being followed by a stranger, would you approach him, ask if he "had a problem," say "you got one now," and punch him in the face? Then pound his head into the a concrete sidewalk? Would that be the action of a "reasonable man?"
That said, I am open to hear how Martian was "standing his ground" – what did Zimmerman do that would have made Martian "Reasonably fear" grievous bodily injury or death was imminent?
Quote from: sheclown on July 21, 2013, 07:20:24 PM
Father Michael Pfleger: Racism is in the DNA of America
People need to do a search on the Adrian Crump case.
Martian/Zimmerman is not an issue of race.
Quote from: sheclown on July 21, 2013, 07:20:24 PM
QuoteFather Michael Pfleger: Racism is in the DNA of America
By Eric W. Dolan
Sunday, July 21, 2013 12:27 EDT
Father Michael Pfleger at Justice for Trayvon rally in Chicago (Screenshot)
As Chicagoans rallied to demand justice for Trayvon Martin on Saturday, Father Michael Pfleger of St. Sabina's Catholic Church urged Americans to "stand your ground" against racism.
"My prayer is that today the rich seed of Trayvon's life will not just be a moment of anger but a launching pad," Pfleger said, "a launching pad to a moment to change America. As I watch people of all races and creeds and ages come together and speak out, I pray that we will finally come together in unity and create a voice of black and white and brown and young and old to come together with a cry for justice and quality that nobody can not listen to in America."
The activist preacher, a prominent critic of Chicago gun violence, said the United States needed to reexamine its soul and confront racism. The country's long history of institutional racism still lingered, despite the advances of the past century.
"Let's finally have the discussion on race and racial profiling because racism is in the DNA of America," Pfleger continued.
He concluded by saying it was not enough to rally in honor of Trayvon.
"We must come here and make up our mind that the bullet that killed Trayvon woke us up, and we ain't going to back to sleep until justice flows down."
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/21/father-michael-pfleger-racism-is-in-the-dna-of-america/
http://www.youtube.com/v/HmoP6XEG5ik?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0
"We must come here and make up our mind that the bullet that killed Trayvon woke us up, and we ain't going to back to sleep until justice flows down."
SheClown by posting this and numerous others it is apparent that you feel this is very true and that racism played a huge part in this. Which has been proven false, it only effected how the media portrayed it, but lets take a moment. You feel that racism is in our DNA, so we would then be born programmed to hate, regardless of what environment we were raised or life experiences we had. It would also mean that we cannot solve it, because racism is no different than having hazel eyes or red hair. We can cover it up with contacts and wigs but never change. So is this your opinion? We are forever doomed to be a racist species?
Shine, in a place like the Southside of Chicago or even our Moncrief, your "reasonable" approach would get you mugged 9 out of 10 times. If a creepy guy you don't know is following you in the dark & rain, he's typically up to no good. Regardless of that, no one but Zimmerman truly knows what happened. There were no eye witnesses that saw how the actual altercation started or what was truly said. All we really know is that at some point in the fight, the kid got the upper hand and was killed as a result.
Jaybird, how has this been "proven false?"
Perhaps it all depends on if one believes that profiling or whatever GZ did to make TM a suspect in his eyes is a form of institutional racism or not?
Quote from: sheclown on July 21, 2013, 07:57:18 PM
Jaybird, how has this been "proven false?"
By the juror saying they didn't even consider race, it came down to how the law was written. However changing those laws is not what Tallahassee wants to get stuck with, it's easier to keep it about race. Bottom line, regardless of race this outcome would've been same regardless. The only change would've been it didn't make national news.
So now I ask you again, you believe if that if TM was dressed same but white, or 'skater punk' that GZ wouldn't have followed? And before you answer, refer to the list of GZ's 911 calls that Lake posted.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 21, 2013, 08:02:17 PM
Perhaps it all depends on if one believes that profiling or whatever GZ did to make TM a suspect in his eyes is a form of institutional racism or not?
Unless he comes out and tells the truth, whatever it is, this is impossible to quantify. And by saying this it implies that if I profile someone of my race that is fine, but not of another race. Then it could be racist. Wouldn't that then be racist in itself?
Quote from: JayBird on July 21, 2013, 08:24:53 PM
Quote from: sheclown on July 21, 2013, 07:57:18 PM
Jaybird, how has this been "proven false?"
By the juror saying they didn't even consider race, it came down to how the law was written. However changing those laws is not what Tallahassee wants to get stuck with, it's easier to keep it about race. Bottom line, regardless of race this outcome would've been same regardless. The only change would've been it didn't make national news.
I think it still would have made the news. It's not every day a kid gets killed by someone who starts the confrontation and that person walks out of court being legally justified in the killing. The racial stuff from both sides is just keeping it in the news.
Quote from: JayBird on July 21, 2013, 08:28:51 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 21, 2013, 08:02:17 PM
Perhaps it all depends on if one believes that profiling or whatever GZ did to make TM a suspect in his eyes is a form of institutional racism or not?
Unless he comes out and tells the truth, whatever it is, this is impossible to quantify. And by saying this it implies that if I profile someone of my race that is fine, but not of another race. Then it could be racist. Wouldn't that then be racist in itself?
Institutional racism describes any kind of system of inequality based on race. Concepts like real estate professionals redlining minority dominated neighborhoods, further depressing the land values, and even profiling can be considered forms of Institutional racism.
From wikipedia:
QuoteInstitutional Racism in the United States
The U.S. property appraisal system, created in the 1930s, originally tied property value and eligibility for government loans to race. Thus, white-majority neighborhoods received the government's highest property value ratings, and white people were eligible for government loans. Between 1934 and 1962, less than 2 percent of government-subsidized housing went to non-white people.
Governmental, social, and educational policies also have been charged with institutional racism, i.e. it affects general health care and AIDS health intervention and services in non-white minority communities. The over-representation of minorities in disease categories (including AIDS), is partly related to racism, according to J. Hutchinson. In a 1992 article, he describes how the federal government's national response to the AIDS epidemic in minority communities has been slow, showing insensitivity to ethnic diversity in preventive medicine, community health maintenance, and AIDS treatment services.
Standardized testing has also been considered a form of institutional racism, because it is believed to be biased in favor of people from particular socio-cultural backgrounds. Some minorities (such as blacks and Hispanics) have consistently tested worse than whites on virtually all standardized tests, even after controlling for socioeconomic status. The achievement gap between white and black or Hispanic students mirrors the gap between the two groups in a variety of IQ tests, many of which are designed to be culturally neutral.In any case, the cause of the achievement gap between black, Hispanic, and white students has yet to be fully elucidated.
Although approximately two thirds of crack cocaine users are white or Hispanic, a large percentage of people convicted of possession of crack cocaine in federal courts in 1994 were black. In 1994 84.5% of the defendants convicted of crack cocaine possession were black while 10.3% were white and 5.2% were Hispanic. Possession for powder cocaine was more racially mixed with 58% of the offenders being white, 26.7% black, and 15% Hispanic. Within the federal judicial system a person convicted of possession with intent to distribute powder cocaine carries a five-year sentence for quantities of 500 grams or more while a person convicted of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine faces a five-year sentence for quantities of five grams or more. With the combination of severe and unbalanced drug possession laws along with the rates of conviction in terms of race, the judicial system has created a huge racial disparity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism
Actually in that respect it has brought many cases to light that could be cast in the same light. And on another note, I find it interesting how classify a 17 year old male as a kid when he's the victim, but when he is the confirmed absolute instigator we leave that term out and even our legal system tries them as adults. As a matter of fact, in the state o Florida, anything above a 3rd degree felony he would've been charged as an adult in the eyes of the law. The same laws that we say didn't give him justice.
Quote from: stephendare on July 21, 2013, 08:33:12 PM
Quote from: JayBird on July 21, 2013, 08:28:51 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 21, 2013, 08:02:17 PM
Perhaps it all depends on if one believes that profiling or whatever GZ did to make TM a suspect in his eyes is a form of institutional racism or not?
Unless he comes out and tells the truth, whatever it is, this is impossible to quantify. And by saying this it implies that if I profile someone of my race that is fine, but not of another race. Then it could be racist. Wouldn't that then be racist in itself?
no, not really. And keep in mind that four other jurors denied that she was describing how they felt or decided..
"racist" implies power, actually.
And this is a favorite semantic game of the quasi racist right. To pretend that noticing racism is racist in and of itself. But really, its just semantics.
Actually the official statement from the 'others' never said what they thought sentence should be, all of that has been media interjection. And the reason for the statement was they didn't agree with her "Zimmerman was right in his heart" statement.
The idea of classifying a recently turned 17 year old as a kid came up in another discussion about this case week. My response was if anyone thinks someone at the age of 17 is a kid, go out and have sex with a 17 year old girl and see how the State responds.
Yes Lake I fully understand your point I am not arguing racism exists of course it does. The problem I have is that in my opinion it isn't the basis here. It will not get the laws changed that need to be. It won't even further the cause of race relations because it has been thrown around so much from this case it's lost it's meaning.
Idk, I just get aggravated with everyone pulling out this race flag in this case because it will not foster progress. All it is doing is making everyone sleep better because they feel like action equals progress. Which means now we'll have to wait for another tragedy to occur and hope then that all parties are the same race so that maybe then we can get the laws changed.
Reminds me of that Birmingham mayor who ran on "I wanna do something". Now he is in jail for fraud and negligence and a few other things. Doing something is always the answer. Sometime you actually have to have a plan, a purpose and follow through. Not get caught up with the flashy tricks of the magician.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 21, 2013, 08:47:36 PM
The idea of classifying a recently turned 17 year old as a kid came up in another discussion about this case week. My response was if anyone thinks someone at the age of 17 is a kid, go out and have sex with a 17 year old girl and see how the State responds.
Ha I like that one, very good point!
Quote from: stephendare on July 21, 2013, 08:45:45 PM
Quote from: JayBird on July 21, 2013, 08:41:51 PM
Actually in that respect it has brought many cases to light that could be cast in the same light. And on another note, I find it interesting how classify a 17 year old male as a kid when he's the victim, but when he is the confirmed absolute instigator we leave that term out and even our legal system tries them as adults. As a matter of fact, in the state o Florida, anything above a 3rd degree felony he would've been charged as an adult in the eyes of the law. The same laws that we say didn't give him justice.
Quote from: stephendare on July 21, 2013, 08:33:12 PM
Quote from: JayBird on July 21, 2013, 08:28:51 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 21, 2013, 08:02:17 PM
Perhaps it all depends on if one believes that profiling or whatever GZ did to make TM a suspect in his eyes is a form of institutional racism or not?
Unless he comes out and tells the truth, whatever it is, this is impossible to quantify. And by saying this it implies that if I profile someone of my race that is fine, but not of another race. Then it could be racist. Wouldn't that then be racist in itself?
no, not really. And keep in mind that four other jurors denied that she was describing how they felt or decided..
"racist" implies power, actually.
And this is a favorite semantic game of the quasi racist right. To pretend that noticing racism is racist in and of itself. But really, its just semantics.
Actually the official statement from the 'others' never said what they thought sentence should be, all of that has been media interjection. And the reason for the statement was they didn't agree with her "Zimmerman was right in his heart" statement.
exactly.
Sorry that was my bad, I thought you were posting again how four jurors wanted a guilty verdict. I apologize for scanning and not reading. You are right in your assertion, IMO
Quote from: JayBird on July 21, 2013, 08:49:29 PM
Yes Lake I fully understand your point I am not arguing racism exists of course it does. The problem I have is that in my opinion it isn't the basis here. It will not get the laws changed that need to be. It won't even further the cause of race relations because it has been thrown around so much from this case it's lost it's meaning.
I agree that arguing racism will not get the laws changed. It's been a pet peeve of mine over the last week as well. I've grown tired of people talking about black-on-black crime, why don't people say anything about the killings in Chicago, and if TM was white and GZ was black, etc. The major issue here is that the some of our laws need to be reviewed and possibly further defined. No one (white, black, green, blue, etc.) deserves to be gunned down on the street for walking slowly while talking to his girlfriend and eating skittles...only to have that killing justified by state law.
We are all affected by institutional racism. Until we can be brave enough to have this conversation, nothing of significance will change.
I'm not talking about one aspect here -- where or not some of Z's best buds were black or not, I'm talking about something much broader and wider.
We are all diminished by it, our world and our future is made smaller because of it.
Quote from: sheclown on July 21, 2013, 07:57:18 PM
Jaybird, how has this been "proven false?"
Quote from: thelakelander on July 21, 2013, 07:46:16 PM
Shine, in a place like the Southside of Chicago or even our Moncrief, your "reasonable" approach would get you mugged 9 out of 10 times. If a creepy guy you don't know is following you in the dark & rain, he's typically up to no good.
There is some truth in what you say – but it's not "my reasonable approach." The Reasonable Man Doctrine is the legal standard in most every state in the US. It's not a "black ink" rule of law but subject to interpretation, most notably, that of a jury. One reason deadly force should only be used as an absolute last resort. But also, why your conduct needs to show prudence. In the case of being followed, it would be smart to do some things to ensure your safety and to validate you may be in danger – step into a commercial establishment – turn and cross the street and challenge someone following you – order them to stop following you – run. If they start running after you – now what is "reasonable" in the eyes of the community? Maybe, may not be.
Being a middle aged white male, I am statistically among the least likely group to be the victim of gun violence. Red meat and Twinkies will more likely settle me in a grave then a 9. But consider that part of the population most vulnerable to sexual assault. If you apply some of the more outrageous comments about Zimmerman, it would suggest a person would need to be physically sexually violated before using force? The fact remains, under the law, you do not have to be injured/assaulted to legally use justifiable force.
I would agree, its clear as mud. And, even if you are right, your life can be significantly derailed. I would bet if Zimmerman had it all to do over, he would have taken the beating, swallowed is pride, and gone back to condo life, takeout pizza and Netflix. Bernie De LaRonda has been a prosecutor for 30 years. Zimmerman was only the second murder case he lost. If De LaRonda cannot get a conviction, exactly what would have. Justice? I see vengeance.
I alluded to the Adrian Crump case earlier. Crump, African American shot and killed a 15 year old white boy in Jacksonville who put a rock through Crump's window with a sling shot. This was before "stand your ground" and you had the legal obligation to retreat. Crump, left his home with a pistol, went down the street after the boy's vehicle, confronted him and shot him dead.
Crump was acquitted by a jury. I am not going to get into the merits of this case, but no one staged a protest march saying the legal system unduly benefits African American's who use deadly force. There is no rational basis to say Zimmerman or the outcome of the case was affected by race. While the fact that it was brought to trial without meeting the standard of evidence, and most certainly the fact that it was not presented to a Grand Jury, was a reaction to public pressure. Today, those seeking to falsely capitalize and agitate on racial grounds are doing nothing for race relations in this country. Vengeance is not justice.
Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2013, 08:51:55 AM
I think if Zimmerman had it to do all over again, he would probably do it exactly the same way. He got away with it after all. And now he's famous and a folk hero amongst a bunch of people who fantasize that they too can kill a teenager that they don't like the looks of.
When the book and film money comes rolling in, and he sues broadcast news to settle for an undisclosed sum, the lesson will be complete: "Does your life suck? Are you a loser nobody? Shoot a kid! It helps if he's black, but anyone 'scary' will do!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0
For the sake of arguement, let's go ahead and assume Zimmerman was out for blood that night. He is an evil racist who just wanted to kill a black man.
Do it all over again? Including where he had his name drug through the media, hounded wherever he went for over a year, and essentially made out to be the worst human being imaginable?
Then again maybe he'll reconsider when it dawns on him he will have virtually no private life and will have to watch his back 24/7. Atleast until the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton find a fresher source of blood to suck off.
Quote from: Shine on July 22, 2013, 08:47:16 AM
Quote from: sheclown on July 21, 2013, 07:57:18 PM
Jaybird, how has this been "proven false?"
Quote from: thelakelander on July 21, 2013, 07:46:16 PM
Shine, in a place like the Southside of Chicago or even our Moncrief, your "reasonable" approach would get you mugged 9 out of 10 times. If a creepy guy you don't know is following you in the dark & rain, he's typically up to no good.
There is some truth in what you say – but it's not "my reasonable approach." The Reasonable Man Doctrine is the legal standard in most every state in the US. It's not a "black ink" rule of law but subject to interpretation, most notably, that of a jury. One reason deadly force should only be used as an absolute last resort. But also, why your conduct needs to show prudence. In the case of being followed, it would be smart to do some things to ensure your safety and to validate you may be in danger – step into a commercial establishment – turn and cross the street and challenge someone following you – order them to stop following you – run. If they start running after you – now what is "reasonable" in the eyes of the community? Maybe, may not be.
Being a middle aged white male, I am statistically among the least likely group to be the victim of gun violence. Red meat and Twinkies will more likely settle me in a grave then a 9. But consider that part of the population most vulnerable to sexual assault. If you apply some of the more outrageous comments about Zimmerman, it would suggest a person would need to be physically sexually violated before using force? The fact remains, under the law, you do not have to be injured/assaulted to legally use justifiable force.
I would agree, its clear as mud. And, even if you are right, your life can be significantly derailed. I would bet if Zimmerman had it all to do over, he would have taken the beating, swallowed is pride, and gone back to condo life, takeout pizza and Netflix. Bernie De LaRonda has been a prosecutor for 30 years. Zimmerman was only the second murder case he lost. If De LaRonda cannot get a conviction, exactly what would have. Justice? I see vengeance.
I alluded to the Adrian Crump case earlier. Crump, African American shot and killed a 15 year old white boy in Jacksonville who put a rock through Crump's window with a sling shot. This was before "stand your ground" and you had the legal obligation to retreat. Crump, left his home with a pistol, went down the street after the boy's vehicle, confronted him and shot him dead. Crump was acquitted by a jury. I am not going to get into the merits of this case, but no one staged a protest march saying the legal system unduly benefits African American's who use deadly force. There is no rational basis to say Zimmerman or the outcome of the case was affected by race. While the fact that it was brought to trial without meeting the standard of evidence, and most certainly the fact that it was not presented to a Grand Jury, was a reaction to public pressure. Today, those seeking to falsely capitalize and agitate on racial grounds are doing nothing for race relations in this country. Vengeance is not justice.
Most keep harping on race. Even those that say the issue isn't about race. You even mentioned it by bringing up an example of another killing with skin colors switched to prove your point. Since I believe in the concept of Institutional Racism is alive and well in our country, the only real racial connection I see in this particular trial is the initial profiling of Martin, which set off the entire chain of events, IMO. GZ doesn't view TM as a suspicious person if he was not of a male of a certain skin color. No following happens and each guy goes on his merry way.
However, the real issue (which I think we both agree on) is the interpretation and understanding of laws surrounding this particular case. For me, that's not about race. No one, regardless of their skin color, should be able to be legally killed under these types of circumstances. If we need to better flesh out laws and our understanding on them, then let's do it.
Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2013, 08:51:55 AM
I think if Zimmerman had it to do all over again, he would probably do it exactly the same way. He got away with it after all. And now he's famous and a folk hero amongst a bunch of people who fantasize that they too can kill a teenager that they don't like the looks of.
When the book and film money comes rolling in, and he sues broadcast news to settle for an undisclosed sum, the lesson will be complete: "Does your life suck? Are you a loser nobody? Shoot a kid! It helps if he's black, but anyone 'scary' will do!"
Wow... this sez it all...
Here's something that helps flavor the whole situation for me. Walking through the office this morning one of the women who work here is laughing watching a video of a Black minister explaining to his congregation why Trayvon had it coming. Why the preacher thought it was ok to give a comical sermon blaming Trayvon and she thought it was ok to be laughing about a situation that left a 17 year old boy dead I think is disgusting. I wonder how many Zimmerman supporters are proud to be on their team?
Quote from: thelakelander on July 22, 2013, 09:24:49 AM
Since I believe in the concept of Institutional Racism is alive and well in our country, the only real racial connection I see in this particular trial is the initial profiling of Martin, which set off the entire chain of events, IMO. GZ doesn't view TM as a suspicious person if he was not of a male of a certain skin color. No following happens and each guy goes on his merry way.
However, the real issue (which I think we both agree on) is the interpretation and understanding of laws surrounding this particular case. For me, that's not about race. No one, regardless of their skin color, should be able to be legally killed under these types of circumstances. If we need to better flesh out laws and our understanding on them, then let's do it.
True, Martian was profiled as a potential "criminal." But there is no evidence that it was racial in nature. If the community had hired an off-duty police officer, or a private security guard to patrol the neighborhood, I would imagine they would have noticed Martian's behavior as "non-characteristic" of the community – he is on foot in a car based community, dark and past sunset, he is out in the rain, he is concealing his face, he is cutting through property, not staying on the sidewalk, and when notices he is being observed, he moves to a place he cannot be seen. If I were in Zimmerman's place, on the heels of four burglaries in my community, including a home invasion, I would have, at minimum watched to see where this individual went. Yes, I may have followed him. I am certainly not a racist. And, I think I probably would have diffused the situation before it became violent. I would say Zimmerman's response of "No, I aint got a problem," was asking for trouble when a clearly pissed off Martian shows up behind him. "Do you live here?" probably would have been all it took.
While I do not support "stand your ground," I do support the right to legally possess a firearm for personal protection. Zimmerman's case would have come back the same if "stand your ground" was changed back to its pre 2005 text. And to clarify, "Stand your ground" is part of Florida's self-defense statute, that is why it was part of the jury instructions as it is a section of the law.
Yes, Marin was a minor, but repeatedly referring to him as a "kid" or a "child" accentuates an emotionally driven response. Had Zimmerman not acted in self-defense, and sustained only the injuries he had when the attack was stopped, Martian would likely have been arrested and charged with aggravated assault and charged as an adult due to the serious, violent nature of the charge. Had Zimmerman not been able to stop Martian at that point, it is likely Martian would continue to beat Zimmerman and adding to his injuries to an unknown point.
Also, there's a difference between racial profiling and being a racist. I do believe that people can profile with a built in perspective on a situation that may be based upon historical racial stereotypes. If I were Zimmerman, what looked suspicious to him that night may have not looked the same through my eyes. However, I don't believe that makes Zimmerman a racist. Sheclown posted a great video of people's reactions to a white guy, black guy, and white girl attempting to steal a bike somewhere on this site, last week. I think the reactions of people are a great example of the point I'm trying to make.
As for the kid thing, if Zimmerman had sex with Martin, he would have been thrown in jail. Martin was a kid. All of us know we're a lot smarter now at our current ages than we were in high school and residing under the roof of an adult. There's nothing wrong pointing that out. Especially, when there's a push by many to paint him as an equal victim, sharing the responsibility of what happened that night with a grown man who pursued him.
Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2013, 10:44:44 AMI personally think that people should be pissed off that their laws are being created by private right wing boards with the complicity of huge corporations and a few local collaborators.
Yes, they should be. Apathy is an unfortunate choice.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 22, 2013, 10:53:28 AM
Also, there's a difference between racial profiling and being a racist. I do believe that people can profile with a built in perspective on a situation that may be based upon historical racial stereotypes. If I were Zimmerman, what looked suspicious to him that night may have not looked the same through my eyes. However, I don't believe that makes Zimmerman a racist. Sheclown posted a great video of people's reactions to a white guy, black guy, and white girl attempting to steal a bike somewhere on this site, last week. I think the reactions of people are a great example of the point I'm trying to make.
As for the kid thing, if Zimmerman had sex with Martin, he would have been thrown in jail. Martin was a kid. All of us know we're a lot smarter now at our current ages than we were in high school and residing under the roof of an adult. There's nothing wrong pointing that out. Especially, when there's a push by many to paint him as an equal victim, sharing the responsibility of what happened that night with a grown man who pursued him.
I will share a story from my personal experience.
I was walking down the sidewalk near Pasco's Hardware. This was a couple of years ago. I feel, for the most part, safe wherever I go. I don't worry about it too much.
However, I was walking down the sidewalk when a group of three or four young black men were approaching me --
I felt myself tense up.
As they passed me by, one of them said "hey, Miss Glory".
I said to myself, "damn".
It is so ingrained into my consciousness that I reacted automatically. Without thinking.
Does this action make me a racist? I don't believe it does.
Does it prove that I can respond with institutional racism? I believe it does.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 22, 2013, 10:53:28 AM
As for the kid thing . . . Martin was a kid. All of us know we're a lot smarter now at our current ages than we were in high school and residing under the roof of an adult. There's nothing wrong pointing that out. Especially, when there's a push by many to paint him as an equal victim, sharing the responsibility of what happened that night with a grown man who pursued him.
I think that is fair. I would say the use of "kid" to imply in some way "helpless" is my concern. A 17 year old is completely capable of inflecting bodily harm on another.
Quote from: Shine on July 22, 2013, 12:05:21 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 22, 2013, 10:53:28 AM
As for the kid thing . . . Martin was a kid. All of us know we're a lot smarter now at our current ages than we were in high school and residing under the roof of an adult. There's nothing wrong pointing that out. Especially, when there's a push by many to paint him as an equal victim, sharing the responsibility of what happened that night with a grown man who pursued him.
I think that is fair. I would say the use of "kid" to imply in some way "helpless" is my concern. A 17 year old is completely capable of inflecting bodily harm on another.
and yet has legal protections covering his inexperience
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-emerged-hiding-truck-crash-rescue/story?id=19735432
George Zimmerman, who has been in hiding since he was acquitted of murder in the death of Trayvon Martin, emerged to help rescue a family who was trapped in an overturned vehicle, police said today.
Zimmerman was one of two men who came to the aid of a family of four -- two parents and two children -- trapped inside a blue Ford Explorer SUV that had rolled over after traveling off the highway in Sanford, Fla. at approximately 5:45 p.m. Thursday, the Seminole County Sheriff's Office said in a statement.
Quote from: NotNow on July 20, 2013, 04:36:56 PM
Thanks Sheclown, I appreciate your opinion. My personal experience and opinion often seems so different from some here. I find it interesting to try to see where people develop their beliefs. Read this article and tell me what you think (I agree with its premis):
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/radical-gun-control-zombies-exploit-grieving-black-community//#more
What's Stand-Your-Ground Have to Do With It?Stand your ground, IMHO, is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. I really don't have strong feelings about gun control. I have owned handguns in the past, when I went camping in remote places it gave me a sense of safety. That being said, I'm not in favor of liberal gun laws either.
As far as SYG goes, I think it is asking for trouble since the survivor of the conflict is the one who tells the story. Seems ripe for trouble.
And Stephen's ALEC info is rather mind-blowing.
The Grief and Anger in the Black Community is Realduh
The Disinformation War Waged on the Black CommunityI think that river flows in both directions.
If The Lies Are Believed, Anger and Outrage Are Understandable, Inevitablehow generous
So How Does All This Tie Into Stand-Your-Ground Protests?I do think it is a safe target (and a worthy one at that). It is easier for people to target their anger at SYG than deal with the institutional racism that we need to deal with.
Radical Gun Control Zombies Remain Mindlessly PersistentIt is admirable to be persistent when you are fighting for a cause.
Radical Gun Control Zombies' Message Crystal Clear–Aaaargh!And this should surprise anyone?
----------------------------------------------------------
What I do appreciate is your attention to that stalking matter NotNow. And in spite of the fact that we often disagree, I usually, mostly always, appreciate hearing your perspective.
Finally, this is much larger than a problem for the black community. It is a problem for all -- the whole community.
The law legalized the killing. I think by now, that's pretty clear. To many people, the guy got away with murder, which is why there is a cry to have the laws reviewed and modified, if possible.
Good interview. It shows that the system worked and the evidence presented overcame this woman's emotion and bias. Thanks for posting.
Quote from: stephendare on July 26, 2013, 09:56:51 AM
Quote from: fsquid on July 26, 2013, 09:53:23 AM
Good interview. It shows that the system worked and the evidence presented overcame this woman's emotion and bias. Thanks for posting.
You're welcome. Luckily no one has ever worried about the system being broken, fsquid. Its the laws. Unless you were worried about the court system being 'broken' and just kept it to yourself.
Perhaps thats why you havent responded to any of the postings about ALEC.
maybe not on here, but I've heard it among people at work, etc. I agree with you and lake that the law certainly should get a second look.
http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/
I notice you guys have not talked about this at all. Wonder why?
its 4 years old
I found this interview interesting in that the juror said race was not a factor in this case. That issue has convoluted discussion about the law and race at every step of the way in this particular circumstance. I think for the sake of this case we are talking about what the laws as written allow. To the issue of race and profiling, this case served to spark long pent up emotions and views but that issue is not at the core of all that happened in Sanford. The only good that will come of it will come via examination of current laws as a result of the verdict and an ongoing and open dialog about racism for our collective future.
QuoteSoul singer Chaka Khan told HuffPost's BlackVoices Friday that she is "boycotting" the state of Florida following the outcome of the George Zimmerman trial. The powerhouse vocalist said that she already cancelled a booking in Florida last week.
She told BlackVoices' Brennan Williams that the trial was a "travesty," and an indication that racism is "very much alive and well" in America.
http://thegrio.com/2013/07/26/chaka-khan-i-am-boycotting-florida/
http://www.youtube.com/v/mqhWGrkkunA?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param%20name=
"Boycott Florida," due to a decision of six jurors. I am sure no people of color work in the tourism and entertainment industry and would be hurt by this. Brilliant.
Some people of color were also hurt by the Montgomery bus boycotts and ending of slavery. When these things come along, they are normally done for the greater good of the larger community. I don't think these individual unorganized boycotts will make much of an impact either way, so I wouldn't lose any sleep over them. Nevertheless, if someone wants to boycott the state, so be it. I've been doing the same with KFC since I was 12 after a bad incident there. I'm sure others avoid other businesses, people, etc.
Quote from: stephendare on July 26, 2013, 12:49:22 PM
Quote from: Apache on July 26, 2013, 12:10:34 PM
Quote from: bill on July 26, 2013, 11:07:31 AM
http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/
I notice you guys have not talked about this at all. Wonder why?
Were you really sitting around wondering why no one on MJ was talking about a little known case from 2009 in Rochester that no one knew about until 24hrs ago when it was dug up and compared to Zimmerman.
yes. bill gets his info mostly from the local Klavern apparently. He's been all over those criminal blacks for a couple of years, because ....you know: white pride.
Here's his posting history. Its mostly hateful little posts about politics.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=2467
Hard to figure it out when it does not fit your agenda huh stevie?
Quote from: FSBA on July 14, 2013, 12:15:43 AM
Also, no matter the truth in the Zimmerman case, a lady in Jax got sentenced today to 20 years for firing warning shots off at her abusive husband. I don't care which way you go on the Zimmerman case, if you don't agree that this incident (warning shots) was a proper Stand your Ground case and that she should be freed then you probably shouldn't be allowed to have opinions on firearm defense laws.
The
HEADLINE read "
Mother Gets 20 Years for Firing Warning Shots. The
ARTICLE said the facts of the case. She was in a fight with her husband. She left the home. She got in her car. She got her gun out of the car. She returned to the home. She can be heard on the 911 tape clearly saying, "I've got something for you" and fired several shots inches from her husband and children's head. The crime scene unit determined one ricocheted and ended up in the ceiling.
"Woman gets 20 years for trying to kill husband, children, claims it was warning shots" does not get as many hits and re-sends as "Woman gets 20 years for firing warning shots." The jury took less than 20 minutes to find her guilty. I'm sorry - but a warning shot AT YOUR HEAD is not a warning shot any more than shooting someone seven times with a six-shot revolver is a "cleaning accident".
Quote from: stephendare on July 27, 2013, 03:40:10 PM
I can see how you got that from my post, bill.
Same back at ya
Again you have said nothing but instead go to race hustling. Typical and sad.
http://www.youtube.com/v/Sc3zUdGRJA0?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0
"
Most important, we need to interrogate the new hidden forms of structural racism and deconstruct, in the best sense of the word, the ways in which racism expresses itself in the age of "post-racial color blindness." In this way, we do our best to honor the memory of those, such as Trayvon Martin, who have paid the ultimate price for racism."
QuoteTrayvon Martin, Race and Anthropology
Leith Mullings
On February 26, 2012, 28-year-old George Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed 17-year-old African American teenager who, after buying Skittles and iced tea at the local 7-Eleven, was on his way home. Zimmerman claimed he was acting in self-defense, and the Sanford, Florida police force, after a brief investigation, refused to press charges. Following several months of demonstrations, Florida Governor Rick Scott (no fan of anthropology, as you may recall) assigned the case to State Attorney Angela Corey, who charged Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder. A year and a half after the killing, on July 13, 2013, a virtually all-white (and all-female) jury found George Zimmerman not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin (see journalist Charles Blow for an excellent discussion of the systemic racism that brought us to this moment). Though prosecutors, many journalists and large segments of the public saw the case as a quintessential example of race profiling—there is ample evidence, many believed, that Zimmerman profiled the teenager because he was a young Black man—during and after the trial both teams of lawyers and the jurors tripped over themselves proclaiming that neither the murder nor the subsequent not guilty verdict had anything to do with race. How do we explain these startlingly different responses as to the role of race?
Sanford Florida Courthouse. Photo courtesy Georgia Guerci by wikicommons
Sanford Florida Courthouse. Photo courtesy Georgia Guerci by wikicommons
As a discipline, anthropology has a special relationship to race—the concept that figured so strongly in the Trayvon Martin case and, as I wrote in a 2005 article in the Annual Review of Anthropology, a conflicted history with respect to race and racism. Anthropology is the discipline that fostered and nurtured "scientific racism," a world view that transforms certain perceived differences into genetically determined inequality and provides a rationale for slavery, colonialism, segregation, eugenics, and terror. Our discipline also has a significant tradition of anti-racism that emerged from the tumult leading to World War II.
Color-Blind/Post-Racial Racism: Denial
In the United States, after more than 200 years of slavery and 100 years of legal segregation, the Black Freedom Struggle culminated in the Civil Rights Movement and resulted in significant victories. "Whites-only" signs are gone, antidiscrimination laws have prohibited overt forms of discrimination, and we have elected a Black president. However, other means of exclusion support residential and educational segregation; voting is made increasingly difficult because of gerrymandering, voter identification requirements, and most recently the Supreme Court's gutting of the Voting Rights Act. As well, the criminal justice system remains stunningly unjust—a phenomenon aptly named "the new Jim Crow" by Michelle Alexander.
What has changed is that these inequalities are no longer explained in terms of the racist structures and practices that produce them; indeed the existence of racism is denied. We now live in what has been termed a post-racial age, with new ideologies of racism, such as "color blindness." As sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva explains, the essence of the new "color-blind" racism is that "racial inequality is explained in terms of nonracial dynamics." In other words, flagrant forms of racism coexist with the denial of racism. It is therefore not surprising that at the press conference following the announcement of the verdict, Zimmerman's defense lawyer, Mark O'Mara, not only denied that the case was about race, but, when asked whether the outcome of the case might have been different if Zimmerman had been a 17-year-old African American teenager with a gun who followed and shot a 29-year-old white man walking home in the rain, O'Mara responded that if Zimmerman had been Black, "he would never have been charged with the crime." Even Michael Steele, former chairman of the Republican Party and an African American man, was moved to ask, "Is he high?" Importantly, the ideological framework of color blindness not only rationalizes racial inequality; it also serves to erase and delegitimize antiracist activities. Hence O'Mara also felt free to attack the Civil Rights activists who called for the investigation that finally led to the trial.
Anthropology, Race and Racism
In the wake of the Civil Rights Movement, cultural anthropologists in particular have understood race to be a social construction—not a biological given (indeed, this is almost a mantra). Race is constructed in the sense that racial hierarchies are created at specific historical moments, frequently linked to labor exploitation, conquest, nation-building, and racialized definitions of citizenship. The racial projects that create the hierarchies are historically contingent, mutable, and at once structural and dynamic. Although the American Anthropological Association's Race: Are We So Different? initiative has made a major contribution to addressing the racial ideologies of the world that anthropologists helped to make, what we have not always done so well is to demonstrate that though race is socially constructed, racism is a lethal social reality, constraining the potential, if not threatening the lives, of millions of people.
Given the major role anthropology played in the earlier elaboration of race as a "scientific" category, the Trayvon Martin tragedy should provide an opportunity for reflection on our discipline, our association, and our scholarship. Anthropologist Karen Brodkin correctly points out that many anthropologists have become race-avoidant in their practices, in their workplaces, and in the association, unfortunately and perhaps unknowingly reinforcing racism by ignoring or denying it. In 2007, former AAA President Alan Goodman created a Commission on Race and Racism within Anthropology and the AAA. The commission's findings about practices in many anthropology departments were, to say the least, discouraging. Anthropology is one of the least integrated disciplines. The commission found that sister organizations, including the American Sociological Association, the American Psychological Association, and even the American Economics Association and the American Political Science Association had more robust, proactive and aggressive strategies to retain and attract scholars of color. The AAA Committee on Minority Issues in Anthropology, initially created in 1993 as an outcome of the Commission on Minority Issues, is the only association-wide committee charged with addressing the recruitment and retention of scholars of color. It has had a troubled history, despite the best efforts of able chairs and the support of several presidents. In its most recent iteration, the committee's expanding charge and composition has evolved in such a way that anti-racism has not always been seen as a predominant concern. Sadly, this and the failure of other initiatives are in part due to the association's reluctance, despite good intentions, to recognize, confront and act on racism.
Diversity has become a threadbare term used throughout the academy and the workplace to refer to almost any type of variation. Expanding diversity is admirable but does not in itself address the historical injustices of racial exclusion. To the extent that it substitutes for antiracist affirmative action, or underplays the US history of creating a hierarchy of racialized populations, emphasis on diversity obscures the systemic character of racism in the United States. All forms of discrimination are lamentable, but they are not equal nor even necessarily comparable, and often require different interventions. To lump the issue of all differences together and to expect a committee or any other body to address all inequalities is to guarantee failure, which then serves to support the view that the problem is intractable. The events of the Martin case underscore the importance of reestablishing anti-racism as CMIA's primary aim and working more systematically to address racism in our discipline, association, workplace and the academy.
The Task Force on Race and Racism
In November 2012 I appointed a Task Force on Race and Racism, co-chaired by Karen Brodkin and Raymond Codrington. The Task Force set itself three modest priorities for the year: (1) to construct a website that is at least on par with those of our sister disciplines; (2) to hold a roundtable at AAA meetings to promote a discussion of recruitment and retention of racialized anthropologists in the subfields, particularly archaeology and biological anthropology, where they are woefully underrepresented; and (3) to administer a survey to the membership that could produce baseline data on both representation and the racial climate. This third priority is perhaps one of the more controversial initiatives; some of our members are understandably offended about being asked about their racial/ethnic identity. Task force members are well aware that individuals have many identities, but also know that, as anthropologist Lee Baker put it, there is a difference between identity and identification. In whatever ways Trayvon Martin may have conceived of his identity, it was how George Zimmerman identified him, supported by a structure of racism that led to his death. Those who suggest that concern about racism is a misplaced concern of the previous generation would do well to remember that Trayvon Martin was only 17 years old.
Needless to say, the problems of race in our association pale in comparison to the loss of a young life—but it would be a mistake to imagine that they are wholly disconnected. Those of us who research race, racism and inequality must continue to name racism without sugarcoating it; to analyze the ways in which racism is maintained and produced inside and outside of our discipline without overtly targeting its victims; and to use the tools of anthropology to identify the underlying social relationships and informal workings of racist projects. Most important, we need to interrogate the new hidden forms of structural racism and deconstruct, in the best sense of the word, the ways in which racism expresses itself in the age of "post-racial color blindness." In this way, we do our best to honor the memory of those, such as Trayvon Martin, who have paid the ultimate price for racism.
Leith Mullings is the president of the American Anthropological Association.
- See more at: http://www.anthropology-news.org/index.php/2013/07/19/trayvon-martin-race-and-anthropology/#sthash.NdURPzKv.RBAaJQoD.dpuf
(http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/sheclown2/welcometoflorida.jpg) (http://s1098.photobucket.com/user/sheclown2/media/welcometoflorida.jpg.html)
Cover of this month's Ebony Magazine:
(http://www.trbimg.com/img-52024f64/turbine/sfl-miami-heat-dwyane-wade-s080713-001/509/397x509)
Great article by Tonyaa Weathersbee
.......................
quotes from the article:
QuoteBut here we are, 50 years later, and the violence and discouragement that many young black people who marched on Washington endured is plaguing black youths again.
The difference, though, is that while the 1963 marchers who were beaten by racists saw it as the price of a better future, many of the black youths who are killing each other en masse in cities like Chicago can't quite see that future through the haze of an unemployment rate of 42 percent and other issues.
And because they are acting on their hopelessness, they are, unfortunately, giving lawmakers excuses to create more unjust laws that are, like the segregationist laws of old, designed to keep them in line.
Laws like the one which got Trayvon Martin's killer, George Zimmerman, acquitted.
.......
QuoteBut what's less heartening is that rather than deal with the issues that disproportionately fuels much of the violence among black youths, lawmakers would rather use their suffering as a justification for laws like Stand Your Ground; laws which essentially make it easy for people like Zimmerman to get away with killing kids like Trayvon because society has bought into the stereotype of the scary and violent black male.
http://blackamericaweb.com/158649/black-youths-and-the-march-on-washington-fighting-a-new-breed-of-racism/2/
That is just a bunch of excuses. Why can't we hold an honest discussion in this country? The Zimmerman/Martin case has been twisted into something that has no relation to the actual event. While I felt that a manslaughter conviction was the proper ending, the trial, as they are wont to do, didn't work out that way. Since then the rhetoric has been way over the top. This country has made great strides towards equal rights for all. While there are now, and there will always be, isolated instances of racism, sexism and the like, we have attained a remarkably equal society.
What is required now is self motivation and individual responsibility. ANYONE can make it in this country. But it takes hard work, just like it always has.
Weathersbee's excuse making as well as the double standards held by the "civil rights" leaders and our top government officials hurts much more than it helps. It is well past time in this country to recognize individuality and for each person to be responsible for their actions regardless of whatever "group" they happen to belong to.
Quote from: NotNow on August 23, 2013, 02:02:08 PM
That is just a bunch of excuses. Why can't we hold an honest discussion in this country? The Zimmerman/Martin case has been twisted into something that has no relation to the actual event.
Good comment.
Quote from: stephendare on July 14, 2013, 12:21:33 AM
People arent stupid. When there is a gap in the law they will exploit it. I would suspect that there will be a few people gunned down on the poor side of town by residents that people dont think should have guns and use the same laws as defense.
This is a terrible outcome, and we will all reap the hurricane.
Guess we did
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9583091/baseball-player-killed-kids-were-bored
http://news.yahoo.com/random-attack-spokane-leaves-wwii-veteran-dead-144713677.html
or is that not what you meant?
QuoteShellie Zimmerman Reveals She Had Left George The Night Before the Shooting
By: Sarah JonesAug. 29th, 2013more from Sarah Jones
In an interview with ABC, Shellie Zimmerman said that she had left her husband George the night before the shooting. If you don't know anything about domestic violence statistics, this might not have set off any alarms. But I do, and suddenly the murder of Trayvon Martin makes so much more sense.
Shellie explained that she wasn't home that February night, "I was staying at my father's house. We had gotten into an argument the night before, and I left."
http://www.politicususa.com/2013/08/29/shellie-zimmerman-reveals-left-george-night-shooting.html
Though I agree I do question the validity and timing. Seems suspicious that she would wait until after his acquittal before coming forward which relieves any investigator from verifying it and also timed exactly for when she found guilty of purjury for lying about their assets in a bond hearing. Not saying she isn't the victim, the signs are there, just saying it does raise suspicions about how much of this factual.
Those darn white Hispanics are at it again
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/09/press_buries_black-on-hispanic_hit_while_killer_hires_trayvon_martin_lawyer.html
What's the problem? The guy got arrested. Kind of reaching if you ask me.
Quote from: stephendare on September 18, 2013, 09:21:52 AM
Quote from: civil42806 on September 18, 2013, 09:14:16 AM
Those darn white Hispanics are at it again
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/09/press_buries_black-on-hispanic_hit_while_killer_hires_trayvon_martin_lawyer.html
really? So your take away from the whole Stand Your Ground murder of an innocent teenager is about the blacks and latins?
And you wonder why people are skeptical of the kill everybody law?
priceless.
I believe the point of the article that civil posted was the lack of objectivity of the media. Your comments would seem to cement the fact that his argument can extend to many individuals as well.
Quote from: NotNow on September 18, 2013, 05:12:13 PM
Quote from: stephendare on September 18, 2013, 09:21:52 AM
Quote from: civil42806 on September 18, 2013, 09:14:16 AM
Those darn white Hispanics are at it again
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/09/press_buries_black-on-hispanic_hit_while_killer_hires_trayvon_martin_lawyer.html
really? So your take away from the whole Stand Your Ground murder of an innocent teenager is about the blacks and latins?
And you wonder why people are skeptical of the kill everybody law?
priceless.
I believe the point of the article that civil posted was the lack of objectivity of the media. Your comments would seem to cement the fact that his argument can extend to many individuals as well.
Yeah, I'm completely missing it. People get killed everyday. Those who are identified as the killer are typically arrested, regardless of race. I'm just not seeing how this should be a national news story and I seriously doubt it was completely ignored by local media in that particular community.
QuoteThe problem is that the issue about the Trayvon Martin killing was the fact that Zimmerman wasn't even arrested and no investigation was even initiated until there was public outrage.
This....
Quote from: stephendare on September 18, 2013, 05:37:36 PM
Quote from: NotNow on September 18, 2013, 05:12:13 PM
Quote from: stephendare on September 18, 2013, 09:21:52 AM
Quote from: civil42806 on September 18, 2013, 09:14:16 AM
Those darn white Hispanics are at it again
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/09/press_buries_black-on-hispanic_hit_while_killer_hires_trayvon_martin_lawyer.html
really? So your take away from the whole Stand Your Ground murder of an innocent teenager is about the blacks and latins?
And you wonder why people are skeptical of the kill everybody law?
priceless.
I believe the point of the article that civil posted was the lack of objectivity of the media. Your comments would seem to cement the fact that his argument can extend to many individuals as well.
only for you.
Civil mentioned 'white latins' as an intro into an article which is supposed to make us believe in some imaginary hypocrisy on the part of the 'press' about the racial components of violence because 'trayvon martin'.
The problem is that the issue about the Trayvon Martin killing was the fact that Zimmerman wasnt even arrested and no investigation was even initiated until there was public outrage. This despite the admitted profiling that happened. So while race played a part in the story as a result of inexcusability of Zimmerman's initial actions and his invocation of Stand Your Gun laws as a reason he should be charged with anything, it was only part of the story.
Civil seems to think the fact that a journalist described Zimmerman as a 'white latin' was the most important thing to pay attention to. It was literally the least important thing and has become the catch phrase of every racist worth his salt in the right wing bubble(---with no such implication that Civil is one of these racists.)
I will not attempt to put words in civil's mouth, and I will let him defend his own words. But I would take issue with your characterization "imaginary hypocrisy" on the part of the press. I believe a strong argument can be made for real hypocrisy and double standards in reporting.
I will not defend Zimmerman's actions, and I admit that I am not completely familiar with the case, but I do not recall any "admitted profiling". And the "stand your ground" defense in the law was never requested, nor granted.
Again, I'll let civil explain his meaning of the term "white hispanic" although it seems quite clear to me.
I do wonder however, if you realize how often you use the "racist" argument? For a really white guy you seem to throw that word around pretty often.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 18, 2013, 06:21:17 PM
Quote from: NotNow on September 18, 2013, 05:12:13 PM
Quote from: stephendare on September 18, 2013, 09:21:52 AM
Quote from: civil42806 on September 18, 2013, 09:14:16 AM
Those darn white Hispanics are at it again
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/09/press_buries_black-on-hispanic_hit_while_killer_hires_trayvon_martin_lawyer.html
really? So your take away from the whole Stand Your Ground murder of an innocent teenager is about the blacks and latins?
And you wonder why people are skeptical of the kill everybody law?
priceless.
I believe the point of the article that civil posted was the lack of objectivity of the media. Your comments would seem to cement the fact that his argument can extend to many individuals as well.
Yeah, I'm completely missing it. People get killed everyday. Those who are identified as the killer are typically arrested, regardless of race. I'm just not seeing how this should be a national news story and I seriously doubt it was completely ignored by local media in that particular community.
QuoteThe problem is that the issue about the Trayvon Martin killing was the fact that Zimmerman wasn't even arrested and no investigation was even initiated until there was public outrage.
This....
Lake, it is not uncommon for the killer to not be arrested in self defense cases. In this case, there actually WAS an initial investigation. As I stated in my reply to StephenDare!, I will not defend Zimmerman's actions. With the facts as I read them in the Times Union at the time, I felt that a manslaughter charge was warranted as well. Now, I could certainly understand arguments that the initial investigation was inadequate. The uproar over the case did actually cause the case to be looked at further. But the fact of the matter is that after all of the intense exposure and all of the investigation, a jury of twelve came to the same conclusion as the original investigation. That is our system.
I don't know whether the case civil quoted should be a national news story or not. There have been a number of "black murders white/hispanic" stories in the news lately. This could be a reaction to the intense media interest in the Martin case. How can media bias (real or percieved) be stopped? I don't know. I think the media justs serves up what they think will sell. I believe in the First Amendment as much as the rest of the Bill of Rights. The media will never be perfect, but they should be as free as possible.
The real challenge here is to regain honest and fruitful discussion. I would emphasize HONEST.
I don't see the big issue here but we can agree to disagree. Many of us just view things through different prisms and there's nothing wrong with that. For me, I don't even have the interest in attempting to really get into a debate on this topic.
QuoteI think the media justs serves up what they think will sell.
Of course! However, this isn't anything new. It's not out of the ordinary that for profit entities will focus on what generates revenue for them. If they didn't, they wouldn't exist. That goes for everything from media and fast food restaurants to home supply companies.
Maybe it's just me but I think you guys spend to much time focusing on the "media". There's all sorts of "media" out there. Whatever spin on news you're looking for can be found pretty easily.
Quote from: stephendare on September 19, 2013, 09:11:37 AM
Quote from: NotNow on September 18, 2013, 10:58:05 PM
Quote from: stephendare on September 18, 2013, 05:37:36 PM
Quote from: NotNow on September 18, 2013, 05:12:13 PM
Quote from: stephendare on September 18, 2013, 09:21:52 AM
Quote from: civil42806 on September 18, 2013, 09:14:16 AM
Those darn white Hispanics are at it again
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/09/press_buries_black-on-hispanic_hit_while_killer_hires_trayvon_martin_lawyer.html
really? So your take away from the whole Stand Your Ground murder of an innocent teenager is about the blacks and latins?
And you wonder why people are skeptical of the kill everybody law?
priceless.
I believe the point of the article that civil posted was the lack of objectivity of the media. Your comments would seem to cement the fact that his argument can extend to many individuals as well.
only for you.
Civil mentioned 'white latins' as an intro into an article which is supposed to make us believe in some imaginary hypocrisy on the part of the 'press' about the racial components of violence because 'trayvon martin'.
The problem is that the issue about the Trayvon Martin killing was the fact that Zimmerman wasnt even arrested and no investigation was even initiated until there was public outrage. This despite the admitted profiling that happened. So while race played a part in the story as a result of inexcusability of Zimmerman's initial actions and his invocation of Stand Your Gun laws as a reason he should be charged with anything, it was only part of the story.
Civil seems to think the fact that a journalist described Zimmerman as a 'white latin' was the most important thing to pay attention to. It was literally the least important thing and has become the catch phrase of every racist worth his salt in the right wing bubble(---with no such implication that Civil is one of these racists.)
I will not attempt to put words in civil's mouth, and I will let him defend his own words. But I would take issue with your characterization "imaginary hypocrisy" on the part of the press. I believe a strong argument can be made for real hypocrisy and double standards in reporting.
I will not defend Zimmerman's actions, and I admit that I am not completely familiar with the case, but I do not recall any "admitted profiling". And the "stand your ground" defense in the law was never requested, nor granted.
Again, I'll let civil explain his meaning of the term "white hispanic" although it seems quite clear to me.
I do wonder however, if you realize how often you use the "racist" argument? For a really white guy you seem to throw that word around pretty often.
For a cop you seem to talk about crime a lot ;)
Sorry have been busy with life. The term "white Hispanic" was invented by the paper of record, the delightful NYT. Didn't exist before hasn't been used since, it was used to push the narrative. Stand your ground was never used. It was a tragedy for all concerned. Apparently all here are offended that the investigation was not as they liked. Well you got the investigation and it didn't pan out as expected. As al Sharpton implied it wasn't the killing that was offensive (happens all the time) it was the investigation.
If you look at the the HUD form in the following link, you will see that the Federal Govt
has been using Hispanic / Non-Hispanic as an ethnicity, as well as specifying Black, White, American Indian, etc. for race.
So the NYT isn't who coined the term.
http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/hudclips/forms/files/27061-h.pdf
Quote from: thelakelander on September 18, 2013, 11:41:07 PM
For me, I don't even have the interest in attempting to really get into a debate on this topic.
+1,000
Of course, this has nothing to do with the arguments that I was making. As a matter off fact, your tendency to place people and "causes" into racial terms just makes my point. Interesting effort on your part though.
Quote from: stephendare on February 15, 2014, 12:23:52 PM
Quote from: NotNow on February 15, 2014, 12:21:53 PM
Of course, this has nothing to do with the arguments that I was making. As a matter off fact, your tendency to place people and "causes" into racial terms just makes my point. Interesting effort on your part though.
oh. Taaffe is just misunderstood then?
His cause isnt 'racial', he was just 'placed' in that position by terminology??
I didn't address Taaffe. You did.
My argument states clearly that we should not prejudge people based on what we percieve to be their sex, race, age, etc., but rather their individual actions. I also argued that people should not inject their political/social cause into these criminal cases in order to further their agenda. It is not fair to the victim, the defendant, or the society as a whole as it dims the facts of the criminal case and justice.
Sooo, if you have a racist friend, then you should be considered a racist....right?
;) Just teasing ya...
I think that what we say, what we do, and who we associate with will always be used by others assessing our character. Using such information to forward our own separate agenda, again, is wrong. Don't you agree? This can become a complex discussion...what arguments are allowed in court, what incidents in our past are admissible in court or even public discourse. How much do those incidents reflect the man?
My point remains. We should leave our personal agendas out of these criminal cases. Let's limit ourselves to the facts of the case.
Quote from: stephendare on February 15, 2014, 01:06:29 PM
Quote from: NotNow on February 15, 2014, 01:03:59 PM
Sooo, if you have a racist friend, then you should be considered a racist....right?
;) Just teasing ya...
Well I think if you take their money, and let them speak for you on racial issues, then you are pretty much going to be tarred with the same brush. Thats fair, don't you think?
"Your Racist Friend" by They Might Be Giants comes to mind. LOL
Sloppy law? Once again, I will refer you to your friend Chris. Ask him why this kind of thing is excluded from arguments in trial. This practice is hardly "sloppy law", it is and has been the norm. My arguments do not deny the "circumstances" of a crime (as that would be the actual physical scene and associated evidence), but rather "motive". An argument for motive must be very concise. The kind of stuff that you are espousing here doesn't belong in a courtroom, nor should it be shouted outside the courtroom. Much of what we see on the nightly news is designed to draw in viewers, and is not intended for "fairness". Just as the Zimmerman case evoked terms like "white hispanic" that have no real meaning but are intended to support an outside agenda.
Zimmerman attempts to raise funds by auctioning off his murder weapon...
QuoteGeorge Zimmerman is selling off the gun he used to kill unarmed teen Trayvon Martin in an auction that he hopes will bring in at least $5,000.
"Prospective bidders, I am honored and humbled to announce the sale of an American Firearm Icon," Zimmerman wrote in the online description of the Kel-Tec PF-9 9mm handgun.
"The firearm for sale is the firearm that was used to defend my life and end the brutal attack from Trayvon Martin on 2/26/2012," Zimmerman, 32, wrote. "Many have expressed interest in owning and displaying the firearm including The Smithsonian Museum in Washington D.C. This is a piece of American History."
The weapon was recently returned in working order to Zimmerman by the Department of Justice, he said.
He celebrated that the gun was still operable, despite what he called "attempts by the Department of Justice on behalf of B. Hussein Obama to render the firearm inoperable."
The former volunteer neighborhood watchman fatally shot 17-year-old Martin after spotting the teen walking in a Florida gated community.
Zimmerman called 911 when he saw Martin, who was staying with his father, and ignored orders by the dispatcher to not approach the teen.
The pair got into a fight and Zimmerman shot the teen, who only had on him Skittles and Arizona watermelon fruit juice when he was killed. Zimmerman claimed self-defense, but Martin's parents have always insisted that Zimmerman initiated the fight.
Zimmerman was charged by a special prosecutor appointed by the governor, but was acquitted of murder and manslaughter in 2013.
Martin's death and Zimmerman's acquittal sparked rallies across the country and protests of law enforcement's treatment of the black community. The incident also called into question Florida's Stand Your Ground Law, which removes a person's duty to retreat before using force in self-defense.
Zimmerman wrote in the description of the gun on the auction page that a portion of the proceeds will be used to fight Black Lives Matter "violence against Law Enforcement officers."
Money from the sale will also go to "ensure the demise" of the career of the State Attorney who charged Zimmerman in Martin's death and to end "Hillary Clinton's anti-firearm rhetoric," he wrote.
Criticisms of his choice to profit off the weapon that led to a teenager's death fell on deaf ears, as Zimmerman told WOFL: "I'm a free American. I can do what I like with my possessions."
Bidding on the gun will begin at 11 a.m. Thursday and go for 24 hours on GunBroker.com, where Zimmerman included photos of officials holding the weapon during his trial.
"Now is your opportunity to own a piece of American History. Good Luck," he wrote.
Zimmerman signed the page with "Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum," which is Latin for "If you want peace, prepare for war."
The Trayvon Martin Foundation said in a statement that the organization "is committed to its mission of ending senseless gun violence in the United States. This election season, we are laser focused on furthering that mission. As such, the foundation has no comment on the actions of that person."
http://www.news4jax.com/entertainment/george-zimmerman-auctioning-off-gun-used-to-kill-trayvon-martin-this-is-a-piece-of-american (http://www.news4jax.com/entertainment/george-zimmerman-auctioning-off-gun-used-to-kill-trayvon-martin-this-is-a-piece-of-american)
At least he wants to get rid of Angela Corey.
Quote from: TheCat on May 12, 2016, 07:52:34 PM
At least he wants to get rid of Angela Corey.
Well he should have registered as a republican candidate, cause Corey isn't losing the election since she rigged it.
While I think there was never any doubt, the Smithsonian tweeted the world to notify that in no uncertain terms did they ever have an interest or made any offers for his gun.
Just some pre-sales hype by Mr. Zimmerman.
MIAMI (AP) — Bidding in an online auction for the pistol former neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman used to kill Trayvon Martin appeared to have been hijacked by fake accounts posting astronomically high bids.
At one point early Friday, the bidding surpassed $65 million with the leading bidder using the screen name "Racist McShootFace." The site later showed that account had been deleted.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/million-dollar-bids-shown-gun-killed-trayvon-martin-083757943.html
Quote from: TheCat on May 12, 2016, 07:50:39 PM
Zimmerman attempts to raise funds by auctioning off his murder weapon...
I wasn't aware he was found guilty of murder. New development??
Quote from: peestandingup on May 13, 2016, 05:09:34 PM
Quote from: TheCat on May 12, 2016, 07:50:39 PM
Zimmerman attempts to raise funds by auctioning off his murder weapon...
I wasn't aware he was found guilty of murder. New development??
He wasn't.
But that doesn't mean he didn't murder Martin. It means the State wasn't able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Quote from: peestandingup on May 13, 2016, 05:09:34 PM
Quote from: TheCat on May 12, 2016, 07:50:39 PM
Zimmerman attempts to raise funds by auctioning off his murder weapon...
I wasn't aware he was found guilty of murder. New development??
You're right. He wasn't found guilty.
In other news, a knife that OJ once used to not-murder two people is also up for auction.
Non story...
Quote from: I-10east on May 13, 2016, 09:20:11 PM
Non story...
Zimmerman is auctioning a gun he used to kill a teenager, and then justifies it by saying he will use the proceeds to fight anti-gun politicians:
It's not a story.
Dude needs help.
He does need help. And, he needs it before he ends up hurting someone else.
Here's the thing though, and someone correct me if I'm wrong. But according to the neighbor's 911 tape, Zimmerman was yelling for help & getting beaten for a LONG time before he shot a single round (which wasn't excessive). Meaning he didn't just straight up shoot someone & his injuries confirmed he probably did have a legitimate fear of great bodily harm or death, so he was technically within the boundaries of Stand Your Ground (which is why he was found not guilty). That really is the law & I think people let their emotions dictate this case instead of looking at it from a lawful perspective. It is what it is.
"But, PSU. He followed Trayvon & confronted him, which led to these unfortunate events!" Yeah, while scummy & probably somewhat racist, not against the law. So really you guys should be bellyaching against the current laws instead of this particular case throwing down your own judgements, because it was within the boundaries of what makes up Stand Your Ground, conceal carry & the no obligation to retreat from a threat.
Do I think Zimmerman is a scumbag? Yep, he's obviously got issues. Am I taking up for what the man did overall that set the events in motion? Nope. Was he within the current law? Yep, he sure was. So even though many of you absolutely hate it, that's where you live & that's what the rules are. If you don't like it, try to change it. If you cant change it, you gotta either live with it or move to a more restrictive state or country. Lord knows there's plenty to choose from.
Quote from: stephendare on May 14, 2016, 07:28:22 PM
no. mostly he appointed himself a 'neighborhood watchman' accosted a resident, and then chickenshit scared of the teenager he blew him away and murdered him in cold blood.
He was helped along in his legal defense by a law which doesn't penalize a combatant for having put himself deliberately into the line of possible 'fear' while exonerating them for murder by gun usage (but no other form of murder).
More of an opinion than a correction. And Zimmerman was indeed appointed by the residents as the neighborhood watch coordinator & had been for years, so that statement is incorrect. I'd also say you're leaving out quite a bit of information in your timeline of accosting>shooting, like the witnesses & 911 tapes tell us, esp this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trayvon_Martin_Shooting_Call3.ogg
As far as putting himself in that situation, I guess you could say that. But then that opens up a whole nother can of worms that could be used against people who defend themselves & to circumvent the law itself. "This man chose to walk down a dark alley in a bad neighborhood, putting himself in the situation where he had to use deadly force" or "his house window was clearly left open, the homeowner brought this upon himself" and so forth. Not saying the Zimmerman case is that, but you get what I mean. When it comes down to it, no one has the right to inflict great bodily injury or infringe on someone else's right to exist (or threaten to do so under certain circumstances) no matter what led up to it. If so, you can counter with deadly force. Even if its not against you & you witness it happening to another person & you're within the law to legally carry/own a firearm.
We may not like it, but technically Zimmerman was within the laws, which is really the root of people's problem with this case, and I understand that. But it seems most on here have decided to skip over/ignore a host of Florida's laws that pertain to firearms & their lawful use (because they don't count apparently) since they don't like them & call him a murderer. Again, not taking up for Zimmerman but that's not how it works.
Work to get the laws changed if you don't like them.
Quote from: stephendare on May 15, 2016, 12:59:44 AM
Quote from: peestandingup on May 15, 2016, 12:21:10 AM
Quote from: stephendare on May 14, 2016, 07:28:22 PM
no. mostly he appointed himself a 'neighborhood watchman' accosted a resident, and then chickenshit scared of the teenager he blew him away and murdered him in cold blood.
He was helped along in his legal defense by a law which doesn't penalize a combatant for having put himself deliberately into the line of possible 'fear' while exonerating them for murder by gun usage (but no other form of murder).
More of an opinion than a correction. And Zimmerman was indeed appointed by the residents as the neighborhood watch coordinator & had been for years, so that statement is incorrect. I'd also say you're leaving out quite a bit of information in your timeline of accosting>shooting, like the witnesses & 911 tapes tell us, esp this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trayvon_Martin_Shooting_Call3.ogg
As far as putting himself in that situation, I guess you could say that. But then that opens up a whole nother can of worms that could be used against people who defend themselves & to circumvent the law itself. "This man chose to walk down a dark alley in a bad neighborhood, putting himself in the situation where he had to use deadly force" or "his house window was clearly left open, the homeowner brought this upon himself" and so forth. Not saying the Zimmerman case is that, but you get what I mean. When it comes down to it, no one has the right to inflict great bodily injury or infringe on someone else's right to exist (or threaten to do so under certain circumstances) no matter what led up to it. If so, you can counter with deadly force. Even if its not against you & you witness it happening to another person & you're within the law to legally carry/own a firearm.
We may not like it, but technically Zimmerman was within the laws, which is really the root of people's problem with this case, and I understand that. But it seems most on here have decided to skip over/ignore a host of Florida's laws that pertain to firearms & their lawful use (because they don't count apparently) since they don't like them & call him a murderer. Again, not taking up for Zimmerman but that's not how it works.
Work to get the laws changed if you don't like them.
sorry. no one appointed him. He appointed himself.
And then he murdered a teenager.
He deserved more than an ass beating for harassing the teen anyways. He deserved an assbeating and a night in jail for attempting a false arrest and interfering in a police matter after being told by the police dispatcher to leave the kid alone.
But thats not what happened. Instead he murdered the boy, and because death by gun is a special category of murder in this country, he wasn't convicted for his crimes.
Stephen, a neighborhood watch is just concerned neighbors getting together & watching out for each other on a volunteer basis, esp in places where crime can be high. No one gets "appointed" in any official way, unless the homeowner's association is involved. It looks like they were somewhat involved in this case though:
QuoteZimmerman was in charge of recruiting block captains for a neighborhood watch program and, after having been asked, was also part of a group to enforce parking rules in his community.
The president of the homeowners association for the community where the shooting took place testified that he didn't think a neighborhood watch program was needed and that Zimmerman was in charge of the community's program from the very beginning.
Donald O'Brien stressed that the homeowners association had nothing to do with the neighborhood watch program but that he did attend a meeting to start it. Residents were told to "stay away" from suspicious people and call police, O'Brien said.
He said he once text messaged Zimmerman with praises for a group of workers who followed a burglar. Their actions led to the arrest of a young black man, who was charged with burglaries in the neighborhood, O'Brien said.
O'Brien added that police indicated it was acceptable to follow suspicious persons at a safe distance. He also said he signed an agreement with police to increase patrol of the area and to tow illegally parked cars.
Regardless, even if he did appoint himself as you say (or even just by the other neighbors), its still beside the point as nothing leading up to the shooting was technically illegal. And no, in the eyes of the law, no one "deserves" a potentially life threatening ass beating for following someone or even harassment unless the person is threatening death or great bodily harm. If that's the case then sure, have at it. Beat his ass until he doesn't move.
Sorry man, not trying to be argumentative. But like I said, your main beef is with the current laws since technically nothing unlawful was done by Zimmerman before or during the confrontation. That's just the reality of it.
^^^That case is about as cut and dry as it gets, and the self defense was obvious. All of the outrage was based on race and emotion, opposed to evidence. They wanted Zimmerman's head on a platter (ala similarly Darren Wilson) and came up nada.
Quote from: I-10east on May 15, 2016, 03:12:05 AM
^^^That case is about as cut and dry as it gets, and the self defense was obvious. All of the outrage was based on race and emotion, opposed to evidence. That wanted Zimmerman's head on a platter (ala similarly Darren Wilson) and came up nada.
Perhaps. But I think there are a lot of people who believe Martin was racially profiled by Zimmerman (whether intentionally or not) and that Zimmerman created a situation that then required him (in his eyes) to use deadly force to escape.
I think Martin's family should file a civil suit against Zimmerman and then, if nothing else, it should cure us of Zimmerman's money-grubbing and fame-whoring behavior.
Quote from: stephendare on May 15, 2016, 09:09:50 AM
And stop trying to parse a difference between legality and morality. Sometimes they reflect the same thing, sometimes they don't.
"But my morality & feels should count!" No. And thank God, otherwise we'd have all kinds of kooky shit going on in the legal world. Besides, people in any case usually don't stop & ponder the moral dilemma of what they're doing. The world is what it is, not what you want or think it should be. That's why we have hardlined views of the laws written down. Its like living in a huge ghetto that has breakins/murders every night & taking the moral high ground by not owning a gun. Sure, you'd feel good about yourself, but you're probably gonna die.
QuoteZimmerman appointed himself, to the annoyance and frustration of his neighbors. This is just a fact, and Im not sure why you keep denying this.
I'm not, but it doesn't matter. Not unlawful in any way.
QuoteIf Zimmerman had murdered the boy with a baseball bat instead of a gun, we wouldn't be having this conversation btw.
Probably not since guns are bad & stuff. ;) I'd also wager if Martin had been white (or Zimmerman was black), we wouldn't be talking about it either.
QuoteWhich you seem to be having because someone referred to Zimmerman as a murderer. He is. Plain and simple. He murdered Trayvon Martin, and no amount of rhetoric will change that.
The laws on the books in the state you live in says otherwise. So did the jury. Change em, then he's a murderer.
QuoteYou keep saying that the problem anyone who thinks differently is having is The Stand Your Ground Law. Which is a bad law. It basically encourages and sanctifies a special category of murder. Murder by Gun.
Well I'm glad you recognize its the law itself you have the problem with. How would you change it? Is there any situation in your mind that would constitute a civilian to be protected by these laws that defends themselves, their family or others? Home invasion, mugging at gun/knife point, witnessing a rape or attempted murder of another, etc??
Gimme Stephen's morally approved self defense crash course. :)
Quote from: stephendare on May 16, 2016, 01:32:03 AM
Repeating yourself endlessly doesn't make your points any more valid, PSU. It just makes you repetitive.
"I can't refute logic & the laws, so here's a personal jab & I win" -The Post