Zimmerman Found Not Guilty

[duvalbill]

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."

[JeffreyS]

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.

[Jameson]

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."

[mikew]

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.

[MEGATRON]

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.

[Jameson]

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?

[duvalbill]

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.

[Cheshire Cat]

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

[Jameson]

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?

[MEGATRON]

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?

[Cheshire Cat]

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. 

[Cheshire Cat]

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?

[Jameson]

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. 

[JeffreyS]

You mean stuff like in the past he has purchased and eaten skittles without incident?

[Jameson]

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?