OK, so if you live in a gated community that is primarily white and you see a black kid walking around after dark, and have community knowledge of crimes being committed within the community, you have no right to be a bit suspicious? I thought that the idea of a Gated Community was that only residents of the community would be within the community. If he wasn't a resident he is suspicious, regardless of his color. Him being black in a primarily white, gated community would absolutely make me suspicious if I didn't recognize him as one of the people of the neighborhood.
Is it profiling? Not really, it is more of seeing a nail in with a box of screws....it just sticks out and alerts you to something being up.
Is it racist? Not really, a gated community is there to help filter out the riff-raff and keep said community safe. What would be racist would be if the night before Z-man saw a 17 year old white dude walking through peoples' yards in the dark and said "Oh ok, he's white so he isn't stealin' nuthin'. I'll let him carry on."
I'm sorry fh, but we ain't gonna agree on this.
But that isn't the purpose of gated community. If that where the purpose, then people in gated
The actual idea is to control access. I.E. if the system is working correctly, your baseline assumption should in fact be "that young person is a guest of one of my neighbors."
Also , because of the monochromatic nature of the development, there is likely to be an innate bias in reporting.
That very "nail in with a box of screws" effect is a form of attentional bias. You'll literally non-notice the white strangers, but black strangers you'll pick up on because they are unusual.
If your not reporting the same, or similar proportions of black and white strangers, then your engaged in unintentional racial bias. The result is racist, even if the intent is not.
|
Or he saw the local 17 year kids he was familiar with and didn't report them. He didn't recognize Trayvon and some others possibly because they were strangers. There may not be the same proportion of white to black strangers walking through the area as the area they are walking to or from may have a majority of blacks.
But it's easier to say that the Crackers in the all Cracker community had it in for the Black Folk.
Or he saw the local 17 year kids he was familiar with and didn't report them. He didn't recognize Trayvon and some others possibly because they were strangers.
Then why are there not several hundred examples of him calling the police about white strangers?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or he saw the local 17 year kids he was familiar with and didn't report them. He didn't recognize Trayvon and some others possibly because they were strangers.Then why are there not several hundred examples of him calling the police about white strangers?
good question.
|
|
Or he saw the local 17 year kids he was familiar with and didn't report them. He didn't recognize Trayvon and some others possibly because they were strangers.Then why are there not several hundred examples of him calling the police about white strangers?
Could be for any number of reasons like the next community over was primarily black and use the Gated Community as a thoroughfare....Could be that a number of black strangers nearby found out that this GC has the best stuff to steal.
Or he saw the local 17 year kids he was familiar with and didn't report them. He didn't recognize Trayvon and some others possibly because they were strangers. There may not be the same proportion of white to black strangers walking through the area as the area they are walking to or from may have a majority of blacks.
But it's easier to say that the Crackers in the all Cracker community had it in for the Black Folk.
that's going to depend on whether or not he called in any suspicious white people. If he didn't then there's a problem here.
There may not be the same proportion of white to black strangers walking through the area as the area they are walking to or from may have a majority of blacks.
Your really trying to claim that the majority of strangers in a majority white gated community are black?
But it's easier to say that the Crackers in the all Cracker community had it in for the Black Folk.
given I am about as white as they come, I am not sure of the reliance of the racial slur, or the thinly failed accusation of racism.
I find it funny someone claiming they'd be attacked if they used Spanish, considering Zimmerman's ethnic background. Someone might get attacked for using Spanish, but not by the people the implication was for.
It'd be funny if it wasn't true.
I live in Texas. I've been attacked for speaking Spanish.
I didn't need a gun to protect myself.
That being said, what IS funny in a 'ha ha *exasperated sigh*' sense is that it's happened more than once...and one time it was for speaking the WRONG Spanish. Castillano is not entirely popular with all sorts around here of Latino descent.
Could be for any number of reasons like the next community over was primarily black and use the Gated Community as a thoroughfare..Or he saw the local 17 year kids he was familiar with and didn't report them. He didn't recognize Trayvon and some others possibly because they were strangers.Then why are there not several hundred examples of him calling the police about white strangers?
Evidence this is the case? If it is, that is a poorly designed gates community.
..Could be that a number of black strangers nearby found out that this GC has the best stuff to steal.
Evidence this is the case, or even a reasonable hypothesis?
Understand that what your claiming is that the number of black people who make it past gate and fence is on a daily bases greater than the number of visiting white people, including estate agents, extra community friends, visiting family members, visiting professional, community members that zimmerman doesn't know yet, and members of the community zimmerman does know, but has not seen well enough to identify on any given viewing.
This must surely be the most insecure gated community in all the would, you are imagining here.
I find it funny someone claiming they'd be attacked if they used Spanish, considering Zimmerman's ethnic background. Someone might get attacked for using Spanish, but not by the people the implication was for.It'd be funny if it wasn't true.
I live in Texas. I've been attacked for speaking Spanish.
I didn't need a gun to protect myself.
That being said, what IS funny in a 'ha ha *exasperated sigh*' sense is that it's happened more than once...and one time it was for speaking the WRONG Spanish. Castillano is not entirely popular with all sorts around here of Latino descent.
its the spanish I learned in school. If I went to my peoples country speaking that I would be marked as an americamn even faster than if I spoke English.
|
|
But that isn't the purpose of gated community. If that where the purpose, then people in gated
The actual idea is to control access. I.E. if the system is working correctly, your baseline assumption should in fact be "that young person is a guest of one of my neighbors."
Also , because of the monochromatic nature of the development, there is likely to be an innate bias in reporting.
That very "nail in with a box of screws" effect is a form of attentional bias. You'll literally non-notice the white strangers, but black strangers you'll pick up on because they are unusual.
If your not reporting the same, or similar proportions of black and white strangers, then your engaged in unintentional racial bias. The result is racist, even if the intent is not.
Or more accurately, proportions directly related to the ratio of black strangers to white strangers.
Of course, if you assume that every black stranger doesn't belong, while the white ones do, we're back at bias.
Exactly, and I would assume (I know, an assumption!) that Z-man, as a member of the Watch, was fairly active in his community and probably knew most people in his area if not by name at least by face. I also assume that he would be fairly good at spotting strangers to the neighborhood.
I do not assume that because he is half-white, lived in a primarily white community and had reported to the police a bunch of suspicious people who mostly were black, that he must be racist. I am entertaining the possibility that the area demographics may be coming into play instead of that he was a racist.I also wonder why a dude in a hoodie is cutting through peoples yards instead of walking the sidewalks or the street....that seems more suspicious to me than if Watchguy is calling in another stranger who happens to be black.
|
|
Could be for any number of reasons like the next community over was primarily black and use the Gated Community as a thoroughfare..Or he saw the local 17 year kids he was familiar with and didn't report them. He didn't recognize Trayvon and some others possibly because they were strangers.Then why are there not several hundred examples of him calling the police about white strangers?Evidence this is the case? If it is, that is a poorly designed gates community.
..Could be that a number of black strangers nearby found out that this GC has the best stuff to steal.Evidence this is the case, or even a reasonable hypothesis?
Understand that what your claiming is that the number of black people who make it past gate and fence is on a daily bases greater than the number of visiting white people, including estate agents, extra community friends, visiting family members, visiting professional, community members that zimmerman doesn't know yet, and members of the community zimmerman does know, but has not seen well enough to identify on any given viewing.
This must surely be the most insecure gated community in all the would, you are imagining here.
I worked in a cemetery for 3 years and just recently quit. during that time our fenced in, locked at quitting time cemetery had people cutting through it all day and night. Little holes cut into the chain link fence that we would find and patch, youths going over the chain link, evidence of people going underneath...
If there is something in the way of community A getting to resource B in anything but a straight line, community A will cut through it to reach Resource B.At the cemetery we got so tired of fixing, repairing and replacing fence sections that we finally just let a hole or 2 remain and turned a blind eye to the people who were obviously using said holes to reduce their walk time by 10-15 minutes to get to the convenience store.
|
|
I also wonder why a dude in a hoodie is cutting through peoples yards instead of walking the sidewalks or the street....that seems more suspicious to me than if Watchguy is calling in another stranger who happens to be black.IIRC, Martin was originally on the street. That's when Zimmerman called him in. He left the street after that, prompting Z to get out of his truck to follow.
And I believe there is a paved walkway between the rows of houses, suggesting it's a normal pedestrian route, not "cutting through people's yards". That's the sidewalk Z's head was supposedly slammed into so many times.
What happened when Z called him in? Did TM respond? Did he run off? Did he make any gestures?
What happened when Z called him in? Did TM respond? Did he run off? Did he make any gestures?
I also wonder why a dude in a hoodie is cutting through peoples yards instead of walking the sidewalks or the street....that seems more suspicious to me than if Watchguy is calling in another stranger who happens to be black.IIRC, Martin was originally on the street. That's when Zimmerman called him in. He left the street after that, prompting Z to get out of his truck to follow.
And I believe there is a paved walkway between the rows of houses, suggesting it's a normal pedestrian route, not "cutting through people's yards". That's the sidewalk Z's head was supposedly slammed into so many times.
according to zimmerman, during the phone call to the police, he ran off.
There's no evidence that Zimmerman called him in, including Zimmerman's statements. He called the cops, reported him, was told to back off (to which he agreed) but when Trayvon realized someone, who had not identified himself as a member of the neighbourhood watch or in any other way by Zimmerman's own statement, was following him he fled down a side path. Zimnmerman got out of his vehicle and chased him.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You mean him saying "these punks" which has no race factor at all. he is refering to criminals i believe, who if fact often do get away. I do not recall anything before the violence of Z describing him as black or calling him anything but a punk. And im calling you racist if nothing else for your comments about "i would use spanish but i'd be attacked over it" that attitude is an assumption about others (easily presumed that you are refering to whites) that is racist.
You are telling me, sincerely, that Zimmerman, on looking at a person of ethnicity other than his own, while speaking to a Police dispatcher, referring to the person he sees as an 'expletive punk' carries no connotations of animus or antipathy. You genuinely believe that referring to the deceased as a suspect, without cause for doing so, carries no underlying inference.
You'll forgive me if I find this...suspect. Would that I could live in a world more like that, than the one I live in now. I don't come from a background of 'blame whitey', and grew up in an environment that I'd like to think was more equitable, even if I suspect part of my view of growing up overseas as a military brat is through rose-colored glasses because there was a higher amount of ethnic mixing compared to what people I knew who grew up only in one town or only State-side experienced. I did not relate to the 'ghetto culture', or come from a culture of entitlement demanding my forty acres and a mule as adjusted for inflation. In many regards, one could look at me and say that I experienced the sort of quasi-foreign integration that is often cited by the well-meaning to illustrate the classic complaint of how those who come from unusual non-privileged backgrounds could do decently for themselves, so why can the kid that grew up in Detroit/Gary/pickyourpovertystrickenhole.
Contrary to your implied fears, I do not see racism in every cloud; I don't find myself thinking that something goes against me because of active, willful, intentional malevolence on the part of some Caucasian individual who wants to oppress me. My experience is closer to that of a bemused observer - the sales clerk following me extra-closely, scrutinizing my every movement in Needless Markup...er, Neiman Marcus isn't doing so because she's offended by a black man being in her store. She's simply trained to watch those who do not match the typical 'demographic' of her clientele. At a modest five foot ten, I'm not the biggest, scariest, or meanest individual around, but I am acclimated to (never do I get used to) women moving to cross the street a distance from me while clutching their purses tighter. I've spent more time thinking on my word choices and having to conscientiously regulate my tone and manner of speaking when dealing with poor customer service in a restaurant, not because the person serving my food didn't like me personally (and because I understand that working in food service is often awful, unsatisfying, and far from fulfilling), but because if I so much as raise my voice in ire all reason goes out the window and I become not a dissatisfied customer vocally stating displeasure and become the 'angry black man'. As I noted to pres man moments before, I HAVE been attacked for speaking Spanish - of note, it happened for the first time in High School, long before the whole thinly-veiled uproar over Immigration gained momentum.
Most of what the vast majority of people who I deal with term as racism is the overt, direct, personally-affronting things that are the purview and domain of the most repulsively virulently bigoted folks of Stormfront-like nature would comfortably utilize in public. Such things are not nearly as common as they used to be, and frankly aren't something I would consider welcome in civil society. The part that said majority fail to see, and which I wouldn't want them to feel ashamed about or responsible for or otherwise obligated to fix themselves, are the less obvious, institutionalized, understated subtextual things that are implied, inferred, or insinuated obtusely as code, custom, and commonality - calling a spade a spade, if you'll forgive the tongue-in-cheek irony. It's not Blackface-painted Ted Danson eating watermelon - it's the person who thinks it's an accurate portrayal. It's not the oft-posted picture of the beer-collecting New Orleans denizen who came to be known as 'Lootie' - it's the assumption that said individual is the standard, without considering that if anything that would be stereotypical fraternity behavior. It's the fact that I have people say, as well-intentioned as it may be, that I sound 'white' when I speak, when last I checked most of the white people in my neck of the woods don't exactly sound like paragons of eloquence and sophistication. It's when there's an awkward silence whenever someone suggests fried chicken for lunch in my presence. It's the avoidance of grape soda and watermelon flavored anything. It's getting pulled over for driving in the 'wrong neighborhood'.
We are informed of our lives through our experiences, and our experiences impact our interactions and expectations. They do not have to color our perspectives and judgements, even as they add another aspect to our vantage points.
Just as an aside, your assumption regarding my assaulting was partially wrong. Who's prejudiced now? :)
|
|
according to zimmerman, during the phone call to the police, he ran off.What happened when Z called him in? Did TM respond? Did he run off? Did he make any gestures?
I also wonder why a dude in a hoodie is cutting through peoples yards instead of walking the sidewalks or the street....that seems more suspicious to me than if Watchguy is calling in another stranger who happens to be black.IIRC, Martin was originally on the street. That's when Zimmerman called him in. He left the street after that, prompting Z to get out of his truck to follow.
And I believe there is a paved walkway between the rows of houses, suggesting it's a normal pedestrian route, not "cutting through people's yards". That's the sidewalk Z's head was supposedly slammed into so many times.
Seems suspicious. BTW I am not defending Z's actions as if he is totally innocent in all this... He took his role as Watchman too far and took a young man's life. Not an innocent child's life but a young man's life. Zman was out of line, Trayvon was acting like a thug. Neither action should have ended with a life being snuffed out.
I hate that the assumption is that Zimmerman was a racist. We don't know truly who he is. I hate the assumption that Trayvon was an innocent child victim. We know that he a teen trying to figure out what type of adult he would be amongst all the peer-pressure and questionable role-modeling out there today for teens.The basics in my mind is: Zimmerman was a bully. Trayvon was acting like a thug if he ran off he could have kept running and been fine, he wanted to fight it out. If either had decided to put a value on either their own life or the other person's life then this wouldn't have happened.
Who was more at fault? I don't think it matters anymore. I think Zman is guilty of bullying and being an a-hole, and Trayvon was guilty of teenage stupidity and trespass. No racial crap, no child killing sh!t.
I don't think it should have cost either their life, whether in prison or in actuality.
It's a shame, really.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no scenario where Zimmerman is not at fault for what happened. At the very best, by his own testimony, he brought a gun to a fist fight that he initiated by chasing after someone by playing wana be cop.
What about Martins right to stand his ground? Some creepy looking little dude following you for 3 blocks by car and by foot gives a HELL of a lot more reasonable suspicion that you have a threat to your life than merely walking while black.
He's a punk and a coward that thought doing a little ki YA at the dojo would let him beat someone in a fight. He was wrong about that, he was wrong about martin, and both of HIS mistakes cost someone else their life.
I find it funny someone claiming they'd be attacked if they used Spanish, considering Zimmerman's ethnic background. Someone might get attacked for using Spanish, but not by the people the implication was for.It'd be funny if it wasn't true.
I live in Texas. I've been attacked for speaking Spanish.
I didn't need a gun to protect myself.
That being said, what IS funny in a 'ha ha *exasperated sigh*' sense is that it's happened more than once...and one time it was for speaking the WRONG Spanish. Castillano is not entirely popular with all sorts around here of Latino descent.
its the spanish I learned in school. If I went to my peoples country speaking that I would be marked as an americamn even faster than if I spoke English.
That's the thing - yes, I'm an American, but I learned Spanish in Spain. Madrid, specifically. I conjugate properly, though sometimes I slip up due to lack of practice and being the only person in my family who speaks the language. I have no problem with the conjugate form of vosotros, even though I loathe the word 'y'all'. I pronounce my z's as th's, even as some of the time spent in the UK leads to me sometimes slipping up and calling my z's zeds, so it makes more sense that my zeds are thetas and shoes are 'thapatos' in pronunciation instead of 'sapatos', and carrots are 'thanahorias', instead of 'sanahorias', and so on and so forth.
Que hablo en me idioma segundo, necesito ten cuidado para palabras con z, porque el momento una persona oyame digo Zaragoza, sabe por facto no estudian la lengua con una persona del Americas, Norte o Sur.
The Hispanics I'd gotten into the fight with for speaking 'their' language wrong were Mexicanos from Mexico City, Monterrey, and Ciudad Juarez. Well, technically, their parents were from said cities. They were born on this side of the border. The main cause for argument stemmed from the fact that I got skipped ahead of them in Spanish class as an easy elective, so when I started speaking the language to the teacher and she pulled me from Spanish 1 and moved me to Spanish 2, they took offense. Then they threatened me and cursed me out, and I returned the favor more extensively, and more obscenely.
The one from Juarez, he and I ended up buddies later on. Speaking Spanish with him is what got me into another fight, this time with the anglos who didn't like hearing things they couldn't understand being spoken near them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here are the facts as I see them:
1) The prosecution and defense collectively chose 6 people who they believed would best deliver a fair and unbiased verdict.
2) Those 6 people have sat and watched the trial directly from the horses' mouths, they didn't have to rely on the media, nor did they have to deal with prejudicial but non-relevant pieces of information.
3) Those 6 people have returned a verdict of not guilty.
This is also Florida.
I'd try to leaven that statement with levity and pointing out Fark.com, but I'm not feeling particularly amused or mirthful. 2000 Election, Casey Anthony, and a metric tonnage of other tales of things wrong with the state in general.
Also Marissa Alexander, as mentioned by the Grey Lensman.
I see no reason why 6 people too unfamiliar with the case to be disqualified and too dumb to get out of jury duty provide an argument from authority over the matter.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no scenario where Zimmerman is not at fault for what happened. At the very best, by his own testimony, he brought a gun to a fist fight that he initiated by chasing after someone by playing wana be cop.
What about Martins right to stand his ground? Some creepy looking little dude following you for 3 blocks by car and by foot gives a HELL of a lot more reasonable suspicion that you have a threat to your life than merely walking while black.
He's a punk and a coward that thought doing a little ki YA at the dojo would let him beat someone in a fight. He was wrong about that, he was wrong about martin, and both of HIS mistakes cost someone else their life.
As I said to others who have held this attitude, did you actually watch the entire trial or are you basing your opinion on what was said in the media, what you heard from friends, or your own personal bias?
There was no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman killed Martin because he was black. It certainly is probable that Zimmerman began to follow Martin because he was black, but taking into account that there had been reports of incidents over the previous few weeks that were potentially propagated by black individuals, it would not necessarily have been improper for Zimmerman to have "profiled" an unrecognized young black male walking through a gated community alone at night...again, not because he was black, but because Martin fit the context of what had been previously reported.
More disturbing, is the propensity of black pundits and community leaders to skew the narrative of the event as "a black child gunned down because he had skittles and iced tea in his pocket". This is a disingenuous statement that does nothing but inflame emotions, and does nothing to help heal. It completely ignores the fact that Martin had the opportunity to break the chain of errors that lead to his death, but instead opted to confront Zimmerman.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Martin is at fault. Nor am I saying that Zimmerman is at fault. This was a tragic event in which both parties had opportunities to change the outcome, which in hindsight, those choices are now obvious.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see no reason why 6 people too unfamiliar with the case to be disqualified and too dumb to get out of jury duty provide an argument from authority over the matter.
Because that is how the American legal system works for criminal cases. More importantly, those six individuals are more knowledgeable on the subject than any of us on this forum.
With crap i have heard about criminals suing after a slip and fall and whatnot nothing surprises me anyoreBelieve whatever you want. If you can't support it with actual laws, I'm going to ignore it.Sadly in some states i bet you can.Zimmerman attacked first, then he falls under section (1) committing a forcible felony. (Assault/battery).
Subsection (a), which you bolded, applies to Section (2) Initially provoked the use of force against himself.Clearer example: If you break into and are robbing a house (Committing a forcible felony) and the owner returns home and shoots at you from the only door,( 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) you still don't get to shoot him and claim self defense.
If you're so sure, why don't you find a case of a criminal successfully suing a victim?
All I've found are articles where cases that were thrown out by judges, which would seem to indicate that your impression is wrong.
|
|
With crap i have heard about criminals suing after a slip and fall and whatnot nothing surprises me anyoreBelieve whatever you want. If you can't support it with actual laws, I'm going to ignore it.Sadly in some states i bet you can.Zimmerman attacked first, then he falls under section (1) committing a forcible felony. (Assault/battery).
Subsection (a), which you bolded, applies to Section (2) Initially provoked the use of force against himself.Clearer example: If you break into and are robbing a house (Committing a forcible felony) and the owner returns home and shoots at you from the only door,( 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) you still don't get to shoot him and claim self defense.
If you're so sure, why don't you find a case of a criminal successfully suing a victim?
All I've found are articles where cases that were thrown out by judges, which would seem to indicate that your impression is wrong.
But don't worry, now that Zimmerman's been found innocent of the charges he gets to defend himself from a civil suit that will seek to gain money from him! Innocent is the verdict but yet you can sue the innocent for money?!? Thanks OJ for showing me that trick years ago!
I think to respond to the earlier comments of whether Treyvon had lived or not... he would have used the exact same defense Zimmerman did, except all he did was push someone to the ground.
When someone is following and chasing you through your neighborhood at night, you have a reasonable expectation to fear bodily harm.
Because he was dead though, the person who killed him got to use that defense and because of how our legal system works, Martin's state of mind isn't up for speculation and isn't evidence.
|
|
I think to respond to the earlier comments of whether Treyvon had lived or not... he would have used the exact same defense Zimmerman did, except all he did was push someone to the ground.
When someone is following and chasing you through your neighborhood at night, you have a reasonable expectation to fear bodily harm.
Because he was dead though, the person who killed him got to use that defense and because of how our legal system works, Martin's state of mind isn't up for speculation and isn't evidence.
It's tough to say. Although would have been much more likely that we would get an answer as to who initiated the physical confrontation.
This is also Florida.
I'd try to leaven that statement with levity and pointing out Fark.com, but I'm not feeling particularly amused or mirthful. 2000 Election, Casey Anthony, and a metric tonnage of other tales of things wrong with the state in general.
Also Marissa Alexander, as mentioned by the Grey Lensman.
So if I ad hom you for everything wrong in Texas (where you live), you'd be ok with that? Good to know.
Edit: No one state -- not Florida, not Texas, not in the South, not in the North -- has a monopoly on racism or disproportionate numbers of young men of color being killed. There is no magic state of racial harmony in the U.S. Labeling this tragedy as "a Florida thing" or a "Southern thing" obscures the racial inequities and tragedies that are happening, often unreported, in all Americans cities and states.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I said to others who have held this attitude, did you actually watch the entire trial or are you basing your opinion on what was said in the media, what you heard from friends, or your own personal bias?
This is nothing but a ridiculously blatant Ad hom. "You are biased, therefore you are wrong". This particular bit of epistemic nihlism is particularly glaring as EVERYONE has bias therefore everyone is wrong.
If you have an argument from facts against what I sad by all means make it. If you think there's something I don't know that invalidates my argument by all means point it out. But throwing down a blanket "you don't know everything you can't know everything so you have trust someone elses decision" is a hackneyed, trite, and blatantly obvious tactic for completely evading rational discourse, not engaging in it.
There was no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman killed Martin because he was black. It certainly is probable that Zimmerman began to follow Martin because he was black
His starting to follow martin is what lead to martin's death. His suspicions were based solely on race. Martin is dead because he's black. Zimmerman isn't convicted because the jury finds walking while black to be suspicious and a black guy to be scary enough to warrant a threat to your life just by being there.
Martin had far more reason to shoot zimmerman than zimmerman had to shoot martin, yet if he had he would be in jail.
More disturbing, is the propensity of black pundits and community leaders to skew the narrative of the event as "a black child gunned down because he had skittles and iced tea in his pocket". This is a disingenuous statement that does nothing but inflame emotions, and does nothing to help heal.
There's nothing disingenuous about it. Its what happened.
It completely ignores the fact that Martin had the opportunity to break the chain of errors that lead to his death, but instead opted to confront Zimmerman.
1) we only have Zimmermans word that that's what happened. Given everything else the wanabe cop was doing i wouldn't be surprised if he'd actually tried to tackle Martin.
2) Martin had every legal right to attack Zimmerman. Stand your ground applies FAR more to martin's alleged attack (hiding in bushes that franky, aren't there than what is unquestionably Zimmerman chasing after martin.
(edit: you can see the crime scenehere, ignore Al sharpton, look at the dads tour through the place. The bushes are a foot high and well off the sidewalk where the confrontation took place )
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Martin is at fault. Nor am I saying that Zimmerman is at fault. This was a tragic event in which both parties had opportunities to change the outcome, which in hindsight, those choices are now obvious.
They were obvious in foresight, which is why the 911 operator told him to stay in the car.
But don't worry, now that Zimmerman's been found innocent of the charges he gets to defend himself from a civil suit that will seek to gain money from him! Innocent is the verdict but yet you can sue the innocent for money?!? Thanks OJ for showing me that trick years ago!With crap i have heard about criminals suing after a slip and fall and whatnot nothing surprises me anyoreBelieve whatever you want. If you can't support it with actual laws, I'm going to ignore it.Sadly in some states i bet you can.Zimmerman attacked first, then he falls under section (1) committing a forcible felony. (Assault/battery).
Subsection (a), which you bolded, applies to Section (2) Initially provoked the use of force against himself.Clearer example: If you break into and are robbing a house (Committing a forcible felony) and the owner returns home and shoots at you from the only door,( 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) you still don't get to shoot him and claim self defense.
If you're so sure, why don't you find a case of a criminal successfully suing a victim?
All I've found are articles where cases that were thrown out by judges, which would seem to indicate that your impression is wrong.
If you think suing someone is easy or automatically going to earn someone money, there is a lot about the legal system you don't know.
Netflix has this documentary, Hot Coffee, available right now for viewing. I highly recommend it. Remember, filing a lawsuit is not the same as winning a lawsuit. If the NCAA files a frivolous lawsuit (and it makes it to trial), you better believe they'd be open to a counter suit and have to pay Zimmerman's legal fees (and they have a lot more money than he does, so would actually be able to pay).
It's tough to say. Although would have been much more likely that we would get an answer as to who initiated the physical confrontation.I think to respond to the earlier comments of whether Treyvon had lived or not... he would have used the exact same defense Zimmerman did, except all he did was push someone to the ground.
When someone is following and chasing you through your neighborhood at night, you have a reasonable expectation to fear bodily harm.
Because he was dead though, the person who killed him got to use that defense and because of how our legal system works, Martin's state of mind isn't up for speculation and isn't evidence.
Pure speculation, Treyvon did.
More speculation: Someone is following you at night. You notice them and pick up your pace, they match you. You start trying to evade them, going through yards, behind cover to lose them. They manage to stay on your trail. You try running, they keep up. Would it be wrong to to fear for your own safety?
Additionally, Florida law does not allow assets to be seized (which is why a lot of wealthy people who have been sued keep a home in Florida, including O.J. Simpson after his civil suit).
Assets in Florida can be seized, and frequently are, for criminal wrongdoing and civil judgments. However, if a homeowner declares bankruptcy, their primary residency in FL cannot be seized for creditors.
So, does anybody know why the Jury didn't call this manslaughter?
And it would be more accurate than one that seems hand picked to make him seem as much a tiny child as they could, not the size and stature of a grown man that could have been a physical threat. Please do not pretend you do not see what they were doing.For the curious, this is the last known picture of Trayvor alive.
EDIT: For clarity, he is the tall person on the right, and I should point out that it is claimed to be the last photo. This may be wrong, but it was taken nine days before he was shot.
The kid was 158 pounds. A stiff wind could knock him down. Not a physical threat to Zimmerman.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is disappointing. I had thought him guilty of manslaughter at the very least.
I pretty much agree with this.