The Murder of Trayvon Martin

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by badgeguy

What is the real point here?

To keep the discussion going and to not be silenced just because people (in general) insist on telling Blacks when to speak and when to shut up.

People of the African diaspora are among the few power minority groups around the world who are expected to be forgiving, apologetic, get over it, and shut up when members of the white majority (and individuals of the African diaspora (like that OP-ED piece to Paula Deen) who decide that they, themselves, are over it) tell them to do so.

Originally Posted by badgeguy

What do these protests truly hope to accomplish?

They are already accomplishing one thing: People are still talking about it and those who are outraged (not only Black people) are finding a nonviolent, visible voice.

The government and Trayvon Martin's family can decide whether to appeal, civil suit, or whatever else.

Now some people are angry at President Obama as though he is the first President to discuss certain court outcomes and racial dynamics. President Obama is the first Black President to do so which of course means that some white people have selective memory and are outraged.

I do not disagree with the verdict because the prosecution was lacking for a number of reasons, including politics and lack of evidence to prove what the prosecution has the legal obligation to prove. That means Zimmerman is legally not guilty in a criminal case. That does not mean the world has to shut up about Trayvon Martin and the larger dynamics that are prevalent before and after Trayvon Martin.

Some people are still talking about Martin's backpack that was taken by an SRO at school and whether Martin was a burglar. After-the-fact questioning whether Martin was a burglar (who conveniently was out of burglar mode and just chilling that night with Skittles, apparently) is no different than questioning what Zimmerman was. The difference is Zimmerman is alive to tell his own story and claim self-defense, be investigated, and be brought to trial. Lucky, lucky, Zimmerman.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

To keep the discussion going and to not be silenced just because people (in general) insist on telling Blacks when to speak and when to shut up.

People of the African diaspora are among the few power minority groups around the world who are expected to be forgiving, apologetic, get over it, and shut up when members of the white majority (and individuals of the African diaspora (like that OP-ED piece to Paula Deen) who decide that they, themselves, are over it) tell them to do so.



They are already accomplishing one thing: People are still talking about it and those who are outraged (not only Black people) are finding a nonviolent, visible voice.

The government and Trayvon Martin's family can decide whether to appeal, civil suit, or whatever else.

Now some people are angry at President Obama as though he is the first President to discuss certain court outcomes and racial dynamics. President Obama is the first Black President to do so which of course means that some white people have selective memory and are outraged.

I do not disagree with the verdict because the prosecution was lacking for a number of reasons, including politics and lack of evidence to prove what the prosecution has the legal obligation to prove. That means Zimmerman is legally not guilty in a criminal case. That does not mean the world has to shut up about Trayvon Martin and the larger dynamics that are prevalent before and after Trayvon Martin.

Some people are still talking about Martin's backpack that was taken by an SRO at school and whether Martin was a burglar. After-the-fact questioning whether Martin was a burglar (who conveniently was out of burglar mode and just chilling that night with Skittles, apparently) is no different than questioning what Zimmerman was. The difference is Zimmerman is alive to tell his own story and claim self-defense, be investigated, and be brought to trial. Lucky, lucky, Zimmerman.

I don't have a problem with them having a voice, and there are people who are protesting for good reasons. But I do have a problem when people claim that the only reason Zimmerman was found not guilty is because Zimmerman is white and Trayvon is black. IMO, based on the evidence and what was presented in court, the jury essentially had no choice but to return with a not guilty verdict. That's the law. Our judicial process doesn't rely on feelings and hunches; it relies on facts. And there weren't enough facts presented at trial to convict.

And the only thing the president said that I had an issue with was, "If Trayvon was white, there may have been a different outcome." The reason being - there are two separate racial issues here. The first being whether or not Zimmerman acted based on Trayvon's race, and the second being whether or not the jury acted the way they did for the same reason. I think it's difficult for some people to separate the two. The president's statement could be interpreted two different ways - either Zimmerman might have made a decision based on race, or the jury might have - and because of that, I think he, probably inadvertantly, could have added more fuel to the fire. Just my opinion.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

But I do have a problem when people claim that the only reason Zimmerman was found not guilty is because Zimmerman is white and Trayvon is black. IMO, based on the evidence and what was presented in court, the jury essentially had no choice but to return with a not guilty verdict. That's the law. Our judicial process doesn't rely on feelings and hunches; it relies on facts. And there weren't enough facts presented at trial to convict.

There are people, including legal experts, who disagree with the verdict. They do not believe the jury "had no choice". Regardless of the opinion on the verdict, I want people to be honest and not pretend a human-based system is objective and foolproof.

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

And the only thing the president said that I had an issue with was, "If Trayvon was white, there may have been a different outcome." The reason being - there are two separate racial issues here. The first being whether or not Zimmerman acted based on Trayvon's race, and the second being whether or not the jury acted the way they did for the same reason. I think it's difficult for some people to separate the two. The president's statement could be interpreted two different ways - either Zimmerman might have made a decision based on race, or the jury might have - and because of that, I think he, probably inadvertantly, could have added more fuel to the fire. Just my opinion.

President Obama's statements did not break the camel's back. People know what they know, the protests happen as they happen, and the world is none the wiser just because a President (Black or white) makes a statement.

As I always say, humans (not you) have a difficult time seeing different sides and multitasking. I agree with the verdict AND I believe this entire thing would have been different if Trayvon Martin was white. Zimmerman probably would not have followed Martin in the first place because a white person did not fit the profile of the burglars in the neighborhood; and, if there was a shooting, the outcome would have likely been different. What's worse than angry/militant/freedom fighting Black people? Angry/militant/freedom fighting white people. The NRA, Occupy, and other powerful movements that have not been told to "stop being angry, shut up, get over it" are founded by white people. A not guilty verdict for someone who shoots a white 17 year old with Skittles would result in angry white people. These white people may not do public rallies and protests but they will likely hit the system where it hurts--public policies and laws like Stand Your Ground and pro-gun mandates that noncoincidentally favor white people.

Aurora and Sandy Hook are examples of mainstream public outrage correlated with race and ethnicity. If the offenders and majority of victims in these incidents had been nonwhite, the topic would be Black-on-Black or Hispanic-on-Hispanic crime rather than a larger public discussion on violence, mental health, and guns. It would be a problem with "those people". Evidence of this is in the hilarious interview that Soledad O'Brien did with Senator Chuck Grassley. At the same time, if the offenders were of one race and the victims predominantly of a different race, it would still be examined on the basis of race and ethnicity. Since most violence is intraracial, the question would be why this violence was interracial. The VTech shooting, and similar incidents, is different in that the shooter had access to the target and this access was not considered to be on the basis of race and ethnicity.