The Murder of Trayvon Martin

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by badgeguy

Isn't what you just said about "if Trayvon were white...." being racist also?

You need to learn what "racist" ("racism") means.

And I never typed "racist" because I am not talking about "racist" ("racism"). Throwing the word "racist" ("racism") into these discussions hurts many people's brain cells causing them to miss the points.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by badgeguy

Isn't what you just said about "if Trayvon were white...." being racist also? There is no proof to that statement.

There's no proof out there, which is why no one thinks the feds will file civil rights charges. That said, a pretty strong inference could be made that there was racial profiling going on there. It's not as if racial profiling never happens. Anecdotally, I have black clients who are pulled over all of the time because they fit the description of someone the police are looking for--young/black/male.

On the other hand, I, a 30-something white guy have not been pulled over for any reason since something around 2002.

An NYC study on stop and frisk stops showed that despite the fact that blacks and latinos accounted for 4.7% of the city's population, those between 14 and 24 accounted for 41.6% of the stops.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/ny...nd-frisks.html

I can certainly sympathize with the sort of frustration that someone would experience by being treated with automatic hostility and suspicion from others.

This is maybe not the perfect set of facts to be out there protesting over, but it's a legitimate issue.

Zimmerman was a member of a neighborhood watch group, therefore it would stand to reason that all people who "seem suspicious" would be looked at by him, as well as other neighborhood watch people.

As I said, it's a bad set of facts to be mad about, but there are some legitimate grievances here.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

This is maybe not the perfect set of facts to be out there protesting over, but it's a legitimate issue.

As I said, it's a bad set of facts to be mad about, but there are some legitimate grievances here.

1. I respect Kevin's post on racial profiling but Kevin's post doesn't explain my post. If badgeguy wants to know about my post, he has to read about the profile of (most of) the burglars in Zimmerman's neighborhood and read this GC thread more thoroughly.

2. The word "mad" is misplaced. It has an irrational tone.

3. It is next to impossible to say "it's a bad set of facts" and "legitimate grievances" in the same sentence.

4. But, there is a God because if white people can tell Black people that it is a legitimate grievance, the ponies can officially piss rainbows. Tim Wise and other panelists were on Melissa Harris-Perry's show yesterday and today. The panel was awesome and Tim Wise is always superb. It is no doubt that many people take these discussions more seriously when Tim Wise is present. That is because he is well-informed, articulate, calm and poised, and a white man whose education and unemotional intellect are assumed. He isn't "mad" over a "bad set of facts." Tim Wise knows that his white male privilege is one more thing that leads the general audience (predominantly white liberals) to believe there's a "legitimate grievance" just because he says so.

******

Even Without 'Stand Your Ground' George Zimmerman Acquittal was Likely

George Zimmerman: The Trial He Should Have Had

For the ACLU, George Zimmerman case is awkward déjà vu

[StealthMode]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Ugh...if I hear one more person in my family tell me that "n...a" is no longer a bad word but is a term for any male and is okay to say, I'm going to scream.

Please don't post when one more person says it because I may scream, too. Unless you just want screaming company then go ahead.

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

On NPR (yes I'm a nerd) they discussed how "thug" is the new dog-whistle for young black men or, the "new N-word."

I disagree because I haven't heard it used as such but it could be and I'm just missing out on those stories.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

4. But, there is a God because if white people can tell Black people that it is a legitimate grievance, the ponies can officially piss rainbows.

So many siggies, so little time...

BTW the protest was relatively peaceful and made the news on ABC and NBC. However, the majority of the news segment went to the protests in Houston--yes, plural. There was one against GZ and a counter protest happening at the same time. The helicopter camera showed two crowds walking on opposite sides of the same street. There's no "mind explode" emoticon for me to use right now.

[Phrozen Sands]

So I guess it would be fair to pursue and follow George Zimmerman. If he were to try to defend himself, if he got shot and killed, my defense would be I was standing my ground. The difference is I'd be in prison right now. That's a really stupid law. That jury already had predetermined the outcome long before that trial even started.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

So I guess it would be fair to pursue and follow George Zimmerman. If he were to try to defend himself, if he got shot and killed, my defense would be I was standing my ground.

Possibly. Stand your ground can lead to some absurdities. Now in this case, we have a bit more than Zimmerman just following Martin. We have a physical altercation which wasn't going Zimmerman's way and then the shooting. If you simply walked up to someone and shot him, that's not going to play out in your favor.

That jury already had predetermined the outcome long before that trial even started.

The jury followed the law.

[DrPhil]

Zimmerman Emerges to Help Distressed Family

Sure, it is probably legit and mere coincidence...Zimmerman's a good wholesome community kinda guy...yadayadayada...we get the point. The amused part of me thinks this smells like the fake crack deal around the White House for George H.W. Bush's presidency. I'm just glad Zimmerman didn't have his gun. Ya know, shit happens when you coincidentally have a gun.

[maconmagnolia]

Originally Posted by Mizeree I2K

Well that's obvious. In those jurors minds they basically thought about somebody like Zimmerman protecting their neighborhood from somebody like Martin. That's all that was.

I don't think that's fair. The jurors said that they wanted to convict Zimmerman of something, but under the law, they couldn't do so.

The state overcharged the case, could not back it up, and this is the natural end result. I think that if they originally would have charged Zimmerman with manslaughter and made their case that way, he would have been convicted. Unfortunately, that isn't what happened.

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by maconmagnolia

I don't think that's fair. The jurors said that they wanted to convict Zimmerman of something, but under the law, they couldn't do so.

The state overcharged the case, could not back it up, and this is the natural end result. I think that if they originally would have charged Zimmerman with manslaughter and made their case that way, he would have been convicted. Unfortunately, that isn't what happened.

I disagree. How did "overcharging" (by this, I'm presuming you mean murder 2) prevent jurors from convicting on the lesser included charge of manslaughter?

I thought, as did many others, manslaughter was clearly proven. Given that it was a lesser included charge, it was certainly there for the jurors to consider.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Mizeree I2K

Well that's obvious. In those jurors minds they basically thought about somebody like Zimmerman protecting their neighborhood from somebody like Martin. That's all that was.

What makes this obvious?

How about you sit your Oklahoma, "white privileged" country ass down somewhere and shut up.

I'll take privileged. There's no doubt about that. But country? There's nothing wrong with that, many of my friends are country as hell, but I don't think anyone who knows me would say that.

You need to learn how to communicate civilly if you want to be taken seriously. If you don't care, why communicate at all? Do you just enjoy being crass?

[Phrozen Sands]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Stand your ground can lead to some absurdities. Now in this case, we have a bit more than Zimmerman just following Martin. We have a physical altercation which wasn't going Zimmerman's way and then the shooting. If you simply walked up to someone and shot him, that's not going to play out in your favor.

Would there have been an altercation if Zimmerman did what the authorities told him to do?

I agree, it wouldn't play out in my favor because as many black men who are serving time in prison, I don't have the resources for it to play out in my favor. The point I was making is Zimmerman did just that. He pursued, shot, and killed someone who was not bothering him, or anyone else, which is wrong on all levels.

Originally Posted by Kevin

The jury followed the law.

I didn't say the jury didn't follow the law. I said they already had predetermined their decision long before the trial started.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

Would there have been an altercation if Zimmerman did what the authorities told him to do?

This has already been answered for you, so I'll just 2nd the responses you received.

I agree, it wouldn't play out in my favor because as many black men who are serving time in prison, I don't have the resources for it to play out in my favor. The point I was making is Zimmerman did just that. He pursued, shot, and killed someone who was not bothering him, or anyone else, which is wrong on all levels.

Whoa there. Assuming facts not in evidence. What we have is:

1) Zimmerman pursued,
2) ????? [Zimmerman says he was jumped by Martin]
3) They have a wrestling match in which all of the evidence showed Martin was on top of Zimmerman getting the better of Zimmerman, "MMA style" according to one witness. Zimmerman sustains injuries to the back of his head consistent with what the eye witness saw. This is further supported by the defense's gunshot residue expert who testified that the muzzle of the gun was pressed up against the fabric of Martin's hoodie, but not against his body, meaning that the clothing was hanging downward, further supporting the defense theory that Martin was on top.
4) Zimmerman shoots Martin.

2 matters, but even absent SYG, it'd be up to the state to prove Zimmerman initiated the violence. It's not unlawful for a neighborhood watch person to follow someone they deem suspicious--even if it's for an unwarranted reason. It'd further be up to the state to prove at the time Zimmerman elected to use deadly force, he could have retreated safely. If someone is on top of you beating your head against concrete and going at you MMA style, I'm going to just speculate wildly that the state wouldn't be able to meet its burden assuming the same facts and evidence were presented in some parallel universe trial.

The evidence was not as in your hypo where you pursued and killed someone. That's not remotely what the evidence here tended to show.

I didn't say the jury didn't follow the law. I said they already had predetermined their decision long before the trial started.

So the amount of time they took to deliberate, the request for further instruction on manslaughter, etc., was just an act?

[badgeguy]

Posted by Dr. Phil...." 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;"

This is what I was referring to, and this statement as written is implying a racist view in that you assume that if Trayvon were not black.....which to me means that you feel that whites wouldn't follow whites and not be suspicious.....to me as written a statement like that assumes that we as whites are suspicious of all blacks....

Maybe I'm missing something, but unfortunately it's hard to really know what's behind the written words.....

[DrPhil]

People's ends to a means do not have to meet our individual seal of approval.

I dislike the Occupy movement for various reasons, including the racial and social class dynamics. But I would not tell the people in the movement that they are pointless and need to shut up just because I think 95% of them are that which they claim to despise.

Originally Posted by badgeguy

This is what I was referring to, and this statement as written is implying a racist view in that you assume that if Trayvon were not black.....which to me means that you feel that whites wouldn't follow whites and not be suspicious.....to me as written a statement like that assumes that we as whites are suspicious of all blacks....

Maybe I'm missing something, but unfortunately it's hard to really know what's behind the written words.....

You are definitely missing something but you will have to research this on your own. The thread has reached its maximum redundancy and will self-destruct.

The only thing I care to say is stop throwing out the word "racist" ("racism") just because something rubs you the wrong way as it pertains to race and ethnicity. That simplifies and does a disservice to real instances of racial inequality and racial injustice (racism) for which white people are NOT the recipients 99.5% of the time.

[Munchkin03]

On NPR (yes I'm a nerd) they discussed how "thug" is the new dog-whistle for young black men or, the "new N-word."

Discuss.

No race war thread shall die on my watch!