Jump to content
IGNORED

George Zimmerman Not Guilty


BoomerLynn

Recommended Posts

Just to clarify my earlier post. I was attempting sarcasm, but also making a point. If the situation were reversed, and a white Trayvon had stalked, confronted and killed a white teenager, I have no doubt he would have been prosecuted.

Thank you for saying this. Zimmerman was "white" in every way that counted.

That being said, Black Twitter absolutely exploded when the verdict was handed down. I and a lot of my friends were not at all surprised and not really sad, even. Melissa Harris-Perry said today that black people are used to getting less, so we don't expect much. It's true. We're used to our friends and family being killed with little recourse, so there's no point in rioting about it. It's like waking up to see the sky is blue. Another black kid is dead, and life goes on for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Just to clarify my earlier post. I was attempting sarcasm, but also making a point. If the situation were reversed, and a white Trayvon had stalked, confronted and killed a white teenager, I have no doubt he would have been prosecuted.

I think you're being a bit dramatic. Also, this could happen in any state. Zimmerman didn't use the "stand your ground" defense, which applies to Florida. The only thing the defense used was Zimmerman acting in self-defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand both of your stances. I think Zimmerman was a bit overzealous w/his privilege of carrying a concealed weapon. Thank God for Neighborhood Watches, they are intended to keep us safe. However, I think Zimmerman took the law into his own hands and made a poor decision to follow a kid who MAY or MAY NOT have been in his neighborhood to cause harm. Martin got pissed b/c he was accused (rightly or wrongly) and made the poor decision to fight. I do think Zimmerman should have been punished in some way though.

If someone was following me at night, I'd fight too, and it wouldn't be because I'm "pissed". I can't run worth a damn. If I ever get followed/attacked, my assailant will hopefully end up with scratches on his face, too. Hell, I'd go for the eyes like those self defence classes tell you to. I wear hoodies at night all the time, but something tells me that no one would brand me, a white woman, a thug despite that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone was following me at night, I'd fight too, and it wouldn't be because I'm "pissed". I can't run worth a damn. If I ever get followed/attacked, my assailant will hopefully end up with scratches on his face, too. Hell, I'd go for the eyes like those self defence classes tell you to. I wear hoodies at night all the time, but something tells me that no one would brand me, a white woman, a thug despite that...

Gah, I'm having an argument with someone on a local forum about this issue. I pointed out in response to a "Zimmerman is completely innocent and has absolutely no blame in this situation at all" comment that Zimmerman was (from what I heard) told to stand down and to NOT pursue Martin by the 911 operator. He persisted and was then (maybe) attacked. I get this in response:

If I tell my sister not to wear a low cut shirt to a biker bar and she is raped in the back of the bar does she also "share the blame"?

:angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: This does not seem even remotely to be the same situation. Does it? I think it's a false analogy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone on CNN just said it was like the prosecution threw the case. Something was not right about the way they handled the case.

Another thing that's bothering me is the way people are describing Zimmerman's injuries. The paramedic(or doctor?) testified that Zimmerman's injuries were minor and he did not have a broken nose. The defense's medical expert testified that if Zimmerman's head was banged against concrete 25 times he would need serious medical attention. Everyone seems to be ignoring this, including the prosecution.

I've been reading about how the attorney who prosecuted Zimmerman and the attorney who prosecuted the black woman who got 20 years for firing warning shots in self-defence were the same person. Angela Corey is her name. Here's the Jezebel article where I first read it: http://jezebel.com/zimmerman-prosecutor ... -778649569

If I understand correctly, the implication is that the prosecution didn't try as hard as they could have because of the racist bias Angela Corey seems to have, going by her prosecution statistics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gah, I'm having an argument with someone on a local forum about this issue. I pointed out in response to a "Zimmerman is completely innocent and has absolutely no blame in this situation at all" comment that Zimmerman was (from what I heard) told to stand down and to NOT pursue Martin by the 911 operator. He persisted and was then (maybe) attacked. I get this in response:

:angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: This does not seem even remotely to be the same situation. Does it? I think it's a false analogy.

If someone fights back when you follow them and make you unsafe, you are to blame for provoking the incident. Because you disrespected someone, made them feel unsafe, and fucking provoked it. Minding your own business and respecting everyone around you, whether you're in a mini skirt or a fucking parka, can not reasonably be considered provoking someone. That's the difference between Zimmerman and a woman in a low cut shirt. The former can reasonably and logically be considered a provocation. The latter is only considered a provocation by idiots and rapists making excuses for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW that fake "what if she wore a low cut shirt?" analogy is all over the internet, I'm not surprised someone used it. It's another one of those "haha, we can trap the liberals at their own game" things at least in the places I've seen it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this has already been said but at least among many old, traditional hispanic families, there is definitely a strong aversion to black people - even (especially) among those who have black lineage. Of course we have no clue what the dynamic was in Zimmerman's family growing up or if it would have even played a role but it wouldn't be surprising to me that Zimmerman's actions were racially motivated.

And I agree, what in the world could Trayvon Martin have done considering he was unarmed to prompt Zimmerman to shoot-to-kill?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW that fake "what if she wore a low cut shirt?" analogy is all over the internet, I'm not surprised someone used it. It's another one of those "haha, we can trap the liberals at their own game" things at least in the places I've seen it.

Thanks, Minerva and GVC. I just got the whole: "Well, of course you don't see it as the same thing, because you're an evil, liberal feminist who will blame a man for his actions, but give a pass to a woman for hers." My God, these people.... :pull-hair:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Minerva and GVC. I just got the whole: "Well, of course you don't see it as the same thing, because you're an evil, liberal feminist who will blame a man for his actions, but give a pass to a woman for hers." My God, these people.... :pull-hair:

Why are conservative "gotcha lefties!" arguments always so easy to poke holes in...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always instructed my kids to call 911 if they are ever followed. It's stupid to confront anyone these days. It's stupid to escalate anything. It is always best to de-escalate and be safe. This could have ended so much better if both parties had chosen to de-escalate. It reminds me of a long ago incident my father was involved in. He was driving, with the right-of-way. Another driver didn't see him. My dad continued to drive because he had the right-of-way. The other guy plowed him. My dad got a broken leg, broken knee, and totaled car. The other guy didn't have insurance or a pot to pee in, so daddy got zilch, except for pain, suffering, lost income, etc. But, he had the right-of-way, so he was right. Ah, well, testosterone!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone fights back when you follow them and make you unsafe, you are to blame for provoking the incident. Because you disrespected someone, made them feel unsafe, and fucking provoked it. Minding your own business and respecting everyone around you, whether you're in a mini skirt or a fucking parka, can not reasonably be considered provoking someone. That's the difference between Zimmerman and a woman in a low cut shirt. The former can reasonably and logically be considered a provocation. The latter is only considered a provocation by idiots and rapists making excuses for themselves.

Christ, that first sentence is supposed to say "and make them feel unsafe" not "and make you unsafe". You'd think I'd still be paying attention as I proofread the very first sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what the juror told CNN:

She think George just made a mistake and shouldn't have got out of the car. She also said he didn't know when to just stop.

She said George's name in the interview, but called Trayvon "the boy" or just didn't talks about him.

She said Rachael Janteal testimony wasn't helpful because "she used words and phrases I've never heard of"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what the juror told CNN:

She think George just made a mistake and shouldn't have got out of the car. She also said he didn't know when to just stop.

She said George's name in the interview, but called Trayvon "the boy" or just didn't talks about him.

She said Rachael Janteal testimony wasn't helpful because "she used words and phrases I've never heard of"

Hmm... This sort of backs up people's claims that Rachel's testimony was ignored because of her diction, and that race therefore factored in the trial's outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This juror has everyone raising their eyebrows. I actually remember her from jury selection. She said some dumb thing and Zimmerman was smiling every time she answered a question. I'm going to watch the interview because what I've seen sounds infuriating :angry-banghead: .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this has already been said but at least among many old, traditional hispanic families, there is definitely a strong aversion to black people - even (especially) among those who have black lineage. Of course we have no clue what the dynamic was in Zimmerman's family growing up or if it would have even played a role but it wouldn't be surprising to me that Zimmerman's actions were racially motivated.

I'm sorry...I've been trying to stay out of talk about this but the implication here that only Zimmerman was racist annoys me. Maybe Zimmerman was racist, maybe he wasn't. But you don't learn to call someone a "creepy ass cracker" from school. That comes from the home as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always instructed my kids to call 911 if they are ever followed. It's stupid to confront anyone these days. It's stupid to escalate anything. It is always best to de-escalate and be safe. This could have ended so much better if both parties had chosen to de-escalate. It reminds me of a long ago incident my father was involved in. He was driving, with the right-of-way. Another driver didn't see him. My dad continued to drive because he had the right-of-way. The other guy plowed him. My dad got a broken leg, broken knee, and totaled car. The other guy didn't have insurance or a pot to pee in, so daddy got zilch, except for pain, suffering, lost income, etc. But, he had the right-of-way, so he was right. Ah, well, testosterone!!!

I'm not sure what race you are, but I would be surprised to find out that you are African American, or at least not in the same social and economic class as Martin. If he had called 911, there's a very good chance they would not have believed him or not cared enough to do anything. This really, really isn't Martin's fault no matter how much you might wish it were so to feel like the verdict isn't as bad as it is. Martin probably didn't see police helping him as even an option, and he may have been correct in that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry...I've been trying to stay out of talk about this but the implication here that only Zimmerman was racist annoys me. Maybe Zimmerman was racist, maybe he wasn't. But you don't learn to call someone a "creepy ass cracker" from school. That comes from the home as well.

There is great debate whether prejudice against white people counts as racism. But, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that prejudice against white people is as grave an issue as the systematic racism faced by black folks, and let's pretend calling someone a cracker is anywhere near as serious as presuming someone is a criminal because they're black. It's pretty clear that, while Zimmerman probably followed and fought Trayvon because he was black, Trayvon almost certainly did not fight Zimmerman because he perceived him as white, but rather because he was following him around at night. Zimmerman's racism factored heavily into the encounter; Trayvon's "racism" most likely didn't. That is why this is prompting discussion about anti-black racism. Throwing in "but Trayvon was racist too" adds nothing to the discussion. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it counts as a Tu Quoque fallacy.

It's one of my pet peeves when people act like you're not being balanced because you discuss facts based on their actual relevance to the question instead of whether they can be linked to the question at all.

And why on earth does it matter where he learned the word? I'm seriously at a loss to understand what point that was supposed to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry...I've been trying to stay out of talk about this but the implication here that only Zimmerman was racist annoys me. Maybe Zimmerman was racist, maybe he wasn't. But you don't learn to call someone a "creepy ass cracker" from school. That comes from the home as well.

I agree. But Trayvon is the one who ended up dead from being stalked in the first place. Also, "cracker" is only slightly rude and I - not sure about other people - definitely don't put it into the same category as other "derogatory terms".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. But Trayvon is the one who ended up dead from being stalked in the first place. Also, "cracker" is only slightly rude and I - not sure about other people - definitely don't put it into the same category as other "derogatory terms".

Please look up the definition of stalk. If you had listened to the trial and evidence, it is pretty clear that the dispatcher was asking Zimmerman where Martin was just before the physical conflict started. According to evidence, Zimmerman didn't have sight of Martin the entire time, especially not right before the altercation occurred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is great debate whether prejudice against white people counts as racism. But, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that prejudice against white people is as grave an issue as the systematic racism faced by black folks, and let's pretend calling someone a cracker is anywhere near as serious as presuming someone is a criminal because they're black. It's pretty clear that, while Zimmerman probably followed and fought Trayvon because he was black, Trayvon almost certainly did not fight Zimmerman because he perceived him as white, but rather because he was following him around at night. Zimmerman's racism factored heavily into the encounter; Trayvon's "racism" most likely didn't. That is why this is prompting discussion about anti-black racism. Throwing in "but Trayvon was racist too" adds nothing to the discussion. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it counts as a Tu Quoque fallacy.

It's one of my pet peeves when people act like you're not being balanced because you discuss facts based on their actual relevance to the question instead of whether they can be linked to the question at all.

And why on earth does it matter where he learned the word? I'm seriously at a loss to understand what point that was supposed to make.

Fine, don't call the prejudice of white people racism. Call it bigotry, call it not an issue, or call it fluffy clouds. I really don't care. My point wasn't to say "but he was racist too" but more like, he isn't the angel his family is making him out to be. And IMO, it isn't the word that, it's the feeling behind the word of the person speaking it. Cracker might not be an insult in your eyes, but if a speaker means it with vile and hate (and I'm not saying he did-just putting out a philosophical argument), does it really matter?

I don't know if I'm conveying what I mean....I can try to clarify if it is still confusing :-/.

That aside. I for one, do not trust anyone who runs to the press to try and get the public on their side. There are hundreds of murders that happen every day. But yet this one seems to be the one that some people, who are pushing an agenda are screaming bloody murder about. Where's the justice for all the people who can't get their super speedy trial?

Personally, I am not upset with the verdict. Why? Because the evidence presented at the trial was crap. And did not, IMO, meet the legal definition of the charges. IMO, they should have gone for a lesser charge.

Besides, if Zimmerman is the scum that everyone claims he is, karma will catch up with him eventually. Just look at OJ. Now, am I unhappy that Zimmerman is walking unpunished? Yes, but I have an issue with Castle laws anyways. That's a whole 'nother discussion ;).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.