Jump to content
IGNORED

George Zimmerman Not Guilty


BoomerLynn

Recommended Posts

Totally OT, but there is a bred of horse called the Florida Cracker. Named for the cattle herders that ride them around cracking their whips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

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.

Do a little research before you quote this case- pretty much everything that has been advertising this "injustice" has completely missed the actual facts in the case. Melissa Alexander (the woman charged) came to the marital home that she FORMERLY shared with her ex. He was LIVING there with his sons. She didn't shoot warning shots- she shot AT her former ex-husband AND his two sons (three charges of attempted murder), not at the ceiling. She also retreated to her car to retrieve said weapon. This is not the came case, it is not even REMOTELY the same case. Angela Corey refused a three year plea deal (stupid IMO) for her attempted murder/aggravated assault with a deadly weapon charges and got hit with the mandatory sentence. Poor her.

Oh, and four months after the attempted murder, she disobeyed court orders and confronted the above victim (her ex) and assaulted him (while awaiting trial in the first case). She once again, went to HIS house and it resulted in his injuries and she got another charge of domestic battery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe someone hasn't told his brother to STFU already.

Why? Everything I've heard from him has been pretty rational. Sure, there's a bias towards his brother, but what do you expect? I haven't heard him say anything inflammatory or irrational, though.

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.

QFT. By the way, I am a white female that did learn the word "cracker" at school (elementary), from both white and black peers. Most of the kids I hung out with at that age were black. It was just another word to them. I come from a lower income neighborhood, and this was just how people talked in that area. It was a part of their dialect. (not saying it's right to use any derogatory words-just explaining how the kids in Martin's area may have talked) And quite frankly I don't hold anything against Martin calling Zimmerman a "creepy-ass cracker" seeing as how he was unarmed, walking home from the store in the rain (hence the shortcut), and being followed by some guy he didn't know for no other reason than walking while black.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why? Everything I've heard from him has been pretty rational. Sure, there's a bias towards his brother, but what do you expect? I haven't heard him say anything inflammatory or irrational, though.

http://m.globalgrind.com/news/robert-zi ... deo-quotes

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2948210

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/piers-morgan ... interview/

He's an asshole, and he HAS said inflammatory things.

I'm on mobile so I'll edit the links later of they don't work, although all it takes is a quick google

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do a little research before you quote this case- pretty much everything that has been advertising this "injustice" has completely missed the actual facts in the case. Melissa Alexander (the woman charged) came to the marital home that she FORMERLY shared with her ex. He was LIVING there with his sons. She didn't shoot warning shots- she shot AT her former ex-husband AND his two sons (three charges of attempted murder), not at the ceiling. She also retreated to her car to retrieve said weapon. This is not the came case, it is not even REMOTELY the same case. Angela Corey refused a three year plea deal (stupid IMO) for her attempted murder/aggravated assault with a deadly weapon charges and got hit with the mandatory sentence. Poor her.

Oh, and four months after the attempted murder, she disobeyed court orders and confronted the above victim (her ex) and assaulted him (while awaiting trial in the first case). She once again, went to HIS house and it resulted in his injuries and she got another charge of domestic battery.

Thanks for clarifying that particular case, I myself had trouble understanding how firing "warning shots" at someone is supposed to work. Can you comment on possible links between the overall racial trends present in Angela Corey's prosecution stats and the fact that the prosecution in Zimmerman's trial seems to have dropped the ball? There seems to be a point there, but I'm interested to hear how someone familiar with Florida's legal system would interpret those stats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :-/.

If the bolded is your point, then I think I get it. I fully understand parents wanting their kid to be remembered as a little angel who never cursed, never got in trouble, etc. But I agree with you when it comes to other people. I've seen people claim to know that GZ snuck up on and attacked helpless, model citizen Trayvon out of nowhere, just as I've seen people claim that Trayvon must have been about to burglarize a house for brave GZ to get involved. It's as if acknowledging that a human being might have made mistakes renders their opinion on the verdict and/or racial profiling invalid. Often people think that, in order to be right, the person/policy/ideology they're siding with must not have any faults or downsides. Which is why you sometimes see anti-abortion folks claiming that banning abortion won't force women to be pregnant against their wills because all women want to carry their pregnancies to term and those seeking abortion have just been hoodwinked. And why you sometimes see people who favour a strong welfare state claim that no one ever spends their benefits on drugs. It's shitty because it's dishonest, but also because it reinforces your opponents' worldview. For instance, if I try to cast doubt on Trayvon's being caught with weed, I am implicitly confirming that smoking weed makes a person dangerous or untrustworthy.

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?

I have honestly never heard of a private citizen killing someone else and not standing trial. Perhaps it's common in certain states for the police to let killers go at their own discretion, but it seems odd to me. And even if it was normal, how are you supposed to have someone tried in this situation without going to the media and raising a ruckus? I think it's pretty clear that people were outraged by the racism involved in Trayvon's death, and were dissatisfied with the police's decision not to make an arrest. This is very different from a murder case where charges were pressed from the start and the trial just isn't coming soon enough for someone's taste.

I'm curious what agenda you think people are pushing. Certain people who are being vocal about this case would definitely benefit from a better understanding of the legal system in which Zimmerman was prosecuted, and that murderous, racist asshole doesn't always equal guilty under the law. But institutional racism and racial profiling are damn good things to scream bloody murder about, and I hope people who have so far only screamed about them for this case will keep screaming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's pretty clear that people were outraged by the racism involved in Trayvon's death, and were dissatisfied with the police's decision not to make an arrest. This is very different from a murder case where charges were pressed from the start and the trial just isn't coming soon enough for someone's taste.

The thing is too, this case didn't happen in a vacuum. I think it's a legitimate criticism that perhaps people are looking for a larger discussion that a single legal case can provide, but there's a REASON people are wanting to have a discussion, because this is hardly the first case of a kid being killed by "law enforcement" (even if not technically law enforcement) for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and then having the whole thing blamed on them for "not being respectful enough" or similar.

And always it's the "well he looked suspicious" or "I was afraid" and that doesn't get unpacked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the bolded is your point, then I think I get it. I fully understand parents wanting their kid to be remembered as a little angel who never cursed, never got in trouble, etc. But I agree with you when it comes to other people. I've seen people claim to know that GZ snuck up on and attacked helpless, model citizen Trayvon out of nowhere, just as I've seen people claim that Trayvon must have been about to burglarize a house for brave GZ to get involved. It's as if acknowledging that a human being might have made mistakes renders their opinion on the verdict and/or racial profiling invalid. Often people think that, in order to be right, the person/policy/ideology they're siding with must not have any faults or downsides. Which is why you sometimes see anti-abortion folks claiming that banning abortion won't force women to be pregnant against their wills because all women want to carry their pregnancies to term and those seeking abortion have just been hoodwinked. And why you sometimes see people who favour a strong welfare state claim that no one ever spends their benefits on drugs. It's shitty because it's dishonest, but also because it reinforces your opponents' worldview. For instance, if I try to cast doubt on Trayvon's being caught with weed, I am implicitly confirming that smoking weed makes a person dangerous or untrustworthy.

I have honestly never heard of a private citizen killing someone else and not standing trial. Perhaps it's common in certain states for the police to let killers go at their own discretion, but it seems odd to me. And even if it was normal, how are you supposed to have someone tried in this situation without going to the media and raising a ruckus? I think it's pretty clear that people were outraged by the racism involved in Trayvon's death, and were dissatisfied with the police's decision not to make an arrest. This is very different from a murder case where charges were pressed from the start and the trial just isn't coming soon enough for someone's taste.

I'm curious what agenda you think people are pushing. Certain people who are being vocal about this case would definitely benefit from a better understanding of the legal system in which Zimmerman was prosecuted, and that murderous, racist asshole doesn't always equal guilty under the law. But institutional racism and racial profiling are damn good things to scream bloody murder about, and I hope people who have so far only screamed about them for this case will keep screaming.

To the first part, yeah, that's more or less what I mean.

To the second, it's not standing trial, but a speedy trial. There was a murder case back in my home state that just now went to court and it happened about 20 years ago. Not due to lack of evidence, but because no one made a national fuss about it (or sensationalized it). Or maybe it was due to lack of evidence I honestly don't know, it's hard to follow something that's happening halfway across the country, that one paper is following, and happened when you were a kid (the only reason I know about it is because my one of my childhood friend's mother was called as a witness). Our legal system is incredibly backlogged that sometimes it takes years for something to even make it to trial. Not only that, but 97% of cases are plea bargained because of said backlog.

Personally, I don't understand why people outside of FL care so much about this case (I am truly, honestly perplexed at this). Similarly, I don't understand why people cared so much about OJ, Scott Peterson, Casey Anthony, Jodi Arias and Amanda Knox either.

And to those who claim that now it's ok to start a confrontation and shoot and kill someone to end it...well this isn't the first time something like that happened. This person shot his neighbors dog with a pellet gun, then shot his neighbor when they had a fight over it. Protected under Colorado's "Make My Day" (aka Castle, aka stand your ground) law. Apples and oranges, yes (because dead neighbor went after scot-free neighbor with a club), but same with the "he started it" argument.

As to what agenda I think people are pushing? To be frank, I feel that people are blowing up a relatively minor (albeit tragic) case to push an agenda about race. Does racism still exist? YES. Was racism the primary motive in this case? I don't think so.

Does racism in this country need to be addressed? YES. Is this the right case to go about it? Again, I don't think so.

Some people want Zimmerman to be the new face of racism. And that, I feel, is the wrong way to go about fixing what's broken.

Do I think Zimmerman is a EBIL racist? Not really (at least, not more so than the average person). From what I understand he went out of his way to help people of all races with some other volunteer work, has black family members and blah blah blah. He "profiled" Martin because he fit the description of a person who was thought to be behind a string of burglaries. Now if the profile of the person behind the burglaries was described as some white teen, would Zimmerman have followed Martin? I have no idea.

But if Zimmerman is guilty of profiling because of that, than so is every newscaster who shares the police sketch and general description of suspects on the news. And then so is every person who keeps an eye out for someone matching said description.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the second, it's not standing trial, but a speedy trial. There was a murder case back in my home state that just now went to court and it happened about 20 years ago. Not due to lack of evidence, but because no one made a national fuss about it (or sensationalized it), it's just now (or rather earlier this year) made it to trial. Our legal system is incredibly backlogged so most of the time it takes years for something to even make it to trial. Not only that, but 97% of cases are plea bargained because of said backlog.

See, I never noticed that people were demanding that the trial be speedy as well as that it exist at all. And I have been following it since last year. While I'm sure the high-profileness of the case caused it to go to trial more quickly (this happens in Canada, too), I do think this is preferable to there not being a trial at all. It would be great if no case got to jump the queue just because it was big in the media, but I don't think it's fair to blame that on those who pushed for a trial for Zimmerman. Just as I don't think it's fair to blame it on the media outlets that covered the protests extensively. I think people have every right to make a national fuss about things they care about, and I think it's up to the judicial system, and not activists or the media, to do its job fairly. Should people complain about the queue jumping? Absolutely. But they should complain to the people who allow it to happen.

As to what agenda I think people are pushing? To be frank, I feel that people are blowing up a relatively minor (albeit tragic) case to push an agenda about race. Does racism still exist? YES. Was racism the primary motive in this case? I don't think so.

Does racism in this country need to be addressed? YES. Is this the right case to go about it? Again, I don't think so.

Some people want Zimmerman to be the new face of racism. And that, I feel, is the wrong way to go about fixing what's broken.

Do I think Zimmerman is a EBIL racist? Not really. From what I understand he went out of his way to help people of all races with some other volunteer work, has black family members and blah blah blah. He "profiled" Martin because he fit the description of a person who was thought to be behind a string of burglaries. Now if the profile of the person behind the burglaries was described as some white teen, would Zimmerman have followed Martin? I have no idea.

So if I understand correctly, you agree with the agenda, just not with the case that is being used to push it.

I can see why the Zimmerman case isn't an ideal example of racism (and making him the new face of racism would seem to miss the point of a lot of anti-racist work), but I disagree that volunteering for people of all races makes one incapable of racism or racial profiling. The problem with waiting for the case of racial profiling complete with a moustache-twirling villain who announces that they're racist is that it won't come. Racism is pervasive in this century, but nearly always subtle, ambiguous. (Which is why things like racial profiling can go on despite there being laws against it.) People's opinions will differ on whether this means folks should demand change by pointing to statistics instead of specific cases. Not that it's my place to tell anti-racist movements what they should do, but I am on the side of intelligently drawing attention to cases like Zimmerman's. Not by saying we know for sure what he was thinking that night, but by pointing out the many parts of the story that are consistent with racism, institutionalized and other, and discussing the overall trend that they are part of. And, of course, pushing for legal action when it is due. A lot of good discussions have come out of the hype generated by this case, and I think that makes up for any uninformed twitter comments that are being taken too seriously by the right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how people CAN'T be concerned about cases where they feel that justice hasn't been served. POC and anti-racists are concerned for this case the way we were concerned for the murder of Kimani Gray, and the assault of Tremaine McMillian and the incareceration of Cece McDonald, as well as hundreds of other people of color who have their rights shit on everyday.We push our "agenda" about race and racism every day because we're tired of the total lack of accountability when it comes to America's total disregard for black bodies and for our men, women, children, and LGBT and disabled communities. We're tired of police mishandling our cases and permanently disrupting our lives. We're tired of those in privileged positions walking all over us with no recourse. I don't buy Zimmerman's whole "but I have black friends!" game, and I do think he's a racist and was motivated by race. Is he the face of racism? No. But he represents New Racism in America, where you don't have to burn a cross in someone's lawn to totally disrespect their humanity and their civil rights. If the Trayvon Martin case cracks open this veneer that some seem to have of "post-racial" America then I'm all for the "agenda".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only assume those here to accuse the media of an agenda are not people who have experienced much discrimination in their lives based on their race, if at all (being called a "Cracker" does not count). Obviously many people in this country are completely oblivious to the huge race issues we have in America. I am shocked and dismayed that so many people - not just here but on other internet platforms and in real life - are defending the actions of George Zimmerman and dismissing the death and circumstances of death of Trayvon Martin. I am disgusted. That is the last thing I will say about this issue on this site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, I never noticed that people were demanding that the trial be speedy as well as that it exist at all. And I have been following it since last year. While I'm sure the high-profileness of the case caused it to go to trial more quickly (this happens in Canada, too), I do think this is preferable to there not being a trial at all. It would be great if no case got to jump the queue just because it was big in the media, but I don't think it's fair to blame that on those who pushed for a trial for Zimmerman. Just as I don't think it's fair to blame it on the media outlets that covered the protests extensively. I think people have every right to make a national fuss about things they care about, and I think it's up to the judicial system, and not activists or the media, to do its job fairly. Should people complain about the queue jumping? Absolutely. But they should complain to the people who allow it to happen.

I still feel this case was rushed through because of public pressure. For an interesting compare/contrast take a look at Marley Lion. Different crimes and circumstances, but wildly different public reactions. But in the end we have the same output: A dead (murdered) 17 year old child. Shouldn't the outcry be the same?

Either way, draw from it your own conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Totally OT, but there is a bred of horse called the Florida Cracker. Named for the cattle herders that ride them around cracking their whips.

That is more or less the definition of a cracker... the white guy who whipped the slaves.... considered pretty damn evil and when used as a perjorative, pretty sincere, I'd think

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still feel this case was rushed through because of public pressure. For an interesting compare/contrast take a look at Marley Lion. Different crimes and circumstances, but wildly different public reactions. But in the end we have the same output: A dead (murdered) 17 year old child. Shouldn't the outcry be the same?

Either way, draw from it your own conclusions.

Ooh how interesting that you should bring this up. Have you considered that the outcry wasn't the same because marley lion's murderers were quickly arrested while Zimmerman wasn't even charged for six weeks and now is free? Do you really think lion's killers are going to walk after they go to trial? Minorities need to draw attention to cases like this because the system doesn't work in our favor. What about the fact that the vast majority of missing girls and women who receive media attention are white? Minorities have time and time again been shown by the society we live in that our lives are worth less than those of white people and now a child is dead because he went for a walk at night, so we are pissed.

Both cases are absolute tragedies, but one victim's family will see justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe anyone listens to that fruit loop. He spouts off something crazy after every major newsworthy event.

Robertson called Emmitt Till a "man." Emmitt Till was fourteen at the time of his murder, younger than Trayvon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is already a juror on CNN with a book deal... ::sigh::

She's not doing it: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/ ... 8020130716

Quote: The juror had planned to write the book with her husband, who is an attorney

Here'sn my question, after being thoroughly disgusted by her interview on CNN: How was she not excused from jury duty? My mom just got a summons for jury duty, and one of the questions (at least in my state) asks if the potential juror is friends with or related to an attorney. If she lived in my state, she would have been excused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It varies. Where I live now lawyers can be on a jury. Practically speaking, I don't know one who has served. In a couple of states that I've lived having a close relative involved in law enforcement, being an attorney, or working in the court system was an automatic disqualification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. The fact that Trayvon Martin cannot give his side of the story is a tragedy. However, verdicts have to be reached based on the evidence available. The evidence available in this case convinced the jurors that they could not convict Zimmerman, and had I been on the jury, I also could not have convicted him. What I think about the laws in Florida, or whether I think Zimmerman was 'right', or what I think he should have done instead, is irrelevant to the point I'm making.

Did Zimmerman make the common dumbass mistake of trying to merely threaten Martin by flashing a holstered firearm? (I've said it here before: The moment a weapon appears, talk time is over. At least one of the parties means for the other to die.)

Did Martin turn on Zimmerman merely because Zimmerman stepped out of the car and followed Martin while shouting epithets? (The initial photos the media received of Trayvon Martin were five years older than the footage from the convenience store he visited. 17-year-old Martin was apparently six feet tall and strong enough to put the boot down on Zimmerman.)

Initially I thought Zimmerman was so incredibly guilty. Now, however, as a layman, I can't escape the possibility that both men ultimately acted in what they thought was self-defence: Zimmerman lived. Martin died.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit that I'm geniuinely shocked someone that close to a lawyer would get on a jury. I've never had a professor who hasn't been excused from jury duty. My favorite prof told us once that his wife, kids, siblings, and parents have all used the excuse "My husband/dad/son/brother is a lawyer" and they were IMMEDIATELY excused. It's kinda funny, he keeps a tally of all the people he keeps off juries.

And for myself, both in the state of Pennsylvania and Michigan, I have been excused as a law student. In Pa, I said I had a pre law concentration and they smacked me off right there. Here, all I had to do is say I'm in law school and the same happened. That's a typical voir dire question, are you close to anybody in the law or law enforcement.

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.