Zimmerman trial is sparking racial tensions

I’m not racist, never have been and never will be. I have never had any problems with any other races, ethnicity, or cultures, but for some reason I feel people are creating racial tensions due to this trail inadvertently or possible intentionally.

I am white, and today I can honestly say I am proud to be white regardless of times pass. There is no reason for me to be ashamed of my race or comprise my views or beliefs due to prejudice.

Why does it seem so many people want to bring race into an unfortunate situation and paint a picture that white people are racist when this trail has absolutely nothing to do with racism or white people?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It sells newspapers and gets people to watch the news.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Couple of things...

First, if you're proud to be white regardless of "times pass," then what are you proud of, exactly? You're saying that what happened in the past doesn't matter, so what could you have to be proud of?

And how do you figure that this trial has nothing to do with racism? A black kid was targeted for the color of his skin--I'd call that racism.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm proud to be white because I am white and have nothing to be ashamed of. I think people who choose to tie race into issues that doesn't involve race should be held accountable for their own stupidity.

 

Hmm. I am proud of what I have done. I'm not proud that I am white, or that I am male, or that I have type A positive blood, or am CMV negative, or that I am 5'9" tall, or that I have blue eyes. It would never occur to me to be proud of things I have no control over and did nothing to obtain.

But I guess everyone is different.

 

There were an awful lot of people predicting (even hoping for) race riots; I think they were disappointed when none occurred. How do we hold them accountable?

 

Shouting fire in a crowded theater isn’t legal and in this case, the people that shouted fire are no different.

 

In consideration of your extraordinary assertion ....

It does have ties to racial issues in the United States. Think of it this way:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

And as I noted previously, stay tuned for the next chapter:

Michael Dunn will soon answer a grand jury indictment with the excuse was that he just didn't think before shooting; whose fiancée, also present at the time of the shooting, didn't think it worth calling the police; who apparently had time while someone was aiming a fictitious shotgun at him to get into his car, open the glove box, retrieve the gun, chamber a round, get out of his car, and start shooting.​

Will the white guy get off? Or will the fact that he thought it more important to call out for pizza than call the police bring him down?

We'll see.

Racism is its own problem, before, during, and after the killing of Trayvon Martin. Where racism really gets deadly in Florida is when the law apparently allows people itching for someone to kill to pursue a confrontation in order to take a life in "self-defense".

Let us see how the Dunn trial goes. This guy's an idiot.

 

How do you express your "white pride"?

 

The media sold you that lie and you bought it. The reality is that the "profiling" of Martin was not due to his race and as such the issue was not brought up in the trial.

 

White pride and being proud to be white are two entirely different things. Did you not read the part where I said I'm not racist?

 

Most of the reactions I've seen from people who describe this as an "unfortunate situation" are deeply infused with racism, and by far the most of them are white.

I'm not sure how an American would go about draining the racial aspects of a white guy suspecting, stalking, and ultimately shooting an unarmed black teenager who was walking home and about 200 feet from their door, but I am sure about anyone who claims there are none: they're a racial bigot.

 

I wonder how trials would go if the jury couldn't see the accused so no racial or gender "evidence" could come into a trial, only the facts of a case

 

Your a racist! We all have prejudice, you need stop thinking your shit don't stink!

That does not mean you actually care about the problems that affect them, even apathy towards other races is racism.

wait I thought you said you were not a racist? Now your saying you got pride in your race? A non-racist would never say such a thing because they don't believe race has any value, in short the accomplishments of other white people, of the white race, would mean nothing to you, you can't have pride in yourself because of the accomplishments of others that happen to have the same color skin, that illogical! It makes no sense in reverse either: why should one feel shame because of the crimes of others that happen to have the same color skin? Yet to double your illogical you have pride in the white race for (I don't know) being the pole bares of civilization (forget china) yet no shame for mass genocide and enslavement of hundreds of million over centuries of imperialism committed by the "white race"? Its a two way street if you going to have pride because of race then you got to have shame for your race as well, better yet though would be to have neither because what your race did has nothing to do with you and your accomplishments (or lack off).

This is not "white people are racist" the issue is that a black man can't even walk down his street without people getting suspicious! It is a stereotype, it is racism. This case ripped open black people's anger with being followed and questioned and even accosted constantly for just being!

 

Bolded for emphasis by me

Amen to that!
That is exactly what happened.
Well said.

 

The 911 call was doctored at key areas and that is an established fact, i was actually surprised at that. I would estimate that most of the people here did not watch the trial, you know they didnt watch the trial when they use certain terminology. If you did watch the trial you came away with a more rational perspective and not based off of emotion.

People here mention the OJ trial and i was a little surprised at that verdict, but as time went on i understood it more. The way the jury must have viewed it was - what if it comes out later that someone else did commit the crime? I watched both trials and this trial was presented much better.

Same for the verdict in the Kasey Anthony trial. That verdict I could understand from the beginning though. The reasons should be obvious, but if you are coming from a place of emotion then you would have looked to convict. One thing that did bother me about this case was that Martin could have talked to Zimmerman instead of punching him and Zimmerman had a broken nose. You really had to watch this trial from beginning to end and, as usual, not just get news snippets from mass media. Like i said i cannot find fault with the way it was presented.

 

Well Stanley, I did watch the trial and during the deliberation I told my husband that if I am being objective he will be found Not Guilty and he was. Not because I thought he wasn't guilty (he is), but because of the way SYG is written. I will say it again the damn coward had other options than killing Trayvon and deadly force was unjustified.

 

It was not a SYG issue though. This was a self defense issue. The reason is because Zimmerman could not get away. According to numerous witnesses, one person was on the ground and the other was straddling him. They established that Zimmerman was on the ground and the wounds on the back of his his head were consistent with this, plus they were identified by their clothing so they knew their positions. And then there was the issue of someone clearly heard on a 911 call, by a witness, of someone screaming for help.

 

Did you hear why the jury could not convict even though they wanted to? SYG Law!

 

No, I did not hear that and dont know where you are getting this from.

They may have wanted to convict, just like in the OJ and Anthony trials.

SYG may differ a little but it is actually very similar to any self defense issue and that is universal throughout the world. SYG has no issue for me because I only heard of it a few years ago, even though the law was established over a hundred years ago. I really dont understand the nuances of this law.

For example, someone is in front of you with a knife and you have a concealed weapon, theoretically you can turn to run but in a few seconds you can have a knife in your back too.