George Zimmerman found Not Guilty.

have you noticed that you can't make any intelligent rebuttal to my posts? lmao

did you see that you just also lied that my posts whether they had any personal attacks had no points other than personal attacks, you even audaciously lied that my entire arguments were. why do stupid people expose themselves this way? this is even technically untrue and you are so hung up on facts that just sit there and don't connect any "dots." lmao

surely, you can do better than that or can't you? lmao

hmm..interesting. lol

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Keep laughing! It's about all you're adding to the thread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Bloodlust: The Darker the Better

It is telling that some people have such trouble understanding that point, so we'll make it simple: At the time of the physical confrontation, Trayvon Martin had every right under Stand Your Ground to stand his ground. Except, of course, he was black. And that changes everything.

Florida has a chance soon enough to start chipping away at this hard-earned racist image. If Dunn is convicted, the question hangs in limbo. If Dunn is acquitted, the quesiton is pretty much answered.

Just out of curiosity, Stanley, are you old enough to drive?

The reason I ask is that everyone I know who drives has performed a particular maneuver at one point in their road career. As you drive down a side street, you miss your turn, so you use a driveway to three-point your turnaround.

Show of hands. Anyone not witnessed or performed this maneuver?

Don't do it if you're Hispanic. A man named Phillip Sailors shot Rodrigo Diaz to death for pulling into the wrong driveway. He claims self-defense. Unfortunately for Sailors, this was in Georgia, so he has to answer murder charges. To the other, it's Georgia, after all, so he might still get off.

But if he'd been in Florida, everything would be fine.

And that's the difference of SYG. It validates racist ideas. If Hispanic = scary then it's okay to shoot.

That's the difference between SYG and self-defense.

My only question is when nonwhites get to stand their ground, and shoot white people to death on sight, because the day a white person's skin color becomes a criminal offense, perhaps people will start to understand what went wrong in Sanford.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Agreed. And at the point where Martin began to defend himself, Zimmerman had the right to Stand his Ground.

Which is why I think this law is so bizarre. Both could be dead at the end of such an encounter - and no one broke any laws.

 

George Zimmerman is hispanic and looks hispanic more than he does white. And then we had the "white-hispanic" that the media came up with, which honestly, i had never heard of before. I am aware of the case in Georgia and he can claim self defense but that case is still pending.

As far as what you are saying: Did you see this link from milkweed -

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/fatal-cases

If you look through the cases, as i did, they do not bear out any racial disparities. As far as this particular case, i could understand both perspectives. Personally, like i said earlier, i never owned or carried a firearm and dont plan on owning one. There is a difference between my own personal inclinations and what the law states. Unfortunately we live in a very violent society and that is true pretty much all over. My age is in my profile, interestingly enough i have never been in a physical altercation but i guess being a male who minds his business attributed to that.

 

Notes on Understanding

It's hardly a media term. Rather, it has been around for decades.

Here's a starter:

• Wikipedia. "White Hispanic and Latino Americans". July 16, 2013. En.Wikipedia.org. July 19, 2013. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans ​

Seriously, "the media came up with" it? I'm sorry, dude, but just how are we supposed to take your uninformed opinion seriously?

It's worth noting that I never knew Vince Neil of Motley Crue was Hispanic until it came up in a magazine article some years ago when he talked about his Mexican grandmother. We can also note actress Cameron Diaz, fashion model Christy Turlington, and the first admiral in the United States Navy, David "Damn the Torpedoes" Farragut.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Clockwise from top left: Vince Neil, Cameron Diaz, David Farragut, Christy Turlington.​

I await the detail of your analysis.

Yes, that's hardly unusual. There are many people who can understand with the desire to find some excuse to kill another person.

To the other, I call bullshit on your claim. You seem quite eager to understand Zimmerman's need to pursue a mistakenly-identified "suspect" despite official warning not to. You seem quite eager to understand how one can pursue a confrontation and then kill in "self-defense" when things don't live up to their expectations.

And, like I said, your failure to comprehend Joe's point is telling:

"Would someone be justified using lethal force in that circumstance? I cannot see how that would be justified. Are you saying that if someone is physically attacking you it is not justified to defend yourself and that if someone is following you then you are justified to use lethal force? Where are you getting this from? In the first instance it may not be justified to use lethal force, but it may be. In the second instance you call the police."​

The president made the same point today:

And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these “stand your ground” laws, I just ask people to consider if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened?

And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.​

See, and that's the thing. In Florida, this law was tacitly intended for whites who want to kill minorities. That's why your detailed analysis of the link you pointed to is important:

"If you look through the cases, as i did, they do not bear out any racial disparities."​

That's not exactly a useful analysis. All it tells me is that if I look through the cases through your eyes, I won't see any racial disparities. Of course, we already know racial disparities exist in the application of self-defense, regardless of SYG.

And right now, Florida is zero for two in equal protection under the law. As I noted, they can manage to make it one for three in the Dunn trial, and that would leave the question hanging for future resolution. If they go zero for three, there will be no question left.

And as the issue moves forward and the Justice Department considers federal charges, I would ask your opinion on points that become relevant:

While many critics suggest that it is difficult to establish racial animus in Zimmerman's actions on the night of the killing, his culpability seems pretty obvious insofar as a civil rights trial would allow prosecutors to argue Zimmerman's inconsistency. For instance, one might call his brother to the stand and interrogate him about statements he made on the news, suggesting that George said this or that. The thing is that between Zimmerman's advocates in the press, many of them claimed George said something, and the stories they then recounted are contradictory. So get his brother up on the stand and say, "You said George said this. Were you lying to the press, or did George say that?" Do that enough, and the circumstantial evidence outweighs any lingering doubt; the only question is what Zimmerman and his surrogates thought they was concealing by the constantly changing accounts given to the public in Zimmerman's defense. Furthermore, Zimmerman's awareness of culpability can be reasonably established in light of the conspiracy to defraud the court by hiding funds and a passport. (#238)​

Since you say you could understand both perspectives, perhaps you might explain your understanding of this part of Zimmerman's perspective. Because what happened afterward wasn't really relevant to the Florida trial. It will be if there is a federal trial, so I would ask what your understanding is of Zimmerman surrogates reciting stories that contradict each other, and that they attribute to George Zimmerman. And I would ask what your understanding is of Zimmerman and wife's plot to hide money and a passport from the courts.

And since you say you could understand both perspectives, perhaps you might help me understand a peripheral issue—What did Mark O'Mara mean when he said his client never would have been charged if he was black?

I mean, since you say you could understand both perspectives, could you explain what all the dishonesty is for? I mean, you know, a lot of people consider that kind of stuff indicative, or at least suggestive, of guilt. But since they're so obviously wrong, and understanding that perspective is within your faculty, would you please be so kind as to explain why an innocent man would lie and make contingency plans for flight?

So, then, you have pulled a three-point in someone's driveway?

Should you be shot for it?
____________________

Notes:

Federal News Service and Washington Post Staff. "President Obama’s remarks on Trayvon Martin (full transcript)". The Washington Post. July 19, 2013. WashingtonPost.com. July 19, 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...33ebea-f09a-11e2-a1f9-ea873b7e0424_story.html

 

reporting officer's examination:
“I then noticed that there was, what appeared to be a black male, wearing a gray sweater, blue jeans, and white-red sneakers laying face down on the ground. The black male had his hands underneath his body. I attempted to get a response from the black male, but was met with negative results. At that time Sgt. Raimondo arrived and attempted to get a pulse on the black male but none was found. At that time, Sgt. Raimondo and I turned the black male over and began CPR . . ."

why would he have his hands "underneath" his body? he also had none of gz's dna on his hands or fingernails as well trayon's jacket had grass stains while gz had no grass "stains" but just some 'grass' residue. the blood dna showed little to inconclusive evidence of trayvon's on zimmerman's clothing. when one is in mortal danger against an unarmed, it indicates very close proximity as they must use physical contact yet there is no blood residue on his gun and virtually none on his person. they were also on the grass at the time of his death, not sidewalk and between yards.

" Zimmerman’s truck was in the street. According to Officer Smith, Trayvon Martin’s body was “laying in the grass between the residences of 1231 Twin Trees Ln. and 2821 Retreat View Cir”—in the yard between buildings, not near the street. Even a charitable belief that Zimmerman intended to return to his truck has to note that, if so, he hadn’t gotten back near it."

"The initial police report by Officer Timothy Smith, submitted with Officer Ayala’s, provides some detail helpful to Zimmerman. When Officer Smith removed Zimmerman’s gun and holster, he adds, “While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head.”

Yet Martin’s body is found by police with “his hands underneath his body.”

So George Zimmerman, struggling for life according to his main apologists, wrestling on the ground with Trayvon Martin, even having his head banged on the sidewalk—shot Martin in self-defense and then got out from underneath Trayvon Martin’s body without dislodging Martin’s hands and arms.

"From the beginning, Zimmerman insisted he was a victim: Martin attacked him, then they tussled, he said. At one point, the teenager forced Zimmerman to the ground -- his head hitting the pavement -- and he cried out for help. It was then that Zimmerman, saying he had no other choice, shot Martin."

a travesty of a case because not only does it not add up, despite even the fact if events were as zimmerman depicted are totally truthful does not even necessarily condone his lethal action anyways as he felt he was right to engage an unarmed with a loaded concealed gun to use against another using it without warning, essentially baiting them which is reprehensible to anyone with common sense or sense of fairness and his account is heavily suspicious of lies and/or omissions. two lies are evident by the 'facts' and that is he was not headed back to his truck, his account of feeling in mortal danger due to head/concrete and had no choice but to shoot is a lie as well in relation to body found.

 

and you have people defending this just bluntly without thought and they just let him go just by his own account of the story, quite crazy. it's a great law for the one left alive and very convenient.

sure he did, after consulting with his attorneys, it was made freely.

 

Has there been any discussions yet of Zimmerman being sued civilly?

 

Discussion, yes; action, no

Yes, there's talk. We don't know what Martin's family is going to do yet, though they are considering their options.

Nicole Brown's family was awarded over thirty million dollars in their wrongful death suit against O. J. Simpson. I wonder what inflation equals over the interim?

 

As Tiassa pointed out, the Martin family is considering their legal options. I doubt Zimmerman has much money and given his history, I doubt he ever will. A civil law suit could be expensive for the Martin family. So if the Martin family pursues a civil law suit, I think the main advantage, the only advantage, would be the ability to cross-examine Zimmerman under oath...something that was not possible in the criminal trial.

 

Ruin Them

True, but they can ruin the Zimmerman family. For instance George's brother, the mouthpiece who went on TV to tell the untold story, which was different from either the police report or any number of other stories Zimmerman's surrogates were telling. And he, like they, would attribute it to George.

Very well. Get these surrogates on the stand and make them admit that they were lying to cover for George or deliberately spreading false information on his behalf. Take everything Zimmerman and his family has.

Quite frankly, if I was a civil rights lawyer, I would undertake the case on straight contingency, pro bono as long as we're losing, and then spend the rest of my career hammering the Zimmerman family so far into the dirt that the worms can't find them. You know, kind of like U2 tried to do to Negativland, eventually forcing their breakup. Just sue them unsuccessfully until they can't go on anymore.

 

Hopefully the Martin family can find an adroit lawyer willing to take up their cause on contingency, pro bono or secure financial backing from sympathizers to finance a civil law suit, because I think that is likely their only remaining avenue to justice.

 

Agreed.

 

It was mentioned in the news (for example here) that the police arrived 60 seconds after the gunshot:

"Brown, along with several other residents, heard someone cry for help, just before hearing a gunshot. Police arrived 60 seconds later and the teen was quickly pronounced dead."


The police were already on their way because Zimmerman had called them earlier (and the dispatcher told him not to follow Martin, let alone confront him). So why did he have the need to shoot the unarmed kid knowing the police were already on the way? It's not like he was alone with the kid in the forest where no one would hear their scream. Also, he was at first in his car, if he thought the kid was a threat he could just stayed in his car so he could escape immediately if the kid approached him. Yet he didn't do it because I think he has some kind of a hero syndrome as shown by the many times he made calls to police reporting "sightings".

I think the shooting was completely unnecessary and unjustifiable. He should have at least been charged with manslaughter. The jury said it was only a poor judgement on Zimmerman's part, but had it been their own kids that lost their life, involuntarily, forever, I am sure they wouldn't take it as lightly. Sometimes life is ironic; we have scientists and doctors fighting cancer, we take care of our own foods intake because we all want to live long, yet some kids lost their life just like that because someone was being paranoid. If I was wearing a hooded sweatshirt and then it was raining and I didn't carry any umbrella, I too would have covered my head with the hoodie. I, too, perhaps would walk under some trees instead of on the pavement to avoid the rain, it's not that I were up to no good, it was me using my common sense. People who are up to no good are those running around carrying gun watching other people' every movement like some kind of paranoid freaks.

 

As for the issue of racism, in my opinion, first, you have to first recognize it openly that it still exist. With the recent comment from Obama regarding this case, I think he has made a good first move. Next, if I were Obama, I would use my position as an advantage by trying to push the black Americans up to the economic ladder. As an Asian living in Europe, I have seen how my fellow Asians are generally perceived as smart (although I am really not ^^). This is the only way of fighting racism, you have to first prove yourself, and due to how you are perceived in the society, you have to spend much harder effort than everyone else. I think Obama could and should support that effort seriously while he can.

 

Are you sure?

In the fact of the conflicting evidence, you seem very sure of yourself. Yet almost alone among all the posters on this thread, you have concerned yourself with the social and racial aspects of violent crime in general, rather than the facts of the case. You feel that certain that the fault lies exclusively with Zimmerman, the would-be white-Hispanic agent of racial destruction?

 

Impotent Sauce

Oh, come on, dude. Even by your limp standards, that was pretty flaccid.

(1) In response to specific issues pertaining to this crime in specific, you base your inquiry on the statement that I have concerned myself with the social and racial aspects of violent crime in general rather than the facts of the case.

— Very well. I would at this time ask you to explain how the question of George Zimmerman's surrogates attributing conflicting stories to George Zimmerman himself is concerning myself with violent crime in general. This is important, insofar as I'm perfectly willing to explore the pretense, but you're going to need to do better than that.​

(2) Almost alone among all posters in this thread? Okay, are you willing to affirmatively propose that what happened in Florida has absolutely nothing to do with social and racial aspects of crime in general? You know, like the current argument in favor of killing black people that makes their very skin color cause for mortal fear? Seriously: Why is a black male in a hooded sweatshirt inherently threatening? The answer is, "Because he's black." Danger is in the eye of the beholder.​

All George Zimmerman had to do in his imagined "Neighborhood Watch" role is act like a proper Neighborhood Watchman. All he had to do was respect the instruction given him by emergency response officials. All he had to do was not go out of his way to deliberately pursue a conflict in order to kill a fucking coon that always gets away with whatever they always get away with in order to gun him down.

Just like I noted of Joe Horn in Texas, a case that wasn't so fraught with racism, it is an absolutely absurd proposition that the law should entitle someone to deliberately put himself in danger with the intention of killing someone in self defense.

When you strip out everything else from the Zimmerman case, that remains. And, yes, in Florida, as with other states, racial issues come into it because they must; self-defense and SYG laws, in effect, greatly favor whites over nonwhites.

And when we look at what has come since, well, I would think it's quite clear. If you somehow believe Zimmerman's defense isn't a con job exploiting racial issues in society, please listen to the press conference from after the trial when defense attorney Mark O'Mara actually argued explicitly about the injustice of Zimmerman having to answer the charges: If George Zimmerman was black, he never would have been arrested.

Given the statistical reality, that claim is such excrement that one really does wonder what the hell O'Mara was thinking. He essentially tipped the entire playbook. George Zimmerman could defy instruction from emergency responders, pursue a confrontation, and kill someone; this starts with the notion that a black male in a sweatshirt is scary and suspicious.

Yes, the fault lies exclusively with this known liar, and the racism both general and institutional in Florida. As I've noted, the law and judicial system in Florida worked exactly as they're supposed to. What George Zimmerman did—pursuing a confrontation on the grounds that a black male in a sweatshirt is suspicious—in order to kill that person in "self defense" is exactly what these laws are for.

And as I've noted repeatedly, we get another test of this principle soon. If Dunn walks, the question is answered affirmatively.

And I would note that while there is always conflicting evidence in such cases, watching Negro Hunting Season SYG advocates and other Zimmerman supporters twist themselves into knots trying to rephrase the "conflicting evidence" and change history in order to find some justification for "the would-be white-Hispanic agent of racial destruction".

It's true, though, that the question of white privilege around George Zimmerman is not one that can be understood; that is, had he looked the same, but been named Jorge Diaz, for instance, would the outcome have been the same? We cannot know.

However, to take an example from this thread, I must confess that I find it odd to consider that one of our neighbors has reached his purported age without ever having encountered the longstanding classifications of white- and nonwhite-Hispanic. It's a census ethnic classification, just like "white American". And, in truth, I have a very acute memory of the first time the issue occurred to me, in a doctor's office in Allenmore, Tacoma, Washington, when I was five, watching my mother fill out patient intake paperwork on my behalf. True, that occurred in the context of a five year-old's limited capacity for juxtaposition, but I've been aware that this classification exists for thirty-five years; I have encountered it many times on paperwork, so many that I now answer race/ethnicity questions on any paperwork, government or otherwise, by checking "Other" and offering no clarification in the blank space.

It's one of those things that is so normal in American society that, while I might shrug it off if someone purporting to be fifteen years old says, "And then we had the "white-hispanic" that the media came up with, which honestly, i had never heard of before."

It's hardly a new classification, though uninformed people are treating it as such.

The media didn’t coin the term “white Hispanic.” It’s been around for quite a long time -- it just usually isn’t used to describe people like Zimmerman.

In the words of Teresa Puente, writing for Chicago Now, “To be blunt, Zimmerman's skin tone is the same as mine, a medium brown.”

The confusion over Zimmerman’s race and CNN’s clumsy terminology owes to the continued misunderstanding of Latino ethnicity. It has baffled the Census Bureau. It has tripped up the FBI. And now it has much of the media grasping for the proper way to describe the man being tried for what many view as killing in which racial prejudice may have played a role.

But it’s really not that hard. Latinos are a multi-racial ethnicity. What we have in common is Latin American or Hispanic birth or heritage. We can be white, black, mestizo, mulato, or indigenous and still count as Latino. In fact, people of Middle Eastern or Asian descent can count as Latino if they set down roots in the region! (We submit Shakira and Alberto Fujimori as exhibits A and B.) Confusing? It shouldn’t be. Just remember the “of Latin American or Hispanic birth or heritage” part.

The term “white Hispanic” refers to someone who is phenotypically white (of European blood), but is of Latin American or heritage. There’s lots of people who fit the description out there. Take, for example, Ted Cruz, who is super white, but Latino nonetheless:

Zimmerman is probably not one of them. Race is not a science. In fact, there’s no genetic foundation for it at all. It’s a social convention.

But within the context of that social convention, white refers to skin color. Zimmerman, like most Latinos, is likely of racially mixed heritage -- what in most Latin American countries would be described as “mestizo.”

The United States, with its comparatively rigid ideas about race and refusal to acknowledge racial mixing, does not have a word in popular use to describe it. (That’s also probably the reason why 18 million Latinos selected the “some other race” category on their Census form.) So it’s not surprising that CNN’s attempt to describe a non-white person as a “white Hispanic” grates on the ears of practically everyone across the political spectrum.

(Huffington Post)​

The question of whether the white-Hispanic designation is appropriate or relevant is certainly a valid discussion in our ever-evolving society. But the proposition that this is some new, made-up media term? That's just silly.

I find our neighbor's incorrect assertion extraordinary nonetheless because it puzzles me how one can claim such an age in our society and never encounter this particular term, which has long been included in demographic data requests (usually optional) in both public and private sectors.

And that sort of thing reminds that, while we can certainly strip away the racial issues in order to examine the fact that George Zimmerman defied instruction from emergency responders in order to pursue a confrontation in which he allegedly found himself needing to defend himself with lethal force, those questions of presupposition and outlook pertaining to race and ethnicity remain unanswered.

In the end, what I can offer as a response for your bizarre inquiry is simple enough: Had George Zimmerman behaved as he should have, and not deliberately defied instruction from emergency response in order to deliberately pursue a confrontation that ended up with the alleged necessity of killing someone, Trayvon Martin would be alive, and the question of Zimmerman's arrest and trial would never have come up.

This is at the core. Zimmerman wanted a confrontation. He got one. And then he killed in "self-defense". But that's what these SYG laws are for, to encourage homicide. And we see how these laws are enforced.

There comes a point at which the racial and ethnic issues force their way into the discussion. We can certainly ignore them, but the only "good" that comes from doing so is that this sort of proactive "self-defense", in which people deliberately put themselves in some circumstance with dangerous appearances in order to kill another person, will continue to occur.
____________________

Notes:

The Huffington Post. "CNN's ‘White Hispanic' Label For George Zimmerman Draws Fire". July 12, 2013. HuffingtonPost.com. July 20, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/12/cnn-white-hispanic_n_3588744.html

 

I think that would be difficult because it would require both to have a legitimate claim to self defense at the same time. In this case, that didn't exist: the claim to self defense switched from Martin to Zimmerman when Martin attacked Zimmerman (if we assume Martin ever had it in the first place). I think you'd need a bullets passing in the air scenario.

 

Anyone can play this game. Had Trayvon not used drugs he wouldn't have been kicked out of school and thus none of this would have come to pass. Had Zimmerman not pulled over to get gasoline earlier he'd have been 15 minutes later and none of this would have come to pass. And etc...

It should be noted a child could be trapped in a burning building, and you the only person who can save them, and emergency response will say wait for a police officer to come. You could be on a raft 5 minutes from going over a waterfall and the emergency response will say wait for a police officer to come. Basically, no matter what you do, where you are, what's happening - the answer will be the same: Wait for a police officer. Seriously, you could be taking a dump, have a log jammed in place, call 911 and the emergency response will be: Sir, do not attempt to dislodge the jam, a police officer is on the way to assist you.

Any other response my result in a lawsuit.