Michael Maiello's picture

    "I Am Deeply Concerned About Urban Riots."

    By Michael Maiello on Thu, 07/11/2013 - 2:37pm | Politics

    Dear White People,

    I understand through the Internet and mainstream media that some of you are "deeply concerned about urban riots," as the Zimmerman verdict approaches.  Please, white people, keep this deep concern to yourself.  Your concerns sound quite patronizing to the, um, no doubt multicultural assemblage of rioters that you imagine is gathering informally on the streets of Miami.

    I suppose that people might erupt into riots at pretty much any time.  I'd just point out that the people interested in seeing George Zimmerman stand trial for the shooting of Trayvon Martin didn't riot when Zimmerman wasn't arrested and didn't riot when it looked like he wasn't going to be charged with anything.

    All in all, Zimmerman's fellow citizens have been calm and eager to work within the confines of the law even knowing that Florida's laws make the guilty verdict that some people are hoping for an unlikely outcome.

    Fretting about riots that haven't happened is talk of too low a frequency to count as a dog whistle.  Stop it.  My prediction, if Zimmerman is acquitted, is that there will be demonstrations over Florida's gun laws and its self defense laws and then we will have to see if those demonstrations are accorded the same respect that Occupy Wall Street got, or if they are talked about as if they are scary riots by, you know, "those people."

    Until somebody riots, let's cool it, okay?

    -Mike

     

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    God I tell ya, forty and fifty years ago THEY were rioting in the streets and on the campuses and just about anywhere you could fit thousands of boomers in one place.

    Detroit and LA and Chicago and a hundred other locations in this country made it look like real war while we were fighting a real war ten thousand miles away.

    Hell, I have been waiting for a new repub message concerning law & order for sometime.

    The only court screaming going on involves that Boston murderer. Kind of fun to see two mobsters swearing at each other in court. hahaha

    I think the trial is going all right although I cannot understand why three cable stations (I refuse to watch the fourth) have to fill our days with the same camera lens but...

    I swear that on CNN's sister station this woman was going on and on about how Blacks are responsible for all the crime in this country.

    I am certain that there are even more inflammatory orations going on at FOX and on hate radio.

    I do not see riots on the horizon, at least involving this this trial.

     


    by Richard Day on Thu, 07/11/2013 - 4:15pm

    The Police Chief and others were replaced, with a more favorable group, to arrive at a conclusion, satisfactory to the mob. They wanted the hanging first, then the trial.


    by Resistance on Fri, 07/12/2013 - 4:01am

    Hey Mike, I am posting this message on the Blood Is One website. Just about everyone in the hip-hop world is talking about Trayvon Martin right now - might as well take advantage of the overlap when we can.

    http://bloodisone.blogspot.com/2013/07/worried-about-urban-riots.html

    BTW all this riot talk - it seems to happen whenever anything happens that a large group of black people might get upset about. The idea is that black people can't handle themselves emotionally, I guess, and I guess also that white people never act irrationally and violent in large groups. Racists live in their own sick world.


    by Orion on Thu, 07/11/2013 - 9:48pm

    It's true, my friend.  White people have never in history banded together to do anything bad or irrational.  Ever!

    But, to be fair, nobody ever said that black people would riot.  It's "urban people" who are the issue.  Urban!


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 07/11/2013 - 11:48pm

    The obsession with black folks that you see in conservative channels and many other parts of our country are signs of derangement. Fox News is known to air entire segments about the black community's spending habits on footwear. Black folks are actually like roughly 10% of the population - not really a huge portion - and yet they seem to occupy about 90% of conservative rhetoric. Almost all modern conservative thought seems to be related to paranoia about black people or a desire to have black people overtly or subtlely taken out of the public light. It's kind of unfortunate.


    by Orion on Fri, 07/12/2013 - 12:08pm

    Here is Fox's Geraldo Rivera on why the jury would have shot Martin too.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 07/12/2013 - 12:17pm

    Sean Hannity and Mark Fuhrman were feeding the fear on Fox


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 07/11/2013 - 9:47pm

    They may be on to something - large groups of violent, ignorant people can be pretty scary. 


    by Orion on Thu, 07/11/2013 - 9:57pm

    Sad

    They worry about riots because they know that the murder of an unarmed Black teen is unjust. They need a criminal act by any group of Blacks to absolve their guilt.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 07/11/2013 - 11:00pm

    We have a lot of wet weather headed to Florida.  Also the local law enforcement has plans in place to let protest groups protest peacefully.  There will be more then minorities protesting Florida gun laws.  Permits have already been issued in some places for groups that want stronger gun regulations.  It is a good time to remind people that we need better laws to keep guns off the streets while the public is focused on the out come of this trial. 


    by trkingmomoe on Fri, 07/12/2013 - 12:47am

    I am deeply concerned that most people don't know the basics of the case, so will still be going off half-cocked.

    Much as I read about this case, I didn't know about Olivia Bertalan until 2 days ago, never saw this Daily Beast article:

    Olivia Bertalan was home alone with her infant son one morning last August when a man came to her door, knocked, and rang the doorbell. She peered out a window, didn't recognize the man and called police when another man came to her back door.

    Trayvon Martin Shooting

    A neighborhood watch sign outside the gated community where Trayvon Martin was shot by George Zimmerman on Feb. 26 (Roberto Gonzalez / Getty Images)

    Bertalan, 21, ran upstairs and locked herself and her son in a bedroom as the second man entered her home, which was in the Retreat at Twin Lakes, a gated, middle-income neighborhood of 260 townhouses in Sanford, Fla., outside Orlando. Terrified, she and her son cried as the man tried to turn the knob of the door where they hid. Both men ran when police arrived, but not before stealing a laptop and digital camera.

    "It was terrible," said Bertalan, who moved from the neighborhood last month after about half a year, because of this and other burglaries. "I'm sure he could hear me in there because my son was crying, and I was crying. ... Who knows what would have happened if the police hadn't been there."

    Most of what we hear is about George Zimmerman as vigilante, that he overplayed the danger in the neighborhood to be a wannabee cop, or things like Stand Your Ground that wasn't used. Even now most didn't know of the steady stream of friendly residents who appreciated Zimmerman's efforts (including Bertalan), as BMaz notes

    Did any of you see the young female neighborhood homeowner, Olivia Bertalan, that testified Wednesday as to the crime spree that was ongoing in her and Zimmerman’s neighborhood, Retreat at Twin Lakes, including the home invasion where she and her child were victims of one or more home invaders, and who was effusive in her praise for the concern of the neighborhood watch program and George Zimmerman? Did you know that, thanks in part to the actions of Zimmerman and his wife, the juvenile suspect was caught and sentenced as an adult by this same judge, Debra Nelson, to five years in prison? Probably not is my guess. But that, too, is the evidence.

    Did any of you see the other neighbors, of all races, in Retreat at Twin Lakes who testified on Zimmerman’s behalf about the the facts of the case, that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor on top of Zimmerman when the shooting occurred, and the crime afflicting the neighborhood and the need for the neighborhood watch program? My guess is you did not. But that, too, is part of the evidence in the trial record.

    Did any of you see the parade of witnesses that laid the foundation for the fact Trayvon Martin was the aggressor in the actual critical physical encounter between him and Zimmerman, and was on top of Zimmerman, and beating Zimmerman, both moments before, and at the time of, the key gun shot? And supported by both the case detectives and one of the foremost expert pathologists, Dr. Vincent di Maio, in the world? My guess is you did not. But that, too, is in the trial record as hard evidence.

    - See more at: http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/07/11/uncomfortable-truth-the-state-of-ev...

    Did any of you see the young female neighborhood homeowner, Olivia Bertalan, that testified Wednesday as to the crime spree that was ongoing in her and Zimmerman’s neighborhood, Retreat at Twin Lakes, including the home invasion where she and her child were victims of one or more home invaders, and who was effusive in her praise for the concern of the neighborhood watch program and George Zimmerman? Did you know that, thanks in part to the actions of Zimmerman and his wife, the juvenile suspect was caught and sentenced as an adult by this same judge, Debra Nelson, to five years in prison? Probably not is my guess. But that, too, is the evidence.

    Did any of you see the other neighbors, of all races, in Retreat at Twin Lakes who testified on Zimmerman’s behalf about the the facts of the case, that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor on top of Zimmerman when the shooting occurred, and the crime afflicting the neighborhood and the need for the neighborhood watch program? My guess is you did not. But that, too, is part of the evidence in the trial record.

    Did any of you see the parade of witnesses that laid the foundation for the fact Trayvon Martin was the aggressor in the actual critical physical encounter between him and Zimmerman, and was on top of Zimmerman, and beating Zimmerman, both moments before, and at the time of, the key gun shot? And supported by both the case detectives and one of the foremost expert pathologists, Dr. Vincent di Maio, in the world? My guess is you did not. But that, too, is in the trial record as hard evidence.

    BMaz goes on to note the mistakes & bias & weirdnesses by the prosecutor's office - the latest to try to add a "child abuse" charge onto the deliberations...  Basically we're set up for huge misunderstandings and will be lucky if the uninformed crowds on either side don't  take out this ignorance on someone innocent.

    The media has done a pretty awful job, but the Internetz surprising haven't been that helpful. The idea of greater knowledge through pooled expression & data just doesn't seem to be that much better than when we had regular newspapers and letters to the editor. Why's that? Overall I'd say reporting on OJ's trial was better - that's pretty sad.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 07/12/2013 - 1:56am

    I have to wonder if Bertalan called the home invaders Assholes/punks? Had she protected herself, would she also be accused of ill will or spite?  We know who screamed out for Help; it was the same person, who requested an officer to come to the property in the first place.  Who plans to commit a crime and calls the police ahead of time?  Do people know, that a " Slim Jim" was found in the bushes near the crime scene? Someone was planning to commit a crime and left the burglary tools behind.  Besides, Travon wasn't afraid to walk down an unlit sidewalk, behind the houses in the dark. It  is grasping for straw to suggest Travon was the one who was afraid of Zimmerman.  


    by Resistance on Fri, 07/12/2013 - 3:49am

    I doubt that most here don't know the "basics" of the case. Most here read enough to be fairly knowledgeable about the things they comment on. I read the Daily Beast everyday. I read this article. The problem is not lack of knowledge but that I don't see any of it as a defense. Mitigating factors maybe, but not a defense.

    We'll never know what happened during that confrontation. Did Zimmerman accost Martin and ask him what are you doing here or did Martin turn around to confront him and ask why are you following me? As the confrontation escalated who got in who's face first? You yelled loudest or cursed first? Who pushed who first? Who was on top when the gun was fired? Who was on top 15 seconds before the gun was fired? We'll never know and imo none of it is a defense of Zimmerman's crime.

    It also doesn't matter that many people in the neighborhood were happy with Zimmerman's activities. That doesn't make them moral or legal. If Zimmerman was a secret vigilante like those Bronson movies most likely the neighborhood would have been happy so long as all those killed had long criminal records.

    The simple fact is an untrained  civilian stalked and killed an innocent unarmed person. At the end of this story it might have been self defense. We'll never know. But there would have been no need to defend himself if he hadn't been stalking an innocent man.

    I could see myself walking down the street I live on after buying a snack at a nearby store in the neighborhood I live in and turning around to confront some guy following me. I could see myself saying, "Why are you following me, asshole." I could see myself answering his questions with, "None of your fucking business." I know that I better very respectful and subservient when a cop asks me a questions but I don't think I need to bow down and submit to any or every stranger who accosts me on the street I live on. I'm just not that meek. Are you?


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 07/12/2013 - 5:22am

    It's not a "defense" to the night in question. That's a tough he-said/he-said. I have no idea who confronted whom after the call, how it escalated.

    But it should toss in the trash pretty quickly the idea that there was no real problem in the neighborhood, that Zimmerman was just an overzealous vigilante.

    "If Zimmerman was a secret vigilante like those Bronson movies" - yeah, but there was no record of him to speculate like this (you rightfully condemned this kind of speculation re: Snowden). He was calling in once a month, not every day, and the calls were reasonable.

    "The simple fact is an untrained  civilian stalked and killed an innocent unarmed person." - this is bullshit. "stalked" is such a loaded word that doesn't belong here - someone that keeps crawling over Madonna's fence or following her to cafés is "stalking". Someone making sure strange events are accounted for in a neighborhood is "Neighborhood Watch". It's an agreement by homeowners, though of course bound by laws.

    I showed the big sign with "Neighborhood Watch" on the gates of the compound. That Zimmerman wasn't on an official walk that evening strikes me as irrelevant. Guess a lifeguard shouldn't save someone drowning if she's off duty. He did *at first* what anyone in the program should do, and it's stupid to think that because he wasn't on an assigned walk that he should have just ignored it. After the phone conversation we don't know exactly what happened, but again I think it stupid that a Neighborhood Watch person should forget about where the person went so a cop can show up 10 minutes later and have no idea where to look.

    Your last paragraph is fine. Neighborhood Watch is owed no respect. The cops should deal with the actual encounter, though if a Neighborhood Watch person clears the issue, they also save the cops an unnecessary drive out. "hey, are you from around here?" "yeah, i'm staying with my pop over there" and issue closed, or "fuck off, MYOB" and wait for the cop.

    "Accost" is another loaded word:

    1. Approach and address (someone) boldly or aggressively.
    2. Approach (someone) with hostility or harmful intent.

    We don't know that Zimmerman did that still. Following someone suspicious a couple minutes while waiting for help is not de facto "stalking" nor "accosting". We don't know if he intended to catch up to Martin or just see where he went, or even if he was walking back to the truck when the two fought. Maybe Zimmerman wanted a fight - but we don't know that, and the state didn't establish that.

    stalk 2  (stôk)

    v. stalked, stalk·ing, stalks
    v.intr.
    1. To walk with a stiff, haughty, or angry gait: stalked off in a huff.
    2. To move threateningly or menacingly.
    3. To track prey or quarry.
    v.tr.
    1. To pursue by tracking stealthily.
    2. To follow or observe (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement.
    3. To go through (an area) in pursuit of prey or quarry.
     
    Then "imo none of it is a defense of Zimmerman's crime." So what exactly is the crime you think Zimmerman committed - somehow I don't think that crime is on the books in Florida (carrying a gun while a jerk?), but maybe you've got a better idea.
     
    Note - I can go and protest in front of someone's store and it's legal. It is not illegal for Zimmerman to ask someone what they're doing, whether he has a gun or not. He doesn't even have to be nice. ("hey you kids, get off my lawn -> out of my neighborhood") Establishing intent to harm or reckless use of a weapon would seem to be the possible "crimes".

     


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 07/12/2013 - 6:02am

    "If Zimmerman was a secret vigilante like those Bronson movies" - yeah, but there was no record of him to speculate like this

    This is why I laugh every time you complain that someone is twisting your words and making straw man arguments. Twisting people's words is your modus operandi. That's one reason I don't waste time debating you. I was not speculating that Zimmerman was some sort of vigilante. Here is what I posted:

    It also doesn't matter that many people in the neighborhood were happy with Zimmerman's activities. That doesn't make them moral or legal. If Zimmerman was a secret vigilante like those Bronson movies most likely the neighborhood would have been happy so long as all those killed had long criminal records.

    My point was happy people in the neighborhood doesn't make any of Zimmerman's actions legal or moral.

    rmrd likes to play these silly games with you. I suggest posting to him.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 07/12/2013 - 6:21am

    oh sorry, your point was "the neighborhood would have been happy so long as all those killed had long criminal records" - sorry, I got the wrong half of the ridiculous speculation. Thanks, you're having one of your ornery moods so I'll quit now - I've read this book before.

    [and yes, it matters for the trial whether the neighborhood thought Zimmerman was going about his task responsibly or over-eagerly - i.e. in terms of predisposition to violence or reckless actions, or done in a responsible manner. That doesn't mean the night in question was done responsibly, but if the state could prove Zimmerman was an out-of-control cowboy, it would have helped to establish his guilt at a minimum for manslaughter]


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 07/12/2013 - 6:31am

    The internet has done a great job as usual. That's how I know your link is biased.

    Did any of you see the parade of witnesses that laid the foundation for the fact Trayvon Martin was the aggressor in the actual critical physical encounter between him and Zimmerman, and was on top of Zimmerman, and beating Zimmerman, both moments before, and at the time of, the key gun shot?

    Anyone following the story in the internet knows that's not true. It is definitely not a "fact." Some witnesses said Zimmerman was on top, some said Martin, some said they couldn't tell in the dark. That's one of many reasons I say we'll never know what happened during the confrontation.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 07/12/2013 - 5:50am

    Uh, BMaz is a lawyer, a legal writer for EmptyWheel, has a long history tracking important legal cases for EW, Firedoglake, Crooks & Liars, typically with well-written analysis.

    You might be thrown off by how BMaz uses "laid the foundation for the fact" which I interpret in the legal trial sense, and not "speed of light in a vacuum is X". I.e. there may be disagreements in the trial, but the evidence presented typically nails down 1 interpretation as the accepted "fact" by end of trial, even if some people leave proclaiming the opposite happened.

    Or maybe you just think anyone who contests the wisdom of the Internetz is "biased", who knows.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 07/12/2013 - 6:24am

    The value of the internet is that its comprehensive. If you read enough articles you can see what information is left out by each biased author.Liberals read liberal sites, conservatives read conservative sites etc. Each side leaves out pertinent information in the hopes that you won't read outside your box and see the bias. Its the most common way of twisting the truth.  Bmaz leaves out any information that contradicts his view. If he had included the information and explained why he thought it irrelevant I'd respect his opinion more. Its among the most incomplete and therefore biased article I've read on the subject from either side.

    One question he might answer is this. Zimmerman claims the confrontation began when he was sucker punched. A witness on the phone with Martin said it began with Zimmerman asking "why are you here" and Martin asking "why are you following me?" Either Zimmerman or the witness is lying. Bmaz doesn't even mention this but clearly he must believe the witness is lying. Why?

    I simply don't know who's lying. I suppose one could make a case either way. One thing I do know is if one is doing an analysis fairly that, and many other questions, need to be addressed. Bmaz simply leaves out all those questions, all witnesses that contradict his version, all information that doesn't agree. .


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 07/12/2013 - 7:06am

    He's not talking abut "truth" - he's talking about what the trial & evidence have left looking like the "facts" that the jury will evaluate - i.e. trying to predict the verdict.

    The only questions that "need to be addressed" for the verdict coming out are what the jury doesn't see established sufficiently well. If the courtroom presentation has been fairly convincing on those points, the jury will probably not waste time on them.

    Bmaz isn't a philosopher - he's a lawyer. The sucker punch vs. dialogue might be an important issue, or it be swamped by other issues and lost in the fray. I don't know why specifically he didn't address it, but the points he did make seemed to establish that the way the trial has gone leads to a foregone verdict of innocent.

    Shortly you should be able to read juror comments to see if he was right.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 07/12/2013 - 8:38am

    I don't care what the jury decides, it won't change my mind. Juries often make mistakes. You always act as if your single link proves everything. The internet is not there to give us conclusions but to give us all the information necessary to draw our own conclusions. Rather than latching on to one article I suggest you read twenty. At least on the issues you chose to comment on. Easy to do with the internet. That's why I think the internet has done a good job. 

    Bmaz is not the only lawyer to weigh in on this case. There are several lawyers on both sides weighing in on the internet.

    http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/11/3496085/zimmerman-trial-man-carryi...

    Let’s examine the undisputed evidence:

    1. The man thought the teen looked suspicious.

    2. The man called the police to report his suspicions about the teen.

    3. The man was told by the police not to chase and pursue the teen.

    4. The man decided to chase and pursue the teen anyway.

    5 . The man was carrying a loaded gun.

    6. The teen was not carrying a gun.

    7. The teen was not carrying any weapon.

    8. The teen was carrying candy.

    9. The teen was not committing any crime.

    10. The teen was not trespassing, as he was walking toward his father’s condo.

    11. The man and the teen met in a physical confrontation.

    12. The man and the teen fought, wrestled to the ground, and punches were exchanged.

    13. The man shot the teen with his gun.

    14. The man shot the teen while both were on the ground.

    15. The shot from the man’s gun killed the teen.

    16. There is no evidence that the teen was committing a crime or about to commit any crime.

    17. But for the man chasing and pursuing the teen, there would have been no physical confrontation.

    18. But for the physical confrontation, there would have been no fight.

    19. But for the fight, the man would not have shot the teen.

    20. But for the shot, the teen would be alive.

    The man’s actions created a course of conduct that led to a dangerous situation: the physical confrontation and the fight. The dangerous situation subjected the man and the teen to the risk of death or injury, as the man was carrying a loaded gun.

    Manslaughter is defined as: “The killing of a human being by the . . . culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification . . . ”

    Does the evidence support a finding of guilty of manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt?

    I believe it does. But for the man’s negligence in carrying a loaded gun and chasing and pursuing the teen, after being told not to by the police, there would have been no physical confrontation and the teen would be alive.

     


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 07/12/2013 - 5:12pm

    How many times, must the warning be stated, Never walk down dark alleys or sidewalks and to stay on well lit streets? Did he think he was Superman?  How much more suspicious that an unknown person is behind homes, in the dead of night,where Peeping Toms lurk,  wearing a hoodie, covering their face. Especially in a crime ridden area.  What would a neighborhood watch person believe was going on? If you were a young mother with a 9 month old home alone, would you not want someone to at least keep track, of someone suspicious; instead of acting with apathy, Saying to ones self " It's not my job to look out for my sister; let the police find the perp, who I had lost sight of.    While the perp rapes or robs someones house, because I lost sight of a suspicious person. Especially after the the Non emergency operator asked "What direction; the reported suspicious person (suspect) took. Zimmerman had the right to walk down the sidewalk just as much as others claim Martin had. Had Martin, while running home had also dialed 911 there wouldn't have been, a confrontation.  If the event occurred as Zimmerman said, the person who threw the first punch, assaulted Zimmerman. For what reason?  Martin perceived,  the cracker was following him? The black racist says "Everyone knows if you profile Whites, THEY always hassle blacks.  Did Travon believe it was time to stop running and confront? Sucker punching Zimmerman telling Zimmerman Get off my ass. 


    by Resistance on Fri, 07/12/2013 - 5:55pm

    "How many times, must the warning be stated, Never walk down dark alleys or sidewalks and to stay on well lit streets? Did he think he was Superman?  How much more suspicious that an unknown person is behind homes, in the dead of night,where Peeping Toms lurk..."

    What nightmare America is this?  Don't walk in the dark?  The lurking Peeping Toms? The "dead of night?"  This is no neighborhood.  These are rejected Meatloaf lyrics.


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 07/12/2013 - 6:17pm

    Way to blame the victim, dude.


    by Orlando on Sun, 07/14/2013 - 7:15am

    As usual, your on the wrong side of the issue. The jury did find, after reviewing all the facts; accepting George Zimmermans account, that he acted in self defense. It was more probable "Baby Face" Travon Martin assaulted George Zimmerman, with the intent to do great bodily harm. The evidence supported the conclusion. I doubt you even looked at the map HLN provided. Martin should have stayed on the lighted path, instead he decided to walk in the darkness. 


    by Resistance on Sun, 07/14/2013 - 11:07am

    Why should Martin not been able to walk whatever non-figurative path he wanted, without being harassed and bothered?


    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 07/14/2013 - 11:12am

    Martin should have avoided any parental instruction not to talk to strangers and willingly answer question posed by a strange man. Martin should have known that he looked like a criminal. Dialog should have known that he too looked like a criminal. Both Martin and Diallo forgot their place.


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 07/14/2013 - 12:03pm

    My impression of the events leading to this tragedy.  Martin should have told his friend on the phone  "I gotta go, I'll call you back later; I need to call 911, I have this guy following me and I want to get this guy off my ass.  Like driving a car on a road way, you may have the right a way, but the use of common sense dictates to what is appropriate action. According to Zimmerman, Martin ambushed him, when he did nothing, other than keep an eye out, for his neighbors and being able to tell the police where to look. Earlier in the testimony to police; Zimmerman stated, near the Club House Travon appeared to be placing his hands, into his waistband, giving the impression to Zimmerman, Martin had a gun. Instead of Travon  acting tough and ambushing someone, the wiser course would have been to RUN HOME, he could have outrun the pudgy/ soft Zimmerman; he had a 4 minute head start; instead of assaulting a stranger because of a  possible MJ  induced Paranoia.      Just because Travons age, was used to garner sympathy, doesn't mean youngsters are not capable of committing crimes.  What is bad for the public, is when a when a defense is  hamstrung, unable to present a case, that some minors do commit violent acts......  Zimmeramn had every right to be on that sidewalk, without having to defend his life, when someone pops out of the darkness, striking him in the face, trying to drive his head through a concrete sidewalk,.....    all because Travon was paranoid?   The State is hypocritical, they have no problem charging minors as adults, and then denying a Defense the right to bring forth knowledge that a minor attacked an adult.


    by Resistance on Sun, 07/14/2013 - 1:22pm

    Trayvon should not have been put in the position if having to run home because some creep decided to follow him. If you can't handle yourself in a fight (win or lose) don't harass people. The gun is not an equalizer.


    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 07/14/2013 - 7:45pm

    You apparently don't understand how our criminal justice system works. The jury did not find that it was more probable that Martin assaulted Zimmmeran. They found that there was reasonable doubt as to whether Zimmerman committed 2nd-degree murder. Each jury has to decide for itself what constitutes reasonable doubt, but they might think (for example) it 99 times more likely that Zimmerman assaulted Martin than vice-versa, and still think that 1% chance is enough to constitute reasonable doubt, where I'm extending your simplifying assumption that the question of assault is identical to the question of whether 2nd-degree murder was committed.

    Now, civil suits rely on a preponderance of doubt and not just reasonable doubt, which is at least one reason why OJ Simpson could be found civilly responsible for Nicole Brown Simpson's death even though he wasn't found criminally responsible.


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 07/15/2013 - 10:32am

    You ignore the facts of the case; but the truth is, the defense stated all along, Zimmerman acted in SELF DEFENSE. The Defense offered evidence to support that theory. Self defense was the only defense against both 2nd Degree murder and manslaughter.  The jury weighed the evidence and concluded, Zimmerman most likely acted in self defense, as the defense evidence proved and led to Zimmerman's acquittal, just as the Jury instructions permitted.


    by Resistance on Mon, 07/15/2013 - 12:51pm

    VA's point is that we only know what was required from start of trial - get reasonable doubt before the jury for acquittal. We can't quite even conclude the jury had doubt about manslaughter because 1) the prosecution didn't present it, and 2) the jury might have been confused or miffed to have this dropped on them at the last minute.

    So VA's point is the jury concluded that "self-defence was a possibility", whether that was a 1:99 possibility sufficient to eke out acquittal, or 99:1 they think that's what happened, we don't know. At least not until jurors speak out.

    And this was why BMaz & others were pointing out before verdict that acquittal was a foregone conclusion - the prosecution simply hadn't proven its case convincingly, and the defense had lined up enough at-a-minimum doubt. That's all that was needed, not proof.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 07/15/2013 - 1:00pm

    As the jury instructions stated, self defense is grounds to exonerate the accused of  2nd degree murder. Having crossed that hurdle. the jury then considered manslaughter. Unless their was going to be a sympathy vote; in violation of the instructions, the jury may have concluded  "We have already determined he acted in self defense" ..That's why the lesser offense failed. ....  We shall see if the inference I attribute, is correct, if ever the jury makes a public statement.   But why would they, they might be attacked also, as being Racists?


    by Resistance on Mon, 07/15/2013 - 2:04pm

    Two words: reasonable doubt

    These words are not synonymous with innocence.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 07/16/2013 - 8:59am

    Give it a break, I know the standard thresh hold. Fact: Zimmerman's explanation of events, dispelled doubt. This case should never have been brought forth. 


    by Resistance on Tue, 07/16/2013 - 1:27pm

    You've got "reasonable doubt" completely backwards. Zimmerman's team wasn't trying to dispel doubt (nor should they have been), they were trying to instill it (as defense lawyers, that's their job), and they succeeded.

    The jury didn't find that Zimmerman was innocent beyond reasonable doubt. They found that there was reasonable doubt as to his guilt. If you truly understand the standard threshold, then stop arguing as if a different threshold existed.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 07/16/2013 - 1:38pm

    It is you that needs to go back and hear Mark O'Maras words as to the Defense strategy. Tell the truth and dispel doubt.  Buzz off


    by Resistance on Tue, 07/16/2013 - 1:45pm

    Yes, his defense team said that they dispelled doubt. Interviews of the jury make it quite clear that they did not. I maintain that the defense team's real effort was to instill doubt, although I doubt many defense teams will phrase it exactly like that.

    Again, the jury found that there was doubt to his guilt.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 07/16/2013 - 2:39pm

    The juror who spoke to the media said 3 of the jurors wanted to convict of something at the beginning, but they just couldn't fit it within the actual law / juror instructions.

    What their actual conclusion was seems hardly 100% pro-Zimmerman, even though the 1 juror when pressed said she'd be fine with having Zimmerman on her Neighborhood Watch.

    In the end, it sounded like the police sergeant (?) who testified and believed Zimmerman was the main persuader as a trustworthy authority of character. (She didn't find Jeanel credible - don't know how others reacted).

    Anyway, let's say Zimmerman fucked up big enough and is lucky to have this mostly behind him without us searching for jury-affirmation. If it had been a serious criminal instead of a 17-year-old kid, Zimmerman might have had his throat slashed with no apologies, left in the dark with no witnesses.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 07/16/2013 - 10:44am

     Yeah, but he wasn't a serious criminal, and Zimmerman didn't have reason to think he was.


    by Aaron Carine on Tue, 07/16/2013 - 10:53am

    Please note the words "if" and "instead" as you re-read my last sentence.

    Molto grazie. PP


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 07/16/2013 - 11:19am

      But why are we even talking about what would have happened "if" Martin had been a knife wielding menace? We may as well talk about what would happen if I were a dangerous criminal.


    by Aaron Carine on Tue, 07/16/2013 - 11:30am

    Because I wanted to make the point that Zimmerman could have had a shotgun blast in his face Serpico style if messing with the wrong stranger - i.e. there's a reason why following off into the dark might not be the brightest idea. (kinda related to Neighborhood Watch procedures)

    Somehow I don't think that's quite as irrelevant as discussing you.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 07/16/2013 - 11:42am

    From Martin's standpoint, Zimmerman could have been a crazed fascist killer about to pounce on an unarmed teen.If Trayvon had just kept walking, Martin could have had his throat slit from behind.

    Note the words "if" and "could"


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 07/16/2013 - 11:56am

      Then your point is that Zimmerman shouldn't have been following Martin? I agree. I thought you were making a case for Zimmerman--that the possibility that Martin could have been a crazed killer was mitigation.


    by Aaron Carine on Tue, 07/16/2013 - 12:00pm

    No, wasn't saying Martin was a crazed killer.

    I won't say categorically Zimmerman shouldn't have followed carefully from a big distance, but it is easy to get ambushed (whether that's what happened here or not) and killed if it is say a real murderous thug. Maybe not common in gated communities but happens.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 07/16/2013 - 12:16pm

    It was not about "changing your mind". The guy was assessing the likely outcome of the trial, not whether it was just. He was trying to help people understand why that verdict is likely even if most people think there was an unnecessary killing here.

    But I'm sick of explaining what's not even nuance. Everyone wants a "Zimmerman was a vigilante, he's racist, he's guilty" simple statement, and that's where all these discussions lead, whatever aspect is brought up.

    Bye.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 07/13/2013 - 6:18am

    You're explaining to people who have read more about the case than you have with a couple of links I read days before you posted them. By your own admission you've missed some of the pertinent information. Than you tell us we don't know the basics. Its not because you haven't been paying attention, couldn't be that, you blame it on the bad internet. I've explained why I thought bmaz's article was biased. If you were following the story you'd see it too but well the bad internet didn't give you the information. Anyway it agrees with your point of view so, by god, it must be correct.


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 07/13/2013 - 1:20pm

    You're the one cramming everything into your point of view.

    You can't even say what exactly is the law that Zimmerman broke that will convict him, what the evidence shown in court was.

    Presumably you know that it's up to the prosecution to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Zimmerman did something illegal, and depending on the charge, had intent or negligent behavior.

    You say you've read these articles before, but you still have the details and conclusions all fucked up. As a simple example, "But for the man’s negligence in carrying a loaded gun and chasing and pursuing the teen, after being told not to by the police, there would have been no physical confrontation and the teen would be alive. "

    1) no, the police not tell him not to do something - they said, "you don't need to do that". Different from a direct order to stand down. 2) he was already out of the car when the dispatcher told him that - he was already out of breath - we don't know if he continued    pursuit after unless you have some direct testimony you're referring to hat I don't know about. 3) it's not "negligence" to carry a loaded gun as he had a permit, it's not negligence to "pursue" a teen, it's not negligent to do the 2 together. It's only negligent if the behavior is shown to be irresponsible or careless as regards the possible consequences. 4) if Zimmerman hadn't been born, the teen would be alive. That doesn't prove much of anything either. Just because someone died doesn't mean a crime was committed. Even if a crime was committed, it doesn't mean the prosecution has proven that crime.

    As a non-lawyer, here's my guess of options: If Zimmerman pulled the gun without being hit or seriously threatened, it's almost certainly a murder or at minimum manslaughter. If Zimmerman hit Martin first, it's almost certainly at least manslaughter. If Zimmerman made comments that would to an average person seem to provoke a fight while carrying a loaded weapon, that might be manslaughter or higher. Following someone without confronting them here doesn't seem to be a crime. Asking them if they belong there isn't a crime (could Martin legally hit Zimmerman for asking him what he was doing in the neighborhood? seems rather doubtful. could he even sue him?)

    The most difficult question is, "if Martin hit Zimmerman first, presuming Zimmerman didn't significantly provoke it, at what level of fighting & fear could Zimmerman reasonably be justified in pulling a deadly weapon". People have been kicked to death - but most fights don't get that serious. I've watched a guy smash a bottle over another's head in a street fight- and by the time I got the 911 dispatcher on the line, they were hugging each other and headed back into the bar.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 07/13/2013 - 4:26pm

    I have been reading this back- and forth, and I remain amazed and repulsed by much of it, but THIS sent me over the top:

    "4.  If Zimmerman hadn't been born; the teen would still be alive. Blah blah blah blah...just because someone died doesn't mean a crime was committed". OH,  REALLY?  I doubt that why?  Because... the unarmed teen was shot through the heart, and the teenage victim was only armed with a package of skittles?  REALLY?  No crime?  REALLY?

    The fact is that if George Zimmerman hadn't been born his victim would be alive today. So what is your point?  


    by CVille Dem on Sat, 07/13/2013 - 9:27pm

    "Speculation" & "flawed analogies/conclusions"


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 07/14/2013 - 3:28am

    This is so well thought out.

    Yeah.

    I hereby render unto Ocean-kat the Dayly Blog of the WEEK; given unto all of Ocean-kat from all of me!

    I cannot top this!

    Well put!

    BUT FOR THE SHOT; THE TEEN WOULD BE ALIVE.

    I think the line came from Salon but;

    Following this verdict, only Trayvon was found guilty and sentenced to death without any hope of parole! 


    by Richard Day on Mon, 07/15/2013 - 8:46pm

    Wait, you mean Zimmerman supporters are convinced that black people are about to commit a violent crime, although there's absolutely no sign of that?

    Isn't thinking like that how we got here?


    by Doctor Cleveland on Fri, 07/12/2013 - 2:46am

    As the prosecutor stated "Travon didn't steal the Skittles"


    by Resistance on Fri, 07/12/2013 - 3:32am

    Not sure whose post you're answering.

    The trial seems to show the level of Zimmerman's reporting to the police was appreciated by them & the neighborhood, that he wasn't calling for no reason.

    The testimony reiterated that there was significant break-ins, though not every report was a crime - 1 with some guys & a jimmy device turned out to be them locked out of their own car; another was reporting a young boy too close to the road...

    Despite the bathroom/break-in incident I didn't see anything about violent crime.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 07/12/2013 - 3:37am

    A law that makes it legal for a vigilante to murder an unarmed Black teen carrying Skittles and a beverage is flawed. Trayvon Martin had a right to fight for his life when he felt threatened. If society decides that it is okay to frisk random Black men in NYC and to claim self- defense in Florida when a scared person carrying a gun person can shot because they are armed an unarmed teen, then Black youth can view the Constitution as a yellowed document that is meaningless.

    Martin was not obligated to submit to questioning from some strange guy. Black youth in NYC are not obligated to be humiliated to make other citizens feel safe.

     

     


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 07/12/2013 - 8:02am

    Geraldo Rivera strikes again. Killing Trayvon was the logical thing to do.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 07/12/2013 - 11:58am

    According to the time line, presented by the Defense; Travon Martin could have avoided contact with Zimmerman, by going straight home and he himself calling the police about a man following him (An old cracker). Instead Martin adopted the attitude "he had every right to stay up near the TEE" To confront Zimmerman?  Look at the map provided by HLN, a map showing where Martin was living and ask yourself, why did Martin hang around the back of someone else's condo, instead of going towards home, knowing he was being followed. He had a head start before Zimmerman ever got out of his car  He had a phone, he too could have dialed 911 and had he exercised reasoning instead of "HIS RIGHTS"  he would be alive today.  


    by Resistance on Fri, 07/12/2013 - 5:14pm

    Many here understand your point.Others have no clue as to the impact of a message that killing an unarmed Black teen is OK in Florida. There is no assumption that a Black teen can be afraid when being followed. If Zimmerman walks, Black parent in Florida should teach their children how to use firearms as a survival technique. If Florida allows innocent teens to be murdered, Black males should be ready to be the survivor when the next vigilante comes along. 


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 07/12/2013 - 6:18pm

    Fuck the Security Guards (you're not a real cop, but you still wanna act hard.)


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 07/12/2013 - 6:21pm

    Right?  This kid was terrified.  Terrified because he was being terrorized.  You will, in those situations, fight or flee.  A pity that Trayvon fought a grown man who resorts to the use of a concealed deadly weapon when he's losing.


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 07/12/2013 - 6:25pm

    One hopes that Florida will reassess its self-defense laws to clarify what constitutes a reasonable fear. Given the fear that many legislators have of minority males, I doubt that anything will change.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 07/12/2013 - 6:37pm

    If Zimmerman's gun is taken out of the picture. Zimmerman would not have followed Martin and Trayvon would be getting ready to return to school.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 07/12/2013 - 6:45pm

    I know.  Without the gun, and very specifically with the concealed gun, Zimmerman would not have been out there, much less confronted anybody.  He rigged a fight that he started and did so in a way that allowed him to kill his opponent.  I don't see, in much commentary, just how flat out dishonorable and cowardly an action that he took.

    To your point, also, about having a reasonable fear for your life -- yes.  Every boy or man and most girls and women have "lost a fight," to one degree or another.  It's embarrassing, yes.  It's frightening, certainly.  It's humbling.  It happens.  There is always some one tougher, faster, more aggressive, smarter or luckier.

    But losing a fight simply cannot, for an adult, head right into "fear for you life," territory.  Trayvon was likely the scared one, having been tailed and confronted by an aggressive older man.  Trayvon's adrenaline probably did Zimmerman no favors.  But he's the adult.  You lose the fight.  Take your lumps.  Live with the black eye.  You don't execute the person you chose to harass.


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 07/12/2013 - 6:57pm

    I can easily imagine a Neighborhood Watch guy *without a gun* following someone on a paved path through the buildings. That's probably one route they take normally making rounds.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 07/13/2013 - 6:20am

    Okay.  But not Zimmerman.  I don't think he'd even consider going mano a mano with someone if he didn't have the hidden advantage of a deadly weapon.  A true coward, if there ever was one.

    As for the neighborhood watch guy -- what the heck, Peracles?  You seem to think these self anointed protectors of the peace are owed some sort of deference.  If some creep like Zimmerman had been following me like that he would definitely wind up eating my fists (named, by the way, Ric Flair and Lloyd Blankfein).


    by Michael Maiello on Sat, 07/13/2013 - 10:10am

    You have an advantage - you've seen inside Zimmerman's soul. You know he's a coward and a creep. I thought the neighborhood had a meeting where it was agreed they'd do Neighborhood Watch, including Zimmerman, but you assure me he was "self anointed".

    Do I "seem to think [he's...] owed some sort of deference"? Could you please show me where I said that or implied it? If a Neighborhood Watch person asks you a question, you can give them an answer or flip them a bird. Their option at that point is to call the police if they haven't already, and just be ears & eyes for anything that might happen.

    Do I have any idea how the situation turned from Zimmerman watching a stranger in the neighborhood to a physical encounter? Nope.

    Now, since I'm not a court, I don't have to assume either Zimmerman or Martin is innocent. I assume being human one or both of them might have done something stupid to escalate the situation. Or maybe neither did anything wrong but it was a "perfect storm" that escalated reactions and left one dead.

    I do find it interesting that you think Zimmerman's a true coward, but that he would have started a fistfight even with a weapon as backup. If the gun was his courage, why didn't he just pull it out to start? It's pretty gutsy to start mano a mano if you're not a good fighter, thinking you'll just pull out a gun if things get tough.

    BTW, had Zimmerman ever done anything like this before for you to base all these assumptions on? Had he threatened someone that they would "eat his fists"?

    And do you have any suggestions for how to protect a neighborhood? I remember a song "911's a joke" that talked about the police taking forever to respond to a phone call. Is Neighborhood Watch calling the police all it takes for them to be timely and effective? What happens between the time of the call and when they arrive in general?

    If your car had been broken into 3 times, what would you do if you saw someone unfamiliar hanging around your car? How would you handle the situation in a non-provactive, non-confrontational way?


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 07/13/2013 - 2:23pm

    Some facts about Zimmerman's past.


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 07/13/2013 - 2:51pm

    PS - I remember being a teenager when we'd steal anything out of cars that weren't locked. Mostly it was stupid crap we didn't even need. Just boredom. Some of the kids around progressed to more serious stuff & got arrested for various things, most just went through their petty vandalism phase and then settled into real lives after high school. Doesn't mean our neighbors were thrilled with us and shouldn't say anything if we were hanging around doing something bored and stupid.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 07/13/2013 - 3:46pm

    If your car had been broken into 3 times, what would you do if you saw someone unfamiliar hanging around your car? How would you handle the situation in a non-provactive, non-confrontational way?

    Silly, just silly. Martin was not hanging around anyone's car. This might be a relevant question.

    If your car had been broken into 3 times, what would you do if you saw someone unfamiliar walking down the street not hanging around any of the cars he passed? How would you handle the situation in a non-provoctive, non-confrontational way?

    Personally I can't think of any non-provocative non-confrontational way to do what is essentially hassling of an innocent person for simply walking down a street. I can't see any way that this action wouldn't tend to escalate, unless the victim was the most subservient submissive person. If the situation came to blows and the victim was shot the person who provoked the encounter by hassling an innocent person would be guilty of at least manslaughter.


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 07/13/2013 - 4:20pm

    Try the more direct then - if houses on your street have been broken into frequently, what are your options aside from "let the police handle it"? The neighborhood had a big sign on the gate saying "we report all suspicious people and activities to the police". That's probably already "hassling" or as Maiello calls it, "terrorizing".

    So a Neighborhood Watch person can't say anything. What about me? If my house and my neighbors' have been broken into 3 times recently, and I see someone I don't know hanging around that I think could be up to no good or just don't recognize, I'll certainly talk to them. I'll try not to be abrasive, but I will check to see if there's a simple reason to be there or if something could be suspicious. I already do this with my apartment building as do others - there have been robberies where people pretend to be cable installers or trick old ladies with this or that offer... If they're offended I'll explain the situation with break-ins. If that doesn't help, well, they can simply eat shit or go to the bar and drink it off or complain to the police and see if they get any sympathy. If they hit me, I'll have them arrested. No, I don't carry a gun to do this. And there's no good profile for who might do break-ins - can be young, middle-aged, old - more typically white for where I live, but not always.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 07/13/2013 - 4:55pm

    If my house and my neighbors' have been broken into 3 times recently, and I see someone I don't know hanging around

    Lol, you just can't make your case without exaggerating the facts. Martin wasn't hanging around. If your house has been broken into 3 times are you going to run out and confront every person who walks by? If you do I guarantee sooner or later there's going to be a fight. Sooner or later some innocent person will not meekly accept being hassled, like me. Someone, like me, is going to say, "fuck off, asshole." Unless you're the type to meekly accept that, the situation is going to escalate. But you're the one who provoked it by hassling an innocent person walking by.

    The law does not require me to stop and submit to interrogation by any and every civilian, read wannabe fake cop, who confronts me on the street and I'll be telling you that in the most insulting terms I can think of. You got a problem? Call the cops and leave me the fuck alone.

    If you plan to confront someone its your responsibility to see it doesn't get out of hand. That's why untrained civilians shouldn't do it though that alone is not illegal. If you decide to carry a gun and you shoot someone while confronting them, you're almost surely guilty. All the nonsense you posted about how you would do it is irrelevant to the case.

    That sign says we report to the  police. It doesn't say: We will stop and interrogate and you will be required to answer to our civilian patrols.


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 07/13/2013 - 5:14pm

    As noted, if they don't like answering a basic question of "who are you visiting", they can discuss with the police, no problem, no need for me to be more involved. The building's supposed to be locked, but people sneak in. I even left  alone some drunk kids sleeping in the stairwell once as the weather was horrid and they seemed to just want to sleep it off, but then they started knocking on old people's doors at 3am so I threw them out. Anyway, no more break-ins have happened & no one disgruntled, so seems to work fine.

    PS - only 1 fight since grade school. Guys you would admire, who didn't like being told what to do, so were standing around in the middle of the road - in the dark -and I almost ran into them. Guess I should have been polite and not "interrogated" them.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 07/13/2013 - 5:51pm

    As noted, your behavior as a neighborhood watcher has absolutely nothing to do with the Zimmerman case. Maybe you have great skills at the job though your manner here suggests otherwise. I know I'd be lousy at it and if I was involved I'd focus on the watch and report part and not get involved in any follow, confront, and interrogate. If I confronted enough people in a neighborhood like Zimmerman's I'm relatively sure I'd eventually get beat up, killed, or be on trial for murder like Zimmerman. I'm smart enough not to put myself in that situation.

    This attempt to use your personal behavior to defend Zimmerman and your silly attempt to insult me in your PS just shows how bereft you are of a rational argument to support your opinions about the Zimmerman case.


    by ocean-kat on Sat, 07/13/2013 - 9:18pm

    Whatever. Zimmerman found not guilty, as BMaz and Jeralyn/TalkLeft expected from obvious court proceedings.

    He still killed a guy, it was a horrible incident, really unnecessary from a routine call-in, and it would have been nice if we could have somehow at least learned something from it, but I don't think we did.

    [the one takeaway I got is if I'm being beaten up by a stranger, to not be a coward I should just "take my lumps".]

    Instead, the initial flawed framing of Zimmerman ruled the press until the end, the prosecution committed some outrageous acts and in-court speculation & amateur psychoanalysis that would have led to a successful appeal even if a guilty verdict, while the defense team laid out the case in a way that made "within reasonable doubt" impossible to achieve.

    Whatever people expected from the press coverage, it was as unlikely as a Romney victory from supposed late minute over-optimistic GOP polling.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 07/14/2013 - 3:17am

    My lesson -- if you're being tailed by a creepy stranger and feel the need to put a stop to it, knock him the fuck out and do it fast because if the guy gets the chance to shoot you with a bazooka, everyone will be fine with that.


    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 07/14/2013 - 5:29am

    Since the prosecution seemed to accept Martin was on top, I guess that's what he should have done. I'm sure that trial would have gone well. "He looked at me funny and followed me so I had to kill him".


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 07/14/2013 - 6:46am

    Whatever. Zimmerman found not guilty, Whatever people expected from the press coverage, it was as unlikely

    As unlikely as the white cops being found guilty of beating Rodney King? Of course it was unlikely. It cases like this I always bet against the black man no matter what the evidence. Really, if this discussion was about making a correct prediction I'd always bet against the black person in our "justice" system. I won't always be right but the odds are definitely in my favor on that bet.

    I remember people saying during the King trial the cops will never get away with it, we got a video tape this time. I always said, white cops, black man, of course they'll be found innocent. Like I said the jury verdict doesn't change my mind at all.

     


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 07/14/2013 - 4:23pm

    I posted the stats here. Read them. Stop jawboning and going hysterical. I'm trying to have a rational conversation.

    I know, I know, you read them 2 years ago and they're biased. Nevermind.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 07/14/2013 - 11:52pm

    You're not capable of a rational conversation. I told you that months ago. As you pointed out above Zimmerman didn't claim stand your ground. and there is no stand your ground law in California. So you didn't address a word in my post, as usual. But posting your irrelevant stat did give you a chance to toss out another insult. Which is your main purpose in posting here.


    by ocean-kat on Mon, 07/15/2013 - 3:01am

    The stats show roughly when whites use gun laws vs. when blacks use gun laws, what it means in court. Sorry so difficult for you.


    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 07/15/2013 - 5:19am

    We should just have Black teens carry papers giving them permission to be in a given area, If they don't show their papers that can legally be shot by. Neighborhood watch captain who is carrying a gun that is not part of his neighborhood watch regulations. Of course when the teen reaches into a pocket for the papers. It's a provocative move and the teen can be shot. Oh well, stuff happens.


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 07/13/2013 - 4:47pm

    Even if you believe his own story, Zimmerman used a gun in a fist fight.  That's cowardly.  Take your lumps like a man.


    by Michael Maiello on Sat, 07/13/2013 - 9:58pm

    Sanford, Florida's rules state that physical connect is not what Neighborhood Watch is assigned to do. Being armed was against the rules of Neighborhood Watch.Trayvon Martin is dead because Zimmerman was a vigilante.


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 07/13/2013 - 10:32am

    The housing association that made Zimmerman neighborhood watch captain settled a wrongful death lawsuit with Trayvon Martin's parents. Zimmerman will face a similar wrongful death lawsuit no matter how the trial turns out.


    by rmrd0000 on Sat, 07/13/2013 - 1:28pm

    from Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed:

    “The genuine tragedy of the Trayvon Martin case is that a mother and father lost their son senselessly. I find it troubling that a 17-year-old cannot walk to a corner store for candy without putting his life in danger. I find it more troubling that a citizen could not see a young African-American youth without immediately concluding that he was up to no good. 

    “While I disagree with the jury's verdict, we must respect it. This case reminds me why my number one priority as Mayor is public safety. I work every day to create a safer city where our sworn police officers are trained and equipped to effectively uphold the law, so that our residents feel secure in their neighborhoods and our diverse communities respect each other. The death of Trayvon Martin shows that we must all work harder to shed the dangerous stereotypes that can have devastating consequences for individuals, families and our society."

     


    by EmmaZahn on Sun, 07/14/2013 - 7:36am

    The 5-4 Voting Rights Act convinced many that the justice system was flawed, even at the highest level. The Martin case and Stop and Frisk tell minority youth and parents that should expect minority children to be treated as criminals. The end result will be to encourage minority voters to come out in droves to voice their displeasure. Hopefully another seat will open up on the Supreme Court under a Democratic President, Hopefully a mayor can be elected in NYC that ends Stop and Frisk. Voters in Florida need to elect legislators that will review self- defense and Stand Your Ground laws. The goal should be to turn the anger into getting even by voting. Zimmerman will face a wrongful death lawsuit. His days in court are not over. The verdict was disappointing but not surprising.

    The verdict will be seen as on ongoing rightwing attack on minorities. Fox and other Conservative sites will make it easy to connect ring wingers to a legal attack by rejoicing over the ability of a murderer to walk free. Simultaneously, the Right will continue to attack women's right to choose. The video of the harsh words and tactics used by state legislatures to pass restrictive laws will document the assault on women. Minorities and women will have ample reason to come to the polls. 

    The struggle continues.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 07/14/2013 - 11:59am

    The US Civil Rights Commission is studying the impact of race on homicide convictions using multivariate analysis. The technique allows review of how single or multiple factors including race influence conviction rates. The analysis will also look at Stand Your Ground laws on conviction rates. Analysis of several thousand homicide cases suggested at hat Whites who killed Blacks were far more likely to be exonerated than Blacks who killed Whites  or other Blacks. The commission's study will also analyze the circumstances of the shooting. This larger analysis should aid in identifying whether bias exists in homicide convictions

    A smaller study of 200 cases by the Tampa Bay Times suggested that no racial bias existed, but because multiple factors are at play, the newspaper itself warns against drawing any solid conclusion from the study The Times admits it may not have analyzed every available case.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 07/15/2013 - 8:30am

    The Right should be very worried that riots are not occurring. This means that the battle has become political rather than emotional frustration. They will look back on the Trayvon Martin trial and the attack on women's right as the time the Right lost America. The GOP will still have much of the White male vote but lose other demographics.


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 07/15/2013 - 9:36am

    Violence, but not from blacks.


    by Donal on Mon, 07/15/2013 - 10:12am

    Hello, everybody.  I am going to lock this thread up now before anyone says something they regret to somebody else.  Also, let's face it, we've reached the point of no convincing amongst ourselves as to who was right and who was wrong.  

    Be excellent to each other.


    by Michael Maiello on Tue, 07/16/2013 - 3:07pm

    Latest Comments