Tell me the mistakes Martin made. Being a black teen seems to be the largest.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Juror says Zimmerman went "above and beyond" and has "learned a good lesson"
- Thread starter MThanded
- Start date
- Status
Tell me the mistakes Martin made. Being a black teen seems to be the largest.
{PleaseUnderstand}
Banned
I've read a lot of your posts you seem upset to an unusual degree. Do you decry the murders of black on black, Asian on white, white on white, etc.. crime as well?
Maninthemirror
Banned
Stay on this case. Do you think TM was responsible for his own death? How ?
Shocker.
MisterNegative
Banned
I'm still hoping you'll explain to me why it's "very clear" that Zimmerman is not guitly. Do you mean it's clear why he was proven not guilty ? Or do you believe he did not make any significant errors that night that lead to the death of TM ?
Then read the last one. Tell me the mistakes Martin made.
{PleaseUnderstand}
Banned
I am on this case. Didn't say that he did.
BigDaddyFatSack
Banned
Please people educate yourself first before speaking of Florida's Self-Defense Laws.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776ContentsIndex.html
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776ContentsIndex.html
Maninthemirror
Banned
So who was responsible for TM's death?
{PleaseUnderstand}
Banned
Umm the person who shot him obviously.
The juror repeatedly citing Stand Your Ground as justification for the verdict is so infuriating. It really gives the idea that these people gave very little thought to this. At the very least, she had pre-conceived notions about his innocence.
Maninthemirror
Banned
There you go
"I'm not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night."
{PleaseUnderstand}
Banned
Yeah. That doesn't mean Zimmerman wasn't attacked and felt his life was threatened.
Rockandrollclown
lookwhatyou'vedone
Ummm, self defense absolutely gives you the right to kill another human being.
BigDaddyFatSack
Banned
"I am the law. I don't believe in the state laws."
Forceatowulf
G***n S**n*bi
Ahah.. ahahahah.... AHAAHAAHAHAH
This jury was hot garbage. Amazing levels of naiveté on display here...
Having an all white jury was so stupid in the first place. So many white people in this country live in a bubble (all the proof you need is in that article). They should have had at least 3 minorities on that jury to provide some decent fucking insight. I don't know why the prosecution agreed to these terms... *smacks forehead*
And wtf@ the juror who said Martin should have walked away.. he FUCKING RAN AWAY YOU JACKASS.
16 is definitely a young adult. Without question.
There are non-lethal means of defending yourself, especially if you are 100lbs bigger. Especially when you can hit someone who is already smaller than you with a gun and do a considerable amount of damage.
But people who carry guns don't think about non-lethal means of force. Clearly. Some people who carry guns don't even pause to think.
The idea that Zimmerman was scared for his life and well being is ludicrous. If Martin was such a terrifying presence, why did he leave his car?
TangoAlphaLima
Member
They didn't "agree to these terms." It's called a jury pool and voir dire. It's a process. Both sides never get exactly what they want in a jury.
"The right" is a very strange way of putting it. One should never have the right to end another life. If you defend yourself and that means the other person inadvertently ended up dead, you might not be guilty of murder. But it should never be put up as a right.
It's semantics. Could he go to the bar? Vote? Serve in the military? Your a minor until you're an adult.
Nameless
Member
I've reached that pivotal moment every GAFFER faces when they must choose between leaving a thread or staying and getting banned. Listing the atrocities I wish would befall this person would no doubt get perm'd, so I'll just go ahead and do the former.
Xenon
Member
Wow those numbered bullet really misrepresent what the juror said. There is some major twisting going on there.
That logic doesn't apply. You can use lethal force if your life is threatened.
What bothers me is the instigation. It seems like if I have a concealed weapon, I can wander in the local bar and instigate a fight, knowing the whole time I'll come out on top since I have a sweet secret gun. After I kill the guy in self defense, I'll get my gun back and be able to do it again.
What are you talking about? The post I quoted took an issue with calling a 16 year old a "young adult," but that's absolutely an accurate term.
I don't know what your post is referring to.
Treefingers
Member
The idea is that he was scared for his life while being beaten by Martin, not before.
Rockandrollclown
lookwhatyou'vedone
The law is what the law is. In the defense of yourself and others you absolutely have the right to use lethal force. Not saying Zimmerman was right in this case or anything, but the statement "self defense does not give you the right to end a life" is just patently false.
Beer Monkey
Member
He'll make millions on book/movie/FOX deals at some point, so yeah, the lesson is
1) You can get away with murder
2) You can retire rich from it.
1) You can get away with murder
2) You can retire rich from it.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
Remember, the State and the Judge approved this jury.
MisterNegative
Banned
He left his car because "Those fucking punks, they always get away"
This. 100% THIS. He fucking gets it. This and the fact that people are cool with it is what really bothers me. The same self-defence laws that apply to people who have their houses broken into should not apply to people who walk around armed taking steps to instigate a conflict without a reason to do so. It's soo fucked up.
Joel Was Right
Member
I dont like what George Zimmerman did, and I hate that Trayvon Martin is dead. But I also can understand why Zimmerman was suspicious and why he thought Martin was wearing a uniform we all recognize. I dont know whether Zimmerman is a racist. But Im tired of politicians and others who have donned hoodies in solidarity with Martin and who essentially suggest that, for recognizing the reality of urban crime in the United States, I am a racist. The hoodie blinds them as much as it did Zimmerman.
One of those who quickly donned a hoodie was Christine Quinn, the speaker of the New York City Council. Quinn was hardly a lonesome panderer. Lesser politicians joined her and, as she did, pronounced Zimmerman a criminal. What George Zimmerman did was wrong, was a crime, Quinn said before knowing all of the facts and before the jury uncooperatively found otherwise. She was half-right. What Zimmerman did was wrong. It was not, by verdict of his peers, a crime.
Where is the politician who will own up to the painful complexity of the problem and acknowledge the widespread fear of crime committed by young black males? This does not mean that raw racism has disappeared, and some judgments are not the product of invidious stereotyping. It does mean, though, that the public knows young black males commit a disproportionate amount of crime. In New York City, blacks make up a quarter of the population, yet they represent 78 percent of all shooting suspects almost all of them young men. We know them from the nightly news.
Those statistics represent the justification for New York Citys controversial stop-and-frisk program, which amounts to racial profiling writ large. After all, if young black males are your shooters, then it ought to be young black males whom the police stop and frisk. Still, common sense and common decency, not to mention the law, insist on other variables such as suspicious behavior. Even still, race is a factor, without a doubt. It would be senseless for the police to be stopping Danish tourists in Times Square just to make the statistics look good.
I wish I had a solution to this problem. If I were a young black male and were stopped just on account of my appearance, I would feel violated. If the police are abusing their authority and using race as the only reason, that has got to stop. But if they ignore race, then they are fools and ought to go into another line of work.
The problems of the black underclass are hardly new. They are surely the product of slavery, the subsequent Jim Crow era and the tenacious persistence of racism. They will be solved someday, but not probably with any existing programs. For want of a better word, the problem is cultural, and it will be solved when the culture, somehow, is changed.
In the meantime, the least we can do is talk honestly about the problem. It does no one any good to merely cite the number of stop-and-frisks involving black males without citing the murder statistics as well. Citing the former and not the latter is an Orwellian exercise in political correctness. It not only censors half of the story but also suggests that racism is the sole reason for the policy. This mindlessness, like racism itself, is repugnant.
Crime where it intersects with race is given the silent treatment. Everything else is discussed and if it isnt, theres a Dr. Phil or an Oprah saying that it should be. Crime, though, is different. It is, like sex in the Victorian era (or the 1950s), an unmentionable but unmistakable part of life. We all know about it and take appropriate precaution but keep our mouths shut.
At one time, I thought Barack Obama would bring the problem into the open and remove the racist stigma. Instead, he perpetuated it. In his acclaimed Philadelphia speech on race, he cited his grandmother as a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed her by on the street.
How about the former Barry Obama? When he was a Columbia University student living on the lip of then-dangerous Harlem, did he never have the same fear?
Theres no doubt in my mind that Zimmerman profiled Martin and, braced by a gun, set off in quest of heroism. The result was a quintessentially American tragedy the death of a young man understandably suspected because he was black and tragically dead for the same reason.
One of those who quickly donned a hoodie was Christine Quinn, the speaker of the New York City Council. Quinn was hardly a lonesome panderer. Lesser politicians joined her and, as she did, pronounced Zimmerman a criminal. What George Zimmerman did was wrong, was a crime, Quinn said before knowing all of the facts and before the jury uncooperatively found otherwise. She was half-right. What Zimmerman did was wrong. It was not, by verdict of his peers, a crime.
Where is the politician who will own up to the painful complexity of the problem and acknowledge the widespread fear of crime committed by young black males? This does not mean that raw racism has disappeared, and some judgments are not the product of invidious stereotyping. It does mean, though, that the public knows young black males commit a disproportionate amount of crime. In New York City, blacks make up a quarter of the population, yet they represent 78 percent of all shooting suspects almost all of them young men. We know them from the nightly news.
Those statistics represent the justification for New York Citys controversial stop-and-frisk program, which amounts to racial profiling writ large. After all, if young black males are your shooters, then it ought to be young black males whom the police stop and frisk. Still, common sense and common decency, not to mention the law, insist on other variables such as suspicious behavior. Even still, race is a factor, without a doubt. It would be senseless for the police to be stopping Danish tourists in Times Square just to make the statistics look good.
I wish I had a solution to this problem. If I were a young black male and were stopped just on account of my appearance, I would feel violated. If the police are abusing their authority and using race as the only reason, that has got to stop. But if they ignore race, then they are fools and ought to go into another line of work.
The problems of the black underclass are hardly new. They are surely the product of slavery, the subsequent Jim Crow era and the tenacious persistence of racism. They will be solved someday, but not probably with any existing programs. For want of a better word, the problem is cultural, and it will be solved when the culture, somehow, is changed.
In the meantime, the least we can do is talk honestly about the problem. It does no one any good to merely cite the number of stop-and-frisks involving black males without citing the murder statistics as well. Citing the former and not the latter is an Orwellian exercise in political correctness. It not only censors half of the story but also suggests that racism is the sole reason for the policy. This mindlessness, like racism itself, is repugnant.
Crime where it intersects with race is given the silent treatment. Everything else is discussed and if it isnt, theres a Dr. Phil or an Oprah saying that it should be. Crime, though, is different. It is, like sex in the Victorian era (or the 1950s), an unmentionable but unmistakable part of life. We all know about it and take appropriate precaution but keep our mouths shut.
At one time, I thought Barack Obama would bring the problem into the open and remove the racist stigma. Instead, he perpetuated it. In his acclaimed Philadelphia speech on race, he cited his grandmother as a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed her by on the street.
How about the former Barry Obama? When he was a Columbia University student living on the lip of then-dangerous Harlem, did he never have the same fear?
Theres no doubt in my mind that Zimmerman profiled Martin and, braced by a gun, set off in quest of heroism. The result was a quintessentially American tragedy the death of a young man understandably suspected because he was black and tragically dead for the same reason.
http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinion...419eb6-ed7a-11e2-a1f9-ea873b7e0424_story.html
If he was, he brought it on himself for following Travon with a gun under false assumption. Would you feel threatened if you were just walking home from the store and saw some strange guy following you? Had he not profiled and started following Travon, none of this would have happened.
Now if Travon did indeed attack him first, he did so out of what he thought was his own self defense from some strange guy following him. It's a crazy world out there and I can't blame him even if he did. It sure as hell is not like stalking and shooting someone merely because they felt threatened and decided to go on the defense for themselves. End of story.
What does it matter is my point, in the eyes of the law he's a minor, no matter what term you use.
Vicetrailia
Banned
I think that she's just trying to stir the pot enough so people on both sides will buy her book.
She's being capitalistic and trying to reel you in.
Just don't buy her book.
She's being capitalistic and trying to reel you in.
Just don't buy her book.
Link
The Autumn Wind
The civil trial will likely take care of that.
The publisher cancelled the book after this interview aired.
I read that Cohen "piece" earlier. It made me instantly think of Tim Wise's blog post.
http://www.timwise.org/2013/07/no-i...ustice-and-explaining-america-to-my-daughter/
http://www.timwise.org/2013/07/no-i...ustice-and-explaining-america-to-my-daughter/
Probably a lot. Interestingly enough she claimed they never discussed the case at home.
i think its pretty clear that white people don't see it the same way. These people may not be overt racists, going to the local KKK meetings but they can still be racist.
This post strikes me as a little misguided. If you follow your sequence of events, GZ is guilty and TM was acting in self defense. It doesn't hinge on whether GZ was in fear at the moment he pulled the trigger, it hinges on whether or not he was the aggressor. It doesn't flip back and forth based on who is winning the fight (though obviously a fear of bodily harm has to exist, that wasn't really a factor in this case).
The defense argument was that TM was the aggressor
The person you quoted obviously discussed his moral view on the matter, by saying it shouldn't give you the right to kill someone even if it's self-defense. As such, the law at hand is irrelevant, as it's as much an ethical discussion about the law as anything else.
So, what the law is is still irrelevant, and even then, something that's defendable and something that's a right are still two very different things. So let's be clear: Self-defense can justify killing someone, but it doesn't give you the right to end a life.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Would you be okay with a 42 year old man having sex with your 16 year old younger sister (assuming you have one)?
captmcblack
Member
Before I leave this planet and evolve out of rage into a being of pure energy, I just want to know if I'm correct in reading this piece as something that is attempting to justify racial profiling, and using numbers without context to do so. I need to know that first.
Still don't know what you're talking about. You're reading too much into my post. 16 is a young adult. That's it. I didn't say anything about whether he's a minor or whatever other stuff you're attributing to me.
Only if you're blindly sympathetic to the juror or George. The general population can figure out what a racist/bigot is. We don't need a Nazi, a segregationist, a slave holder, a racist, a bigot, etc. to define themselves for us. Most of those people have argued consistently that they aren't racist.
Anyone who thinks Zimmerman wasn't profiling. Anyone who refers to black people as "these people" and "their way of life". Anyone who refers to protests as "riots" when black people are involved. Anyone who thinks that Zimmerman had a right to profile and pursue Trayvon Martin, is a racist, or at the very least is highly prejudiced.
The general public is done allowing racist bigots to get away with being racist bigots because they soften their tone, or because they use code words. George Zimmerman is a racist, His father is a racist, His brother is a racist, and this juror is a racist.
You are correct. Cohen is an out and out racist.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/07/a-conversation-with-richard-cohen-168462.html
To be honest racism has really evolved into a much more insidious disease. At least when people were much more overt it was clear how they are perceiving someone else. When it is covert it is much more complex and much more culturally destructive.
- Status