Big Baybee
Member
You don't have to be racist to racially profile someone.
-
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
You don't have to be racist to racially profile someone.
Interesting to see that some people are now accusing the jury of being racist. A few days ago, before the verdict was read, I asked that very same question:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=70006261&highlight=#post70006261
Sure, race played no part. Do you honestly believe that?
So she admits Zimmerman escalated the situation and should not have pursued martin but doesn't feel he should face the consequences of his actions which lead to him killing a kid? Or wait... The trail itself was the punishment and he's now learned his lesson. Cool. No harm, no foul. :/
To be fair, when you ask "does GZ being acquitted mean a racist jury" is not the same as "if there is a racist jury, will GZ be acquitted".
"If A, then B" is not the same as "If B, then A"
I don't think there's anything interesting about it. I absolutely think they're racist, and was fearful that the jury would be full of the wrong kinds of people from the beginning.
It's Sanford, Florida. I guess some people were under the delusion that somehow racism was all gone since we got ourselves a Black President now, and thought the jury would feature imports from Chicago, San Francisco, New York City, and Washington DC.
MisterNegative
Banned
I just want to have more faith in people I guess. I think it's unfair to say 5/6 jurors were racist when we have only heard from one. wasn't it 1 argued for murder, 2 man slaughter and 3 were undecided ?
I can believe what you're saying, it's just there is no way to prove the jurors were racist. Them giving a veridct you don't agree with(I don't either) Isn't enough, so it gets us nowhere accept to come to the conclusion that if your young and black in Florida you're screwed, I hate that way of thinking because it's not progressive and it seems like an absolute.
What gets at me the most though are the people that are okaywith or support ZIM's actions that night. It just mind fucks me soo much. Like how you could think like that ?
Calling in to the police that he saw a black guy he didn't know isn't why people think Zimmerman's racist. It's everything else he did and that we've heard from his family since.
Hari Seldon
Member
You are right. But you don't have to be racially profiling to follow someone based on a rash of crimes done by similar looking individuals in the neighborhood, in the dark, and in the rain.
Why is it ok to assume these people are racist? Can you justify this and not be hypocritical?
keep on keepin on proving our point.
Yup, you're racist. Or at least prejudiced. Why don't you go search "racially profiling" and then come back to us.
I answered this the other day. US needs to get up to modern developed standards. No murder permissible in the act of self defence, at all, except in extreme or uniquely poignant circumstances. Only a common sense based allowance of reasonable force to defend yourself and nothing more. Nothing that is actually very likely to take someone's life. Yes, even in the heat of it in most developed nations you are still required to show restraint and a regard for human life.
Oh, and ban guns too. That would help things 20 fold in the long run. Though I appreciate much of American culture is too selfish and fear based for most people to actually agree to the latter.
I want to have more faith in people too. But every time I ride a crowded train to work in the morning and people don't sit next to me and opt to stand for a 45 minute commute...when my seat is the o n l y empty seat on the train, what other logical explanation is there?
It gets at me too - your last sentence - until you understand exactly what it is: "non-racist" racism.
Mammoth Jones
Member
I wish I could be so privileged in America to stick my fingers in my ears and pretend that I'm not ocassionally judged or viewed with apprehension by some people that generalize.
Problem is that that can have fatal consequences for me in rare situations. I can't just go home, watch Fox News and nod my head.
Trayvonartin died because someone saw his race and made assumptions. Those assumptions directly lead to the confrontation that ended his life.
Problem is that that can have fatal consequences for me in rare situations. I can't just go home, watch Fox News and nod my head.
Trayvonartin died because someone saw his race and made assumptions. Those assumptions directly lead to the confrontation that ended his life.
Blood Diamonds
Banned
Piece of shit
Answer me three questions:
Do you live in the United States?
Are you white?
Have you or do you live in the southern United States?
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
What I don't understand is how they flipped their views so quickly. What was it that changed their minds.
For one, her complete refusal to look at both sides of the evidence equally. She completely dismissed every word Rachel Jeantel, Trayvon's mother, the prosecution said but accepted blindly every word that Zimmerman or his defense team argued.
What basis do you think this was from if it wasn't race?
Actually, yes, that is profiling.
So all white people who live or have lived in the Southern US are racists?
Can you cite the law from another country you believe demonstrates this?
I don't think the jury was inherently racist and I don't think GZ is a racist. To say race played no part in the case is either intentional ignorance or unintentional ignorance.
diffusionx
Gold Member
I am sure that Martin is very happy that Zimmerman learned a "good" lesson.
As someone who's an American who bleeds red white and blue, and who really does believe in all freedoms, rights, etc., I agree wholeheartedly. And it's not based on hyperbole.
All you need to do is take one look at the gun death and injury statistics of countries like the UK, China, and Japan and compare them to the United States to understand that there's a big ass elephant in the room that can be addressed and fix a large part of the problem -- to include mass murder like Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, etc, not just racial profiling murders like this one.
you don't need another country. Murders in SYG states have gone up. while in non SYG states on average they have gone down.
Maybe she mentioned that her husband is an attorney? She might used that to sway them somehow?
Joel Was Right
Member
Had the police arrived before the shot and found these two fighting on the ground I wonder who they would have taken into custody
Is that what I said? No, it isn't.
Prior to answering his question I need some additional information.
lol, it's what you're inferring.
Please don't ignore the questions I asked you.
She. He is not referring to her alone. Please pay attention.
That and her complete disregard in acknowledgement of the loss of TM's life. She agree's that Zimmerman started this situation, that he lied etc, but equates just as much sympathy towards him for his "mistakes" and "over eagerness" as she does to TM actually losing his life and no longer being on this planet, as a direct result of this other person she feels equal sympathy for.
MisterNegative
Banned
Similar looking ? The only thing they had in common was their skin colour. What else does TM have in common with the suspects to allow a non racial profile ?
So some black males robbed my house, I guess that gives me the right to follow the next black man I see, chase him down, ignore police advice and instigate some sort of confrontation ?
Rockandrollclown
lookwhatyou'vedone
I completely see how fucked up it is. This case walks a razor's edge. AFAIK its not illegal to tail someone. I would get shot in the same situation because, especially after trying to run and get away, whats left besides trying to beat down your attacker? Morally Zimmerman is a murderer. He is 100% responsible for everything that went down. Legally, he managed to walk such a fine line that there was no way in hell he was getting convicted. I really don't know how you fix the law, make following someone grounds for force? I really don't know what the answer is.
Probably neither one of them. Or at the worst of it, a civil suit would've resulted for a tort action for assault and battery, resulting in payment of damages and both parties going on to live their lives.
Unfortunately, we'll never know because Zimmerman wanted to play cop.
This response makes no sense. Can you please re-read the conversation.
So you admit that Juror B37 was racist then?
It makes perfect sense clown.
Maybe you should be a little more clear in your responses. The individual you responded to discussed strict definitions for "self-defense" instead of a lot of leeway. They then went on to discuss banning guns. They discussed two entirely different things, and your response was "Can you cite the law from another country you believe demonstrates this? " Be more clear on what "this" is you're talking about.
If it's banning guns helping things 20 fold in the long run, look at Australia or Great Britain. If it's tougher standards about self defense and the use of permissible lethal force, my response answers your question. Don't blame me for your lack of a well articulated response to two different points made by the original poster.
No it isn't.
And if that's the inference that you draw based on a preliminary set of questions that will determine how I answer his original question, then you suffer from exactly the same problem that jury suffered from - selective logic.
That's text book racial profiling.
Well, after finding Martin shot dead, they thought it was a good idea to do a toxicology report in him.
Can you PLEASE follow along the discussion you inserted yourself into.
anarckitty
Member
Bleah
You posted 2 things in this thread and both of them were related to another thread.
Hari Seldon
Member
It seems to me you are so eager to find racism in this case to get yourself into a rage that you missed the point. The prosecution did not allege racism at all. The defense therefore did not bring it up. THEREFORE, the jury shouldn't be talking about racism in the deliberation room.
You don't even know what racial profiling is, and yet you call me a racist?
1. Racial profiling is by definition, done by law enforcement. GZ is not law enforcement, therefore this is not racial profiling.
2. Calling the cops on someone acting suspicious in a neighborhood that had a recent spree of crimes, had it ended there, is not by even the most radical definition of race relations, considered racist. Had GZ ended it there, instead of being an idiot and leaving his car, no one would have considered him a racist.
are you afraid to answer anything because you're obvious stupdity and racism will come out orrrr?
1.the use of personal characteristics or behavior patterns to make generalizations about a person, as in gender profiling .
2.the use of these characteristics to determine whether a person may be engaged in illegal activity, as in racial profiling .
Zimmerman used these characteristics to determine whether a person may be engaged in illegal activity.
you throw "acting suspicious" out quite a lot. What was Trayvon Martin doing acting suspicious besides being black? What was he doing that would illicit a 911 phone call if he was a 52 year old white woman?
How is it not racist to assume a jury with white people is racist because they're white? Fucking ridiculous.
Make it about 'us vs them' over and over, and try to call the other side racist, how fucking hypocritical.
I don't see how people are STILL on race about this. The issues are: The law is set up in a way that this specific circuimstance is pretty unfavorable no matter what color Trayvon had been. The prosecution has no good evidence whatsoever to convict George of what they were charging him with. Period.
By the end of this thing everyone in the entire country that isn't black will be painted as racist in a need for some kind of scapegoat, but the REALLY SIMPLE TRUTH is that the prosecution did a poor job of convincing a jury that GZ was guilty of the crime he was being accused of, as written in law. That's it. How fucked up or not that is is totally up to you, but it doesn't make the jury racist, it doesn't make any non-black in the country racist. There are biases on a very subconscious level that ANYONE in the world has, yes, even black people, and those are much more deeply seeded than this case or any other case. If you want to discuss those in a civil manner, that's totally cool, but it has nothing to do with "THE JURY WAS RACIST" flippant remarks.
Racial profiling can only be done by law enforcement? I never knew this. By definition(wikipedia) sure. But anyone can racially profile.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Then what is it?
yup sadly
- Status