Support NeoGAF

[DarthWoo]

That's text book racial profiling.

I didn't really pay as much attention to some of the smaller details preceding the trial, but wasn't it the case that nearly all of Zimmerman's calls (out of over 40) that was reporting suspicious persons involved a black male?

 

[KHarvey16]

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.

The law being discussed is self defense law. When I refer to the law, a reasonably intelligent human being can ascertain from context what I meant. I believed the person I responded to would understand. You're not the person I was responding to.

For the sake of clearing it up for you, I asked for an example of a country's self defense law that he believes meets the criteria he described.

are you afraid to answer anything because you're obvious stupdity and racism will come out orrrr?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Stop asking me stupid questions. He is asserting all of the jury members are racist and I responded to this claim. If you'd like to discuss something else perhaps you can imagine a whole other person to do so with instead of stopping at imagining arguments.

 

[T'Zariah]

What I've learned from this case: People somehow think racism is the whole KKK type shit and not the institutionalized system that's been in place for centuries and black people are just "whining" and crying racism whenever it fits them.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Racial profiling can only be done by law enforcement? I never knew this.

That is the definition of racial profiling: Racial profiling is the use of an individual’s race or ethnicity by law enforcement personnel as a key factor in deciding whether to engage in enforcement (e.g. make a traffic stop or arrest).

GZ used the individual's race, his suspicious behavior (looking into windows), the time of day, his location in alleys, and the history of recent crimes in the neighborhood to determine that he needed investigated. He did not use race to randomly select whom to follow around, like a racially profiling cop would use it in NYC to determine who to stop and search.

 

[nib95]

Can you cite the law from another country you believe demonstrates this?

Several countries in Europe, UK, Germany etc, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and many more.

 

[Akainu]

1. Racial profiling is by definition, done by law enforcement. GZ is not law enforcement, therefore this is not racial profiling.

Why did I come back in here? Lesson not learned. Are you real?

 

[Derwind]

Personally I found this a little discomforting.

I think, I think George got in a little bit too deep, which he shouldn’t have been there. But Trayvon decided that he wasn’t going to let him scare him and get the one-over, up on him, or something. And I think Trayvon got mad and attacked him.

I'm probably nitpicking but the way she phrased her words, kind of irritates me.

Goerge didn't go just "a little too deep", he fully fucked up to tremendous porportions.

And the way Trayvon is characterized almost sounds like a guy trying to protect some reputation. Mad and attacked him? Can't he be scared??? Is that at all possible because it seems like something not acknowledged. That in a young persons situation, being followed by car, running from that, then when evading the car being followed on foot and approached by a random unidentifiable grown male who doesn't annouce who he is or why he's chasing after him, with a weapon on his persons is somehow not something that can bubble fear or create a sense of danger.

Why is it that "anger" and "pride"(getting a 1up) is the most likely emotional motivator for someone like Trayvon to defend himself not be a mix of fear and confusion, resulting in triggering his instinct for survival?

I'll meander from my point a little.

Also, why is it someone who apparently was overpowering and causing enough damage to another human being to cause reasonable fear for their life only cause a broken nose and superficial lacerations and very, very light bruises.

Is that the signs of someone walking out of a life or death struggle?

Lighter damage than I received when I was in middle school(junior high)?

Also, why do people characterize Zimmerman as some weak, meek, defenseless individual and portray Trayvon as some sort of Goliath. To the point that Zimmerman is also portrayed well beyond his age as some frail 60-70 year old.

He was in his late fucking 20's, had more weight on him then the victim, very much in shape and taking MMA style self defense training courses. And has a prior violent background.

Trayvon played sports and was in highschool brawls which is apparently some sort of unheard of savagery.

/Rant

 

[KHarvey16]

Several countries in Europe, UK, Germany etc, Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc.

If you could please pick one and cite the law. For instance I know in the UK the prosecution bears the burden of disproving self defense and also you may respond to deadly threats with deadly force, provided it is reasonable. That is the same standard in the states.

 

[joelseph]

That is the definition of racial profiling: Racial profiling is the use of an individual’s race or ethnicity by law enforcement personnel as a key factor in deciding whether to engage in enforcement (e.g. make a traffic stop or arrest).

GZ used the individual's race, his suspicious behavior (looking into windows), the time of day, his location in alleys, and the history of recent crimes in the neighborhood to determine that he needed investigated. He did not use race to randomly select whom to follow around, like a racially profiling cop would use it in NYC to determine who to stop and search.

Please stop, it's embarrassing.

 

[MisterNegative]

1. Racial profiling is by definition, done by law enforcement. GZ is not law enforcement, therefore this is not racial profiling.

Well GZ wanted to play COP so badly people have just called it racial profiling. What can we call it when you make a decision to follow, chase and suspect someone guilty of a crime because of the colour of their skin when you are not in law enforcement ?

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.

Nope. Most people made the claim that he was racist based of the initial claim that he believed TM was a criminal without having any evidence, aside from the fact that he was black and acting suspicious. Others said he was a racist because his own cousin came out and said his mother used to slander african americans and some called him racist because of the many previous reports he made to the police of black teenagers acting suspicious.

 

[Alebelly]

Police: We'll take care of it, stay in the car tough guy

Zimmerman: No, It's cool, if things get crazy I can always just shoot him with my gun.

Jury: It's hard to fault someone for being proactive.

 

[Akainu]

You posted 2 things in this thread and both of them were related to another thread.

I don't know man. My curiosity into the minds of gaf is troubling.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Please stop, it's embarrassing.

I love these shitty replies. If you have a problem with what I said, construct an argument and debate. This kind of garbage posting is ridiculous.

 

[Vahagn]

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.

Clown, take a second to breathe. The law says that George Zimmerman had feel a "reasonable fear of great bodily injury or death". To suggest that the only possible verdict is "not-guilty" makes you sound out to be a clown.

We understand that it was a possible verdict, even a likely verdict. But the DNA evidence suggested Trayvon never had that gun, touched that gun, and that George's injuries were minor and required zero medical attention. That is a subjective call to suggest he's reasonably in fear. The same subjective call an all white jury made to send a black woman in Florida with a documented history of physical abuse from her husband to jail for 20 years because she fired a warning shot and they claimed she had no "reasonable" fear. The law states that injuries are not a requirement. These are subjective calls made by all white juries in cases where a black person was convicted of firing a warning shot and a white/hispanic person was acquitted after murdering an unarmed kid.


While you may focus on the fact that George was injured and this woman was not, it's far more important for any decent human being to focus on the fact that Trayvon is dead, and her husband isn't even touched.


The point remains, all white juries in cases involving people of color have shown hundreds of years of clear bias. If you're down to suggest all black juries in a majority of cases from now on for the next few hundred years, fine. If not, or if you think that there may be some sort of objectivity problem there, why do you refuse to believe the same about all white juries?

 

[Flo_Evans]

You have to be pretty dumb not to find your way out of a jury summons though.

I see this allot, and while I agree somewhat, shouldn't the people complaining about how stupid juries are not try and find a way out of it so that justice can be better served by logical intelligent people?

On the one hand you are complaining that jurors are morons, then bragging that you are too smart to be on a jury.

To me it is the worst form of complaining, you can actually do something about it, but feel that actually taking action and doing your civic duty is beneath you.

 

[Eidan]

/Excellent Rant

Jumping off of your thoughts, I just can't get over the assumption that Martin was the aggressor. Of the two, it was Martin being pursued. It was Martin that ran. It was Martin who, as Zimmerman approached, asked why he was being followed. It was Martin that was heard screaming "Get off me".

So why does anyone buy the notion that Martin started the physical altercation?

Zimmerman was following this kid. What do people think he intended to do when he caught him?

 

[wildfire]

I'm from East Texas.

I can see calling Trayvon Martin "Treyvon", because with children (even those near adulthood), it's a little more expected to call them by their first names even if you're not close with them. With adults it's a little stranger, unless they're a famous figure that is just known by that name, like OJ. Even in a court case, though, I'd expect OJ to be called "Mr. Simspon" or Madonna to be called "Ms. Ciccone" because it's a court case. Then again, I don't wear black socks with tennis shoes nor would I wear cargo shorts and crocs to any restaraunt beyond the Golden Corral, so maybe I'm a square.

Well to keep things in perspective she was also referring to Zimmerman as George.

Thanks for clarifying that you also grew up here but you aren't being a square. I would say this informal behavior is a lot more common based on my observations of 1st generation immigrants I know compared to everyone else as New Yorker. This woman lacks reservation but not propriety.

smh at all this acquisitions of racism. Its like some people project these people to be racist so they can get themselves into a bigger rage. The leaps of logic are tremendous here. GZ was definitely not a racist. This juror might be, who knows, but at least she acknowledged that race didn't play a part, and since it wasn't part of the trial, it shouldn't have been a part of the jury deliberations.

....

Usually I just put people on my ignore list for egregious behavior. Somehow this dumbfuckery is causing a mental feedback loop where I somehow am being desensitized by what you are thinking. You sound like a worthless human being. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[captmcblack]

There is no acceptable circumstance - legal, law enforcement, or otherwise - in which a person's race or ethnicity should be usable as a means of determining anything, or planning/justifying a course of action.

Stop it. It's wrong. Period.

 

[Rockandrollclown]

So how is Zimmerman's reckless behavior not manslaughter? If he didn't follow an innocent teenager and obviously scare the poor kid, he wouldn't be dead.

I'm not a lawyer so this is a legit question. I was under the impression that these kinds of situations are what manslaughter is for.

My understanding is this. Completely throw out all the Zimmerman following this kid. Can you prove that Zimmerman walked up to him and threw a punch or physically provoked him in anyway? Since you can't prove that, its just a guy defending himself from a teenager ruthlessly beating him. (Not saying I agree with any of this, its just how I interpret the jury decision to have come down)

 

[nib95]

If you could please pick one and cite the law. For instance I know in the UK the prosecution bears the burden of disproving self defense and also you may respond to deadly threats with deadly force, provided it is reasonable.

Listen Mr Hopelessly Misguided who plays devils advocate all the damn time and is responsible for shitting up more threads than most people on GAF...if you want to know about that stuff, do the research yourself.

Ordinarily I'd provide the links out of courtesy, but I know you as a poster and I've played this game with you one too many times.

Sorry to be a dick though.


With respect to your comment about deadly force, in the UK we don't really use the term, we permit only a reasonable amount of force as a response of self defence. Deadly force is only permitted in extreme circumstances, which I did make leeway for in my original post.

 

[KHarvey16]

It makes perfect sense clown.

because you're obvious stupdity and racism will come out orrrr?

Clown,

It's always nice when discussions are civil, respectful and constructive.

 

[Stet]

My understanding is this. Completely throw out all the Zimmerman following this kid. Can you prove that Zimmerman walked up to him and threw a punch or physically provoked him in anyway? Since you can't prove that, its just a guy defending himself from a teenager ruthlessly beating him. (Not saying I agree with any of this, its just how I interpret the jury decision to have come down)

I guess it's a shame then that the victim is guilty until proven innocent but the perpetrator is not.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Well GZ wanted to play COP so badly people have just called it racial profiling. What can we call it when you make a decision to follow, chase and suspect someone guilty of a crime because of the colour of their skin when you are not in law enforcement ?

Nope. Most people made the claim that he was racist based of the initial claim that he believed TM was a criminal without having any evidence, aside from the fact that he was black and acting suspicious. Others said he was a racist because his own cousin came out and said his mother used to slander african americans and some called him racist because of the many previous reports he made to the police of black teenagers acting suspicious.

Well I guess I would be willing to concede the law enforcement requirement, since I guess people are right that he was behaving in a sort of psuedo-law enforcement capacity as a neighborhood watch member.

I think it all hinges on whether race is used as the primary factor in the suspicion, or it is simply a physical descriptor. Like an NYC cop would use race as the primary factor, since that is what their statistics tell them to do. This neighborhood had a history of break-ins committed by young black men. So using "black" as a physical descriptor is valid. It all hinges on whether GZ had reason to believe that Martin was suspicious in other ways. If his reports about seeing Martin peer into windows are correct, then he definitely does.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

What a dimwitted twat.

 

[Opiate]

To me, this case embodies the state of modern racism in America.

The racism extant in this case is not overt. It is not "black people are evil" or anything else stated out loud (although I am aware that still happens. I know there are racist police). It doesn't even appear that people are even thinking this inside the privacy of their own heads. Instead, it's something that occurs with enough subtlety that our rule of law cannot precisely pinpoint where it all went wrong. It seems like we are systemically applying a set of rules, and yet when we see the results, the results don't come out right.

In short, I feel that racism in America exists not just unspoken, but even between the lines of legislation in such a way that everything looks fine on paper but wrong in practice.

 

[KHarvey16]

Listen Mr Hopelessly Misguided who plays devils advocate all the damn time and is responsible for shitting up more threads than most people on GAF...if you want to know about that stuff, do the research yourself.

Ordinarily I'd provide the links out of courtesy, but I know you as a poster and I've played this game with you one too many times.

With respect to your comment about deadly force, in the UK we don't really use the term, we permit only a reasonable amount of force as a response of self defence. Deadly force is only permitted in extreme circumstances, which I did make leeway for in my original post.

Deadly force is permissible in response to deadly force. You come across pretty childish and very unsure of yourself at this point, please don't lash out.

 

[Xenon]

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.

Well you have made up your mind on the subject, no point in discussing it.

 

[Seeds]

I love these shitty replies. If you have a problem with what I said, construct an argument and debate. This kind of garbage posting is ridiculous.

Zimmerman first found Martin suspecious when Martin entered the community. Martin was at that point, according to Zimmerman, walking casually. Zimmerman concluded, based on seeing Martin walking casually, that he was suspecious and on drugs.

Why do you think Zimmerman assumed Martin was up to no good and on drugs when he had only seen Martin walking casually?

 

[mernst23]

I see this allot, and while I agree somewhat, shouldn't the people complaining about how stupid juries are not try and find a way out of it so that justice can be better served by logical intelligent people?

On the one hand you are complaining that jurors are morons, then bragging that you are too smart to be on a jury.

To me it is the worst form of complaining, you can actually do something about it, but feel that actually taking action and doing your civic duty is beneath you.

Shrug, I toss all my mail and all my bills are paid online. I wouldn't even know if I was missing jury duty. Only times I actually look through my mail is when i'm expecting a package. My last two jury summons went to my parents house for a county court when I moved to a different county so I called and told them this not once, but twice and they haven't fixed it, so yea, don't see myself getting on a jury anytime soon.

 

[Famassu]

I do not know how I would have voted on that jury, especially after following the trial as closely as everyone has. To much area where I wouldn't know EXACTLY what happened, and being told to sentence a man to a a long jail sentence when I couldn't say 100% sure "this is how it happened" would eat at me for all my life. That would make it hard to even go for a manslaughter charge, knowing I couldn't prove exactly how things went down.

All that we really need to know is that Zimmerman went against what the Police said and Trayvon posed no kind of threat to society that night, yet here we are, he's dead. That alone should get Zimmerman locked behind bars. He killed an innocent person who was just walking down the street, a kid who got scared of a grown-up man chasing him. It doesn't really matter if Trayvon tried to hit him in what followed or not, we know he didn't have a gun while Zimmerman did. The end result is all that matters, even if some details of the confrontation are not crystal clear.

 

[Badosh]

Uh, wow. Just, wow.

 

[Vahagn]

Well I guess I would be willing to concede the law enforcement requirement, since I guess people are right that he was behaving in a sort of psuedo-law enforcement capacity as a neighborhood watch member.

I think it all hinges on whether race is used as the primary factor in the suspicion, or it is simply a physical descriptor. Like an NYC cop would use race as the primary factor, since that is what their statistics tell them to do. This neighborhood had a history of break-ins committed by young black men. So using "black" as a physical descriptor is valid. It all hinges on whether GZ had reason to believe that Martin was suspicious in other ways. If his reports about seeing Martin peer into windows are correct, then he definitely does.

No it is not. FFS. Do you understand how racism works?

Racism. Same kind of racism George used. "Black people have done break ins, I will investigate ALL black people based on the actions of a couple black people"


There are crimes in America for which the majority of the perpetrators are white people. Child Molestation, Child Abduction, Child Pornography to name a few. If I were to call the cops every time I saw a white man with kids because I suspected foul play, would that not be racial profiling? The fact that there are crime data statistics, or a personal experience I've encountered, doesn't change the fact that it's racist and an example of racial profiling.

 

[SIRF]

I love these shitty replies. If you have a problem with what I said, construct an argument and debate. This kind of garbage posting is ridiculous.

The actual discussion aside, I think your missing the point that people are considered about semantics or dictionary definition of racial profiling, they are referring to the bias involved by an individual in assuming someone was doing something bad based on race. Your right about the definition of racial profiling but that's not the central issue here.

 

[vas_a_morir]

Uh, wow. Just, wow.

Wow-wee-wow-wo-wow! Just, wow-wee-wow-wo-wow!
WOW
WOW
WOW
WOW
WOW

 

[akira28]

This is what sparks the flame.

Trayvon messed with the bull and got the horns? I didnt need to learn that that is what a juror actually believed.

oh...and they cried about it. This is not going to go away. not now.

 

[nib95]

Deadly force is permissible in response to deadly force. You come across pretty childish and very unsure of yourself at this point, please don't lash out.

No it is not. Lol. Which is exactly why we don't use the term here. Because the notion of murder as an act of self defence is not a prevalent one. Here even if someone comes at you with fists, a knife or gun, and you beat or stab them to death, you're doing time for manslaughter. It's easier to judge reasonable force here because guns are banned. So you don't get people shooting off their guns as a first call to self defence.

Here you're only permitted to do enough to get yourself out of danger, whist showing restraint and regard for human life.

I'll refer back to this.

Depends on a case by case basis. Wiki excerpt on UK law.

Reasonable force

Opinions differ on what constitutes reasonable force but, in all cases, the defendant does not have the right to determine what constitutes "reasonable force" because the defendant would always maintain they acted reasonably and thus would never be guilty. The jury, as ordinary members of the community, must decide the amount of force reasonable in the circumstances of each case. It is relevant that the defendant was under pressure from imminent attack and may not have had time to make entirely rational decisions, so the test must balance the objective standard of a reasonable person by attributing some of the subjective knowledge of the defendant, including what they believed about the circumstances, even if mistaken. However, even allowing for mistakes made in a crisis, the amount of force must be proportionate and reasonable given the value of the interests being protected and the harm likely to be caused by use of force. The classic test comes from the Australian case of Palmer v The Queen, on appeal to the Privy Council in 1971:

"The defence of self-defence is one which can be and will be readily understood by any jury. It is a straightforward conception. It involves no abstruse legal thought. ...Only common sense is needed for its understanding. It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but may only do, what is reasonably necessary. But everything will depend upon the particular facts and circumstances. ...It may in some cases be only sensible and clearly possible to take some simple avoiding action. Some attacks may be serious and dangerous. Others may not be. If there is some relatively minor attack it would not be common sense to permit some action of retaliation which was wholly out of proportion to the necessities of the situation. If an attack is serious so that it puts someone in immediate peril then immediate defensive action may be necessary. If the moment is one of crisis for someone in imminent danger he may have [to] avert the danger by some instant reaction. If the attack is all over and no sort of peril remains then the employment of force may be by way of revenge or punishment or by way of paying off an old score or may be pure aggression. There may no longer be any link with a necessity of defence... If a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken."[2]

In R v Lindsay,[3] the defendant who picked up a sword in self-defence when attacked in his home by three masked intruders armed with loaded handguns, killed one of them by slashing him repeatedly. The prosecution case was that, although he had initially acted in self-defence, he had then lost his self-control and demonstrated a clear intent to kill the armed intruder. In fact, the defendant was himself a minor cannabis dealer who kept the sword available to defend himself against other drug dealers. The Court of Appeal confirmed an eight-year term of imprisonment. It would not be expected that an ordinary householder who "went too far" when defending against armed intruders would receive such a long sentence.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Zimmerman first found Martin suspecious when Martin entered the community. Martin was at that point, according to Zimmerman, walking casually. Zimmerman concluded, based on seeing Martin walking casually, that he was suspecious and on drugs.

Why do you think Zimmerman assumed Martin was up to no good and on drugs when he had only seen Martin walking casually?

I read something that said that GZ reported that he saw him peering into windows. I mean maybe the confusion here is that the media is slanting this shit all different directions and we are all arguing based on different sets of "facts" lol. Because if what you said is true, then yeah this is racial profiling.

 

[CountAntonius]

The prosecution really screwed this case up. From Jury selection to a second degree murder charge without the proof for that conviction they did pretty much everything possible to lose this case.

 

[vas_a_morir]

This is what sparks the flame.

Fiddle-dee-dee, this sounds ominous.

 

[captmcblack]

To me, this case embodies the state of modern racism in America.

The racism extant in this case is not overt. It is not "black people are evil" or anything else stated out loud (although I am aware that still happens. I know there are racist police). It doesn't even appear that people are even thinking this inside the privacy of their own heads. Instead, it's something that occurs with enough subtlety that our rule of law cannot precisely pinpoint where it all went wrong. It seems like we are systemically applying a set of rules, and yet when we see the results, the results don't come out right.

In short, I feel that racism in America exists not just unspoken, but even between the lines of legislation in such a way that everything looks fine on paper but wrong in practice.

Exactly...and this is by design.

Today's racism isn't publically dudes in hoods burning crosses into lawns (even though this still happens) or people denying entry to people of color (even though this still happens). Today's racism is a series of deliberate coincidences. Today's racism is the "smart" white QB and the "athletic" black QB. Today's racism is more black men being imprisoned for drugs despite more non-black men having/using/selling/distributing them. Todays racism is politicians telling a coincidentally majority black group of people to "leave the plantation" in a speech. Today's racism is subtle, but omnipresent for every person of color who is eternally aware of his place in America. I won't have to worry about getting shot with a hose like my grandpa might've, but I know I am not going to get into that apartment complex even with 800 credit for "reasons".

 

[Seeds]

I read something that said that GZ reported that he saw him peering into windows. I mean maybe the confusion here is that the media is slanting this shit all different directions and we are all arguing based on different sets of "facts" lol. Because if what you said is true, then yeah this is racial profiling.

Zimmerman reported that Martin was peering into windows when Martin made an attempt the create distance between him and Zimmermans car by walking on the lawn of houses. In ZImmermans eyes, this meant Martin was looking for a house to rob, we know Martin did this in an attempt to get away from Zimmerman.

 

[Vahagn]

I read something that said that GZ reported that he saw him peering into windows. I mean maybe the confusion here is that the media is slanting this shit all different directions and we are all arguing based on different sets of "facts" lol. Because if what you said is true, then yeah this is racial profiling.

So Trayvon can't look in windows? You know how you address this situation? You walk up to the person, you treat them like a human being, even if you think they're acting suspicious (and ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE A GUN HANDY), and you ask them if they're lost or if they need a ride.


If you're too scared of a black person to walk up to them and talk to them, you're racist. The fact that Zimmerman is perfectly willing to pursue in a car, and then get out of his car to pursue on foot suggests he doesn't think having a civil conversation with Trayvon is a risk worth taking, or something Trayvon deserves. If he was paralyzed with fear, we might understand it, but even then he wouldn't have exited his car to give chase on foot.

 

[casmith07]

Exactly...and this is by design.

Today's racism isn't publically dudes in hoods burning crosses into lawns (even though this still happens) or people denying entry to people of color (even though this still happens). Today's racism is a series of deliberate coincidences. Today's racism is the "smart" white QB and the "athletic" black QB. Today's racism is more black men being imprisoned for drugs despite more non-black men having/using/selling/distributing them. Todays racism is politicians telling a coincidentally majority black group of people to "leave the plantation" in a speech. Today's racism is subtle, but omnipresent for every person of color who is eternally aware of his place in America. I won't have to worry about getting shot with a hose like my grandpa might've, but I know I am not going to get into that apartment complex even with 800 credit for "reasons".

Damn, man. Nailed it.

 

[Omegasquash]

That is the definition of racial profiling: Racial profiling is the use of an individual’s race or ethnicity by law enforcement personnel as a key factor in deciding whether to engage in enforcement (e.g. make a traffic stop or arrest).

GZ used the individual's race, his suspicious behavior (looking into windows), the time of day, his location in alleys, and the history of recent crimes in the neighborhood to determine that he needed investigated. He did not use race to randomly select whom to follow around, like a racially profiling cop would use it in NYC to determine who to stop and search.

IF GZ used race and it wasn't racial profiling, then it's racism.

Racial profiling is racism, but that's my opinion and a subject for a different thread.

 

[Hari Seldon]

So Trayvon can't look in windows? You know how you address this situation? You walk up to the person, you treat them like a human being, even if you think they're acting suspicious (and ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE A GUN HANDY), and you ask them if they're lost or if they need a ride.


If you're too scared of a black person to walk up to them and talk to them, you're racist. The fact that Zimmerman is perfectly willing to pursue in a car, and then get out of his car to pursue on foot suggests he doesn't think having a civil conversation with Trayvon is a risk worth taking, or something Trayvon deserves. If he was paralyzed with fear, we might understand it, but even then he wouldn't have exited his car to give chase on foot.

If someone is peering into my neighbors windows at night I'm calling the fucking cops. That is not ordinary behavior.

 

[casmith07]

So how is Zimmerman's reckless behavior not manslaughter? If he didn't follow an innocent teenager and obviously scare the poor kid, he wouldn't be dead.

I'm not a lawyer so this is a legit question. I was under the impression that these kinds of situations are what manslaughter is for.

Also, didn't the police mishandle this crime scene? Is there any blowback on them for that? I do think second degree murder is not a great target when evidence is in short supply; however, shouldn't there be some punishment for those responsible for not treating the scene like a murder just in case? Imagine if it turned out to be a personal dispute instead of random ignorant-ass vigilantism... It's not like those officers at the scene could truly know the circumstances of that killing beyond Zimmerman's word at the time.

I don't know... I keep hearing that this case went the way it did regardless of media hype but whenever I think about it it seems more like the national scrutiny is exactly why this jury was so conservative.

I will actually be a licensed attorney this fall after taking the bar exam in two weeks (knock on wood).

It is manslaughter. That's one of the problems. The only way it isn't manslaughter is if you have a mickey mouse jury handling the deliberations.

The police already had to pay a pretty big settlement for negligence and breach of duty of care to the family in the handling of the investigation.

 

[Vahagn]

If someone is peering into my neighbors windows at night I'm calling the fucking cops. That is not ordinary behavior.

Someone like, a middle aged 45 year old white woman? Or a black guy in a hoodie in the rain?

 

[DragonSworne]

Personally I found this a little discomforting.



I'm probably nitpicking but the way she phrased her words, kind of irritates me.

Goerge didn't go just "a little too deep", he fully fucked up to tremendous porportions.

And the way Trayvon is characterized almost sounds like a guy trying to protect some reputation. Mad and attacked him? Can't he be scared??? Is that at all possible because it seems like something not acknowledged. That in a young persons situation, being followed by car, running from that, then when evading the car being followed on foot and approached by a random unidentifiable grown male who doesn't annouce who he is or why he's chasing after him, with a weapon on his persons is somehow not something that can bubble fear or create a sense of danger.

Why is it that "anger" and "pride"(getting a 1up) is the most likely emotional motivator for someone like Trayvon to defend himself not be a mix of fear and confusion, resulting in triggering his instinct for survival?

I'll meander from my point a little.

Also, why is it someone who apparently was overpowering and causing enough damage to another human being to cause reasonable fear for their life only cause a broken nose and superficial lacerations and very, very light bruises.

Is that the signs of someone walking out of a life or death struggle?

Lighter damage than I received when I was in middle school(junior high)?

Also, why do people characterize Zimmerman as some weak, meek, defenseless individual and portray Trayvon as some sort of Goliath. To the point that Zimmerman is also portrayed well beyond his age as some frail 60-70 year old.

He was in his late fucking 20's, had more weight on him then the victim, very much in shape and taking MMA style self defense training courses. And has a prior violent background.

Trayvon played sports and was in highschool brawls which is apparently some sort of unheard of savagery.

/Rant

This post does a really good of pointing out how racist the juror is even if it wasn't the main point.

You can aquit Zimmerman based on the fact there wasn't enough evidence, but doing so means you aren't suppose to hold these kinds of strong opinions on Zimmerman and Martin.

Clearly her opinions of both Zimmerman and Martin are formed by her racism, and not the facts/evidence.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Someone like, a middle aged 45 year old white woman? Or a black guy in a hoodie in the rain?

Yeah Jesus christ that would scare the shit out of me. Normal people knock on the fucking door they don't just appear at a window lol.

 

[captive]

Had the police arrived before the shot and found these two fighting on the ground I wonder who they would have taken into custody

uh, safe bet would be the black kid...

I've been following the case closely since the beginning and it is very clear that Zimmerman is not guilty. I live in Sanford, FL.

Most of you have been lured in by our national news stations when they spinned this trial heavily in a way to elicit angry response from the public. I don't blame them. That's how they make money.

^ Angry retard produced by national news corp. alert.

ok mr "i live there so i know more than you" please illuminate us, in detail with reputable sources, on what exactly has been withheld from us idiot masses that follow on national news? But you probably won't since you havent posted in two pages.

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.

I agree.

and Opiate said it much better than I could, so ill just say as a white person, I can never understand what it is like to be a minority in our country. However, it sickens me to see so many white people, with so much inherent bias and even racism. It's total white privilege and they dont get it.

To me, this case embodies the state of modern racism in America.

The racism extant in this case is not overt. It is not "black people are evil" or anything else stated out loud (although I am aware that still happens. I know there are racist police). It doesn't even appear that people are even thinking this inside the privacy of their own heads. Instead, it's something that occurs with enough subtlety that our rule of law cannot precisely pinpoint where it all went wrong. It seems like we are systemically applying a set of rules, and yet when we see the results, the results don't come out right.

In short, I feel that racism in America exists not just unspoken, but even between the lines of legislation in such a way that everything looks fine on paper but wrong in practice.

very well said.

I see this allot, and while I agree somewhat, shouldn't the people complaining about how stupid juries are not try and find a way out of it so that justice can be better served by logical intelligent people?

On the one hand you are complaining that jurors are morons, then bragging that you are too smart to be on a jury.

To me it is the worst form of complaining, you can actually do something about it, but feel that actually taking action and doing your civic duty is beneath you.

oh come on. I've lived in Texas my whole life and always had a up to date drivers license and always check whatever it is the stupid box that allows them to summon you for jury duty and never once have I been summoned. Its not like we magically get them because we want to be involved in certain cases.

No it is not. FFS. Do you understand how racism works?

Racism. Same kind of racism George used. "Black people have done break ins, I will investigate ALL black people based on the actions of a couple black people"


There are crimes in America for which the majority of the perpetrators are white people. Child Molestation, Child Abduction, Child Pornography to name a few. If I were to call the cops every time I saw a white man with kids because I suspected foul play, would that not be racial profiling? The fact that there are crime data statistics, or a personal experience I've encountered, doesn't change the fact that it's racist and an example of racial profiling.

yea stuff like this just pisses me off. I actually got into an argument with a coworker and had to walk out I was so heated, because he was like well Trayvon got kicked out of school...
If a white kid is posted on facebook with a gun, its perfectly normal
If a black kid is posted on facebook witha gun, he's a thug.
White kid flicks off the camera, he's edgy and cool or "troubled"
Black kid flicks off the camera, he's a thug, hoodrat, gangster.