Zimmerman Martin Case

[plinker021]

I hear you. It can be difficult. I appreciate you saying as much.

Both terms are acceptable according to the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) Style Manual, last time I checked. That document is intended to be very literally "politically correct."

Now, whether the GPO reflects what people actually prefer, I couldn't say.

 

[Lorenzo]

Moving the text cursor on my phone is next to impossible so apologiea for spelling mistakes as well

 

[CastorRe]

My bad. There not being evidence of that bit though means you can't make an unbiased call either way.

 

[ihatemath_camilla]

But, there is no evidence to support that Martin knew of the gun before the encounter. There is evidence that he did not because they were on the ground fighting. Which lends to logic, the gun did not surface until after the fighting was at its worse.

What seems to be overlooked, is that both were at fault.

Z, not staying in the car.
M for confronting him.
Two people with bad atitudes got into it, one got shot and killed

 

[buffyjoy1]

Whether or not this particular case had anything to do with race is really a seperate issue than the attitudes it has provoked being very much to do with race. The Jim Crow laws are in living memory, and the US still has problems with cultural and institutional racism (as does almost every nation on the planet, to varying degrees).

I mean, even with OJ Simpson, I could understand an odd sense of victory that finally a black man was rich enough to get away with murder, just like so many rich white guys before him.

 

[heywoodjahugme]

I guess that's a problem I have. Z had a part in escalating this situation. And he did so knowing that he had a gun. I guess I would have hoped that, knowing the stakes on the table, Z could have shown enough self-restraint (perhaps simply by remaining in the car, perhaps by approaching Martin differently).

I feel like, even if you believe in the right of Z to bear arms, it would have been infinitely preferable for him to put an equal amount of stock in his ability to deescalate. That's part of the problem with a neighborhood watch. They probably don't get the level of training in dealing with hostility that police do, and are more likely to mismanage it. If you're going to behave like a cop, you need to have the tools they have. Not just the gun. The verbal tools, etc.

 

[I_love_you]

[

Yes morally Zimmerman should have handled it differently and at the time of his following Martin he was not on “watch duty” but just running to the store.

 

[angel_megzi]

How about it being in Florida that has concealed carry laws (and someone here even made a thread about how concealed carry people are keen on the carry part but not so much the conceal part) and stand your ground laws?
If I got in a fight in Florida I'd assume a gun was in play right from te start even if I didn't have one on me.
You can't have CC laws and then put the onus on someone to find out if the person is carrying or not.
Especially when the fear of a hidden weapon is one of the things that pro-gun people like about concealed carry.

 

[Willzville]

You can’t legally respond to a weapon that is not displayed or at least an attempt to display it is made.

 

[untouchable]

There is no evidence anywhere that Zimmerman attacked Martin, and there is no evidence anywhere that Zimmerman followed Martin with the intent to do him any harm. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. The evidence does not exist. It is a story fabricated by angry activists and media sensationalists.

Zimmerman followed Martin -- which was stupid, but not a crime -- and Martin responded by attacking Zimmerman, which is a crime and which gave Zimmerman every legal right to respond by firing his weapon. That's the story Zimmerman told, that's story that lines up with the available evidence, and that's the story that held up in court. If you're going to challenge that story, show me the evidence.

 

[boomergraciercks]

I was on my phone before too with the battery dying so I cut my response short.



How is the FACT that our legal system is racist not compelling? What world do you live in where that could be ignored or brushed aside as irrelevant?



So then he wasn't high/drunk and we don't know(at least I haven't heard, I'm in Japan so I may have missed something) why Zimmerman claims he was acting suspicious? It appears that him being African-American in that community was enough to be deemed so. Again, even if Zimmerman's comment about them always getting away didn't contain any racial epithet, we cannot assume that he wasn't racist(nor can we assume he is). Who does "those _______" that are always getting away point to?



You can't assume that because he was fighting the gun on the ground that he didn't know there was a gun present. Perhaps that is why he took him down, thinking it would be safer with him on the ground than standing and able to draw his gun. We don't know and therefore any commentary will be assumption.



Not only are the laws in living memory, but the legislation that protected the country from similar things from happening was just struck down. I don't know that the majority of African-Americans felt victorious after the OJ trial, but it was probably the first ever high profile court case in which an African-American wasn't found guilty or railroaded when most thought he was done for.

But based on what this case has seemed to say, all African-Americans, or at least young black men in Florida, should arm themselves with handguns. If they see a suspicious white looking man following them home at night and feel threatened, they should shoot him first and ask questions later. Yet after being stalked, confronted, potentially attacked or harassed, just shooting the guy was not the response that was forthcoming. Very ironic.


Here are some recent stats. However, if you look over the history of our country, it should be pretty obvious that whites killing blacks is the reality whereas blacks killing whites is the fear and rhetoric swallowed with our mother's milk.
http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/national/interracial-murder-on-the-rise

 

[pumpkinpie1]

Man, are you kidding?



Critical thinking requires being critical of what we assume, believe, and indeed is factual.

 

[Moroccangirl]

Am I right in thinking jurors in America re picked randomly from the electoral roll the same way ours are?

Heres my issue with the "courts are racist" angle: There is zero evidence the decision was made on racial grounds. Unless you want to go the route of saying no white citizen can find a person who kills a black person guilty then I don't see the relevance of the jurors' race.

Unless there is actual evidence of racism in a specific case then any racial motivation in the decision is purely assumptive and its counter productive to actually changig racism if you're going to assume everyone's a racist. All claiming the decision was at least partly to do with race, without evidence, does is make race a spotlght issue where it shouldn't beand then makes people try to find racism where there isn't any.

As for all the profiling stuff I didn't say I agreed with it, I said I can understand people using it in certain situations. If you can't then we are completely different and its a pointless discussion

 

[shoty1054]

If you think it is alright to target an entire race for scrutiny because certain people with that race have done certain things, then you are a racist and there is nothing more to say about it because that is where logic and common sense go out the door and prejudice and ignorance take over. No, not all Germans are automatically Nazis and all white businessmen are not automatically embezzlers and taking advantage of the system. Not all Asians are smart and good at math and not all African-American male youths are dangerous and up to no good.

So if you find yourself making assumptions based on someone's race, you need to look at yourself and examine your own ignorance.

 

[Sharada]

I apologize. I didn't realize you weren't American so I assumed you had the faintest clue about the issues we were discussing from an experiential basis. Now I understand that you probably sincerely don't get what we're discussing. If we were discussing British/Irish or issues that Pakistani immigrants faced in the UK, I would probably be at a similar handicap. However, I tend to think I would familiarize myself a bit with the situation and racial tensions, history, and social situation before being as vocal with as much conviction.



There is precedent, and continual racial inequality in all aspects of American society. We all have learned to navigate throughout this environment and it may seem a bit hard to comprehend to outsiders(it can be for Americans as well).

 

[texasmommy]

So you admit that there is no evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin. Then according to the laws of any civilized nation, he is innocent. Period.

Irrelevant. Yes, Zimmerman is apparently a paranoid, racist moron. That does not constitute evidence that he committed murder or any other crime.

I am not assuming; I am drawing conclusions based on evidence. There is no evidence that Zimmerman is lying, and a court of law acquitted him, therefore I believe him. You are assuming otherwise based on your completely irrelevant estimation of him as a person.

Being followed, in and of itself, does not justify violence. I am genuinely disturbed that you would argue otherwise.

We have a story that held up in court and which has not been contradicted by any evidence. You are stretching: you are choosing to believe that Zimmerman is a murderer, despite a complete lack of evidence that this is true, based on your feelings about Zimmerman.

Unless that criticism is based on evidence, it is speculative nonsense.

 

[garrettcallen7]

How long would you let someone follow you before you had something to say about it?

 

[MissingHimEveryday]

I have no problem with saying something, nor do I have any problem with someone calling the cops (we know Martin had his phone) and saying, "Some weirdo is following me." But that's not what we're talking about here.

 

[BillyK]

I thought I was quite clear I don't agree with profiling? Condoning and understanding are not synonyms.

I'm aware the US has racial issues. I probably dobt understand quite how severe they are but hey. The point I'm trying to get across is I don't see what you're trying to say. If your point is simply that there qas an all white jury then fine. Thats obviously true. If however you're trying to say them being white played a role in their decision, whixh js what I gathered you were saying, then I would need evidence of that to believe you. And its not conclusive evidence of racism in this particular case to say its a general issue in the court system. That just means we can never trust any decision made by a jury because we can assume they all made their decision on racial grounds. Regardless of the race of the jurors they're either racially motivated for or against the defendant.

Thats why I dont accept it as a fact that race was important during the trial. Beause if I did, without evidence, then I might as well never trust any court decision ever because I can just as easily blame race in any of them and yiu might as well not have a court system.

 

[XReader]

Afro-caribbean immigrants have not had the best time of it in the UK either, ask anyone who remembers the riots in Notting Hill, Brixton, St. Paul's in Bristol et al.

Memories are either short, or selective.

Southpaw; please read this article, as it pertains to jury selection in Southern states, including Florida: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/us/02jury.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0

Here's a hint as to the content:
“racially motivated jury selection is still prevalent 20 years after Batson.”
- Mississippi Supreme Court