Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

[Imdanny]

The part I'm arguing is that, yeah, race is a great big goddam deal in America, it's been a factor in shooting after shooting after shooting, it was likely a big part of Zimmerman's motivation, and I'm sadly pretty certain that it's playing a part in the decision-making process at the prosecutors office.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNI5CA5jijw

Wow. Just wow.

Let the cries of "we can't be sure", "people disagree", and "nobody can know" commence, but I heard what I heard.

"They always get away."

But they weren't going to this time, were they?

Incredible.

 

[MissStepcut]

The part I'm arguing is that, yeah, race is a great big goddam deal in America, it's been a factor in shooting after shooting after shooting, it was likely a big part of Zimmerman's motivation, and I'm sadly pretty certain that it's playing a part in the decision-making process at the prosecutors office.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNI5CA5jijw

Wow. Just wow.

Let the cries of "we can't be sure", "people disagree", and "nobody can know" commence, but I heard what I heard.

"They always get away."

But they weren't going to this time, were they?

Incredible.

I actually already mentioned the racial slur earlier in this thread.

I am starting to get the sense you want to have arguments that no one else is having. That you think those of us who are defending the prosecutor's office are also defending Zimmerman's actions. That those of us who see the legal situation as complicated and understand why the police are acting more slowly than usual, think that Zimmerman should go free. I don't see anyone having the debate you seem to be trying to argue the other side of.

I don't think there's any reason to assume that the police have failed to make an arrest out of racial motivations. And I wonder if, after the discussion of the limitations put on police by the Stand Your Ground law, and the presence of the DOJ down in FL, if Circe still thinks so too.

 

[Matata]

Ignorant does not mean stupid.
Ignorance is the lack of education or knowledge.

And there is a difference between knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge is the total of facts one knows and wisdom is the ability not to be blinded by fact. There are times, such as when I've sat on juries that had to let a guilty person go free because of a technicality, when fact trumps wisdom, justice serves the guilty, and injustice hammers the innocent.

 

[AGBF]

The part I'm arguing is that, yeah, race is a great big goddam deal in America, it's been a factor in shooting after shooting after shooting, it was likely a big part of Zimmerman's motivation, and I'm sadly pretty certain that it's playing a part in the decision-making process at the prosecutors office.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNI5CA5jijw

Wow. Just wow.

Let the cries of "we can't be sure", "people disagree", and "nobody can know" commence, but I heard what I heard.

"They always get away."

But they weren't going to this time, were they?

Incredible.

I actually already mentioned the racial slur earlier in this thread.

I am starting to get the sense you want to have arguments that no one else is having. That you think those of us who are defending the prosecutor's office are also defending Zimmerman's actions. That those of us who see the legal situation as complicated and understand why the police are acting more slowly than usual, think that Zimmerman should go free. I don't see anyone having the debate you seem to be trying to argue the other side of.

I don't think there's any reason to assume that the police have failed to make an arrest out of racial motivations. And I wonder if, after the discussion of the limitations put on police by the Stand Your Ground law, and the presence of the DOJ down in FL, if Circe still thinks so too.

MissStepcut-

I'm going to say to you basically what I said to Gypsy. I believe that guarding the legal rights of individuals is important, very important; it is why I support the ACLU. However, there are different ways to regard the Trayvon Martin tragedy: as an individual legal case that must be handled properly according to the present laws or as the impetus for social reform. I see it as the opportunity for the latter. If there is some way to prosecute George Zimmerman within the confines of law, I would like to see it done. If he is innocent of the charges (and the burden of proof must be on the prosecution), so be it. But it seems to me that there is plenty of evidence that he killed Trayvon Martin under circumstances that could warrant a trial. I would like to see some entity-be it the State of Florida or the federal government for someone having violated Mr. Martin's civil rights-find a way to try Mr. Zimmerman. Otherwise, how will the facts come out?

But mainly I would like to see consciousness raised about racism; vigilantism; and the Stand Your Ground law, which I think should be changed.

Deb/AGBF

 

[MissStepcut]

AGBF, I just don't think that you have to choose. You can recognize the legal constraints, and still hope for justice and social change.

 

[Karl_K]

If there is some way to prosecute George Zimmerman within the confines of law, I would like to see it done. If he is innocent of the charges (and the burden of proof must be on the prosecution), so be it. But it seems to me that there is plenty of evidence that he killed Trayvon Martin under circumstances that could warrant a trial.

If his actions were legal under Florida law, notice I did not say right, I said legal, why should he be further victimized by the criminal system? edit: I use victim in the legal sense because under law if it was legal he was the victim.
The bolded part is your opinion based on what facts and opinions you have been presented with which may be incomplete or wrong. My opinion doing the same is below

Like I said earlier under IL law he would be charged and likely convicted because he became the aggressor when he gave chase under IL law. That he did that part is agreed on by all reports.
My personal opinion which does not mean anything in a legal sense is that I agree with the IL law in this area.
However he will not be judge by IL law, rather Florida law as interpreted by the courts.

 

[Imdanny]

MissStepcut, the pretense that you "understand" the law is unwarranted. You have an opinion about it. Others are entitled to have their own opinion of it. You disagree with some about the law. That's your opinion. Plenty of lawyers in this thread have disagreed with you. You state you understand it and others don't. No, they disagree .

Moreover, you say that others have not argued about race. I'm not going to quote the relevant posts but you should re-read the thread.

Please drop this, "I understand; you're ignorant" non-argument and make your own points.

I provided you with a statute to talk about. It doesn't appear that you even read it.

If you want to talk about the law, you have to get into the details. It's not a discussion when you meet questions with platitudes like, "I'm not saying it might not apply."

 

[AGBF]

If there is some way to prosecute George Zimmerman within the confines of law, I would like to see it done. If he is innocent of the charges (and the burden of proof must be on the prosecution), so be it. But it seems to me that there is plenty of evidence that he killed Trayvon Martin under circumstances that could warrant a trial.

If his actions were legal under Florida law, notice I did not say right, I said legal, why should he be further victimized by the criminal system?

Because his actions were unacceptable.

Because his actions were inexcusable.

Because his actions were racist.

Because his actions undermined fundamental human dignity and human rights.

Because the federal government has to serve notice that this will no longer be allowed.

I am surprised that you are actually asking me this question, Karl. Why did the judiciary branch of the United States federal government first start to prosecute crimes against African-Americans as violations of the civil rights of those individuals? Because state laws allowed the persecution of African Americans!

He may not have violated a state law, but he may have violated a federal one!

Deb/AGBF

 

[lulu]

If, in fact, events unfolded as Zimmerman said they did, The Stand Your Ground law is inapplicable. That's a question of fact. The police thought the physical evidence was consistent with his story.I mean, how did he get injured on the back of his head?

I'm confused about the racist aspect. Zimmerman's friends, including black friends, say he's not. http://www.newser.com/story/142588/zimmermans-lawyer-hes-not-a-racist.html

If there is a racist element, is it Zimmerman's caucasian half or his hispanic half that's at fault? But maybe he's 60% hispanic and 40% caucasian.

The prosecutor's job is not to change the law. His mandate is to enforce the existing law. Again, I don't know what happened and neither does anyone else on this board.

 

[Circe]

The part I'm arguing is that, yeah, race is a great big goddam deal in America, it's been a factor in shooting after shooting after shooting, it was likely a big part of Zimmerman's motivation, and I'm sadly pretty certain that it's playing a part in the decision-making process at the prosecutors office.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNI5CA5jijw

Wow. Just wow.

Let the cries of "we can't be sure", "people disagree", and "nobody can know" commence, but I heard what I heard.

"They always get away."

But they weren't going to this time, were they?

Incredible.

I actually already mentioned the racial slur earlier in this thread.

I am starting to get the sense you want to have arguments that no one else is having. That you think those of us who are defending the prosecutor's office are also defending Zimmerman's actions. That those of us who see the legal situation as complicated and understand why the police are acting more slowly than usual, think that Zimmerman should go free. I don't see anyone having the debate you seem to be trying to argue the other side of.

I don't think there's any reason to assume that the police have failed to make an arrest out of racial motivations. And I wonder if, after the discussion of the limitations put on police by the Stand Your Ground law, and the presence of the DOJ down in FL, if Circe still thinks so too.

Just saw this, and, again, I sort of have to ask ... is this a trick question?

I understand the points that our esteemed legal professionals have raised. I've spent a fair portion of the last few days turning them over in my head. Some of them make sense, in a pure logic fashion: if a, then b; if you acknowledge the validity of the stand-your-ground law, then you could conceivably introduce the possibility that a jury could be convinced that Zimmerman had cause. Although, personally speaking, I really do not see how it can be used by Zimmerman in this case, as he was less "standing his ground," and more pursuing a stranger against the advice of the police. But, fine.

But this question doesn't make any sense to me, at all. The pure-logic reasoning is failing to acknowledge that this country does suffer tremendous racial tensions. If the situation were reversed, and a concerned black man had followed a white teenager through his neighborhood because he didn't think the kid belonged there, and he shot him, only to have it be found that the kid were unarmed ... in all seriousness, do you think he would not at the least have been taken into custody and questioned?

 

[lulu]

Zimmerman was questioned at the police station for hours.

 

[Imdanny]

I don't think there's any reason to assume that the police have failed to make an arrest out of racial motivations.

If that were so then why is the Sanford police department involved in a racist smear campaign?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/trayvon-martins-family-blames-police-for-leaking-info-on-marijuana-suspension-other-details/2012/03/27/gIQAGT8cdS_story.html?tid=pm_national_pop

And BTW, a whistle-blower from within the Sanford police department has leaked to ABC News that an officer on the scene tampered with a witness by attempting to plant Zimmerman's story.

I think someone already mentioned the fact Trayson Martin was John Doe for three days. The police didn't even bother to take the dead boy's cellphone and attempt to contact his mother nor even ask in the neighborhood if anyone knew his identity.

This is a police department with a long history of problems re: race. You can look it up.

"News reports noted that the police department of the city of Sanford has faced previous allegations of racial prejudice.[86] In 2011, chief of police Brian Tooley was forced from office after declining to prosecute a police lieutenant's son for beating up a homeless black man, in an incident caught on video. After the footage went viral on YouTube, the perpetrator, Justin Collison, was arrested.[86][87][88] The officer in charge of that case was also in charge of the Trayvon Martin shooting scene.[43] In 2005, two parking lot security guards, one the son of a Sanford police department veteran and the other a volunteer for the department, shot a black teen, Travares McGill, in the back, killing him. The guards asserted self-defense, and the case was dismissed in court.[86][89]"

Wikipedia- Trayvon Martin case entry.

And this is a very small, recent, and incomplete list.

So contrary to your posts on this, nobody is making unwarranted assumptions about the Sanford police.

 

[Circe]

Mm. Hours. Again ... think that would be the case if the situation were reversed?

And to address an earlier point ... what's with the notion that only white folks are racist? Trust me, just because some portions of the majority lump every other ethnicity and nationality into a big box labled "Other," doesn't mean there's no internecine strife. Or internalized prejudice, for that matter.

 

[Imdanny]

If, in fact, events unfolded as Zimmerman said they did, The Stand Your Ground law is inapplicable. That's a question of fact. The police thought the physical evidence was consistent with his story.I mean, how did he get injured on the back of his head?

I'm confused about the racist aspect. Zimmerman's friends, including black friends, say he's not. http://www.newser.com/story/142588/zimmermans-lawyer-hes-not-a-racist.html

If there is a racist element, is it Zimmerman's caucasian half or his hispanic half that's at fault? But maybe he's 60% hispanic and 40% caucasian.

The prosecutor's job is not to change the law. His mandate is to enforce the existing law. Again, I don't know what happened and neither does anyone else on this board.

I think Maria already covered this.

 

[Imdanny]

If there is some way to prosecute George Zimmerman within the confines of law, I would like to see it done. If he is innocent of the charges (and the burden of proof must be on the prosecution), so be it. But it seems to me that there is plenty of evidence that he killed Trayvon Martin under circumstances that could warrant a trial.

If his actions were legal under Florida law, notice I did not say right, I said legal, why should he be further victimized by the criminal system? edit: I use victim in the legal sense because under law if it was legal he was the victim.
The bolded part is your opinion based on what facts and opinions you have been presented with which may be incomplete or wrong. My opinion doing the same is below

Like I said earlier under IL law he would be charged and likely convicted because he became the aggressor when he gave chase under IL law. That he did that part is agreed on by all reports.
My personal opinion which does not mean anything in a legal sense is that I agree with the IL law in this area.
However he will not be judge by IL law, rather Florida law as interpreted by the courts.

Karl, he hasn't be victimized by the criminal system at all. He's been questioned. That's it.

 

[missy]

Mm. Hours. Again ... think that would be the case if the situation were reversed?

And to address an earlier point ... what's with the notion that only white folks are racist? Trust me, just because some portions of the majority lump every other ethnicity and nationality into a big box labled "Other," doesn't mean there's no internecine strife. Or internalized prejudice, for that matter.

Yes, there is no exclusivity on just who can be racist. That's one belief that can cross all lines-color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Anyone can be racist no matter their race. Racism knows no color boundaries.

 

[Imdanny]

If there is a racist element, is it Zimmerman's caucasian half or his hispanic half that's at fault?

Whichever half it was that said "effing coons".

 

[lulu]

Well, thank God this is over. No need for further investigation or a trial. String the guy up and be done with it.

 

[Imdanny]

I mean, how did he get injured on the back of his head?

Injured in Trayvon Martin's attempt at self defense against a rascist freak that had was stalking him with a 9?

Just a guess. I'm not aware of any hospital report, doctors' records, police photographs, or any other proof that he even had an injury on the back of his head other than one police report that was completely vague.

Oo- I hope they offered him some alcohol and a band-aid for his boo-boo.

 

[Imdanny]

Well, thank God this is over. No need for further investigation or a trial. String the guy up and be done with it.

That's what the Sanford police department hoped. Now they only wish.

 

[Circe]

Just checking: you do realize that's why people are so upset over this, right? Not because one young boy was killed, but because it plays into a long, long history of young black men being strung up, shot, beaten, killed, all because our society tells us that, a) they're dangerous and, even when they're only armed with Skittles, so it's okay if bad things happen to them and b) because once bad things happen to them, there are rarely consequences for the people who do those bad things - which tells us that they're worthless.

Trayvon Martin's death as case-in-point is a tragedy. Trayvon Martin's death as part of a pattern, though? Encapsulates a slew of our social problems, in a nutshell, and words fail me when I try to think of what to call that.

 

[lulu]

Circe,
aren't you patronizing? At your age I also thought I knew everything, but 35 years of sitting in court everyday listening to every aspect of the human condition corrected that problem. I won't be coming back here. Obviously, discussion was never the goal.

 

[MissStepcut]

MissStepcut, the pretense that you "understand" the law is unwarranted. You have an opinion about it. Others are entitled to have their own opinion of it. You disagree with some about the law. That's your opinion. Plenty of lawyers in this thread have disagreed with you. You state you understand it and others don't. No, they disagree .

Moreover, you say that others have not argued about race. I'm not going to quote the relevant posts but you should re-read the thread.

Please drop this, "I understand; you're ignorant" non-argument and make your own points.

I provided you with a statute to talk about. It doesn't appear that you even read it.

If you want to talk about the law, you have to get into the details. It's not a discussion when you meet questions with platitudes like, "I'm not saying it might not apply."

I've asked for it before but I'll ask again: where is the legal analysis that says that the police do not need to make a factual determination under the Stand Your Ground law prior to arresting Zimmerman? I haven't seen any lawyer in this thread or in the media coverage say that, so I am still operating on the analysis from a criminal law professor that I posted. And I have read the statute, that's why I am still sticking to the position I'm in. Did you read the analysis I posted and linked to?

Where did I say no one is arguing about race? Quote me please. I am tired of you putting words in my mouth.

It's not a question of ignorance or knowledge, it's a question of stopping and looking at the legal constraints. Again, I am not saying Stand Your Ground will be an effective defense. I am saying that the police are forced to take it into account and make factual determinations prior to arrest.

Emotional responses are fine, and even useful. Everyone is entitled to them. I've had my fair share of outrage and horror. But I still don't see that the police's failure to arrest Zimmerman is racially motivated, or even avoidable by them at this juncture.

 

[MissStepcut]

Just saw this, and, again, I sort of have to ask ... is this a trick question?

I understand the points that our esteemed legal professionals have raised. I've spent a fair portion of the last few days turning them over in my head. Some of them make sense, in a pure logic fashion: if a, then b; if you acknowledge the validity of the stand-your-ground law, then you could conceivably introduce the possibility that a jury could be convinced that Zimmerman had cause. Although, personally speaking, I really do not see how it can be used by Zimmerman in this case, as he was less "standing his ground," and more pursuing a stranger against the advice of the police. But, fine.

But this question doesn't make any sense to me, at all. The pure-logic reasoning is failing to acknowledge that this country does suffer tremendous racial tensions. If the situation were reversed, and a concerned black man had followed a white teenager through his neighborhood because he didn't think the kid belonged there, and he shot him, only to have it be found that the kid were unarmed ... in all seriousness, do you think he would not at the least have been taken into custody and questioned?

In no way a trick question. And what you're saying isn't really what I am saying, about what a jury might conclude, though I think it was Gypsy's point. I was referring only to your comment Danny quoted about the prosecution's choice being racially motivated.

Again, I am not suggesting that the statute is going to be an effective defense for Zimmerman. But I do think it's a "defense" to the police and the prosecutor's slow response.

 

[Karl_K]

Because his actions were unacceptable. your opinion based on not having all the true facts, which I don't have either

Because his actions were inexcusable. your opinion based on not having all the true facts, which I don't have either

Because his actions were racist. your opinion based on not having all the true facts, which I don't have either

Because his actions undermined fundamental human dignity and human rights. your opinion based on not having all the true facts, which I don't have either

Because the federal government has to serve notice that this will no longer be allowed. your opinion based on not having all the true facts, which I don't have either

I am surprised that you are actually asking me this question, Karl. Why did the judiciary branch of the United States federal government first start to prosecute crimes against African-Americans as violations of the civil rights of those individuals? Because state laws allowed the persecution of African Americans!
Why are the same laws not used against African-americans when they attack whites? because the laws are racist.

Deb see my edit above I knew you would jump on that word.
Legally if it was legal under Florida law he is the victim.

No one posting in this thread has the true facts of the incident.
Only the over hyped and sometimes downright wrong media reports.

 

[missy]

Circe,
aren't you patronizing? At your age I also thought I knew everything, but 35 years of sitting in court everyday listening to every aspect of the human condition corrected that problem. I won't be coming back here. Obviously, discussion was never the goal.

Lulu, I wish you would stay. I think it is important to share all viewpoints here and as Karl wisely points out no one has the true facts at this point anyway.

What I do know so far is that this is a terrible tragedy and a young man lost his life at such a young age. That's all I know for sure at this point.

 

[Circe]

MSC - Okay, I can buy that. I'm not saying the Sanford PD is a branch of the KKK, or anything: just that they're subject to the same forces that shape the rest of the nation, including racism. ETA: AND it went unsaid initially, but on rereading seems worth emphasizing; oh yeah I continue to think Zimmerman's attack was racially motivated. 40+ 911 calls concerning kids who were of color in his neighborhood?

Lulu - I actually couldn't tell if you were making a statement or just choosing an incredibly unlucky turn of phrase when you said "stringing up." That's kind of a sore spot. If my serious response to your sarcasm struck you as condescending and hurt your feelings ... I actually don't know what to say to that. Reap what ye sow?

 

[makemepretty]

I guess the past 8 pages are why we weren't talking about this. It's all opinions. None of us were there and we will never be told ALL the facts. A new one trickles in each day. I feel sorry for all parties involved. I also feel sorry for Gypsy who has just been a voice of reason, trying to point out it's not as black and white as it seems to so many people, figuratively and literally.

Our society loves labels and something to talk about. People of other races kill each other EVERY SINGLE DAY and it's not known world wide. In the next town over a black brother and sister shot an unarmed white male after a very small fender bender. Do you see his family on the news? He didn't do anything wrong and was unarmed. Is this a hate crime? No. It's just sad. Anytime someone loses a life due to something that could have been avoided, it's sad.

 

[MissStepcut]

MSC - Okay, I can buy that. I'm not saying the Sanford PD is a branch of the KKK, or anything: just that they're subject to the same forces that shape the rest of the nation, including racism.

Agreed. But I have a lot more faith in the DOJ. Even with them breathing down local authorities' necks, still no arrest yet. That makes me think it's unfair to pin the failure to arrest or charge Zimmerman on prosecutorial racism.

Edit for your edit: totally agree. And for the record, as the big sister of a half-black half-samoan brother, and a woman pregnant with a half South Asian baby, I'm horrified down to my toes at Zimmerman's comments and actions. Truly.

 

[beebrisk]

Just checking: you do realize that's why people are so upset over this, right? Not because one young boy was killed, but because it plays into a long, long history of young black men being strung up, shot, beaten, killed, all because our society tells us that, a) they're dangerous and, even when they're only armed with Skittles, so it's okay if bad things happen to them and b) because once bad things happen to them, there are rarely consequences for the people who do those bad things - which tells us that they're worthless.

Trayvon Martin's death as case-in-point is a tragedy. Trayvon Martin's death as part of a pattern, though? Encapsulates a slew of our social problems, in a nutshell, and words fail me when I try to think of what to call that.

I can't even begin to say how much I disagree with this assertion as I do with so many others here.

First off, "our society" does NOT tell us that young men of color are "dangerous and that it's okay if bad things happen to them". To the contrary. That is what our disingenuous and divisive media has drummed into the psyches of a public all too hungry to believe that we live in one big, hateful, racist, cesspool of a country.

To make matters worse, those who profit by such a notion have no better solutions than to call for "retaliation" (Louis Farrakahn) and by placing a bounty on the head of Zimmerman (NBP's). Not wanting to miss out on an opportunity to exploit another tragedy in order to further their own social and political agendas, Sharpton and Jackson are in the fray now.

I'm not the only one who feels this way, either. C.L Bryant, a former NAACP leader said this of Sharpton and Jackson: “They are...acting as though they are buzzards circling the carcass of this young boy.” He states further: “Why not be angry about the wholesale murder that goes on in the streets of Newark and Chicago?...Why isn’t somebody angry about that six-year-old girl who was killed on her steps last weekend in a cross fire when two gang members in Chicago start shooting at each other? Why is there no outrage about that?”

For crying out loud, his own mother trademarked his name last month. And for what purpose?? According to papers filed: "Fulton, 46, is seeking the trademarks for use on “Digital materials, namely, CDs and DVDs featuring Trayvon Martin,” and other products". It doesn't get more despicable than that, folks.

So yeah, there are racists in this country, but the profiteers of racial dis-harmony are quite content with the status quo and with forcing the idea that we are inherently evil and egregiously uncaring down our collective throats.

I for one, am sick of it and refuse to take on the faux guilt and politically correct hand-wringing over a terrible tragedy that has absolutely NO KNOWN FACTUAL basis in racism.