Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

[mary poppins]

Trayvon's mother provided additional information about her "accident" comment from earlier today, clarifying that she meant Trayvon and George crossing paths was an accident, not the shooting:



Martin's mother, Sybrine Fulton, released a statement on Thursday seeking to clarify what she had said earlier on NBC's "Today."

Earlier, Fulton had told NBC, "I believe it was an accident. I believe that it just got out of control, and he couldn't turn the clock back."

In her subsequent statement, she said her comment had been "mischaracterized."

"When I referenced the word 'accident' today with regard to Trayvon's death, in no way did I mean the shooting was an accident.

"We believe that George Zimmerman stalked my son and murdered him in cold blood," Fulton said. "The 'accident' I was referring to was the fact that George Zimmerman and my son ever crossed paths. It was an accidental encounter. If George Zimmerman hadn't gotten out of his vehicle, this entire incident would have been avoided.

"My son was profiled, followed and murdered by George Zimmerman, and there was nothing accidental about that," she said.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/12/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

ETA link

 

[Maria D]

I think the more telling question is, if Trayvon was the person with the gun and GZ was now dead, would we have had this conversation in the first place?

Huh?

I don't understand your implication.

Are you saying that if Zimmerman had been an unarmed self-appointed neighborhood watchman following/confronting a person (Martin) he deemed suspicious who happened to have a gun and who then used it to shoot and kill Zimmerman we wouldn't be talking about this?

Or are you saying that if Martin had been following Zimmerman around with a gun because he thought Zimmerman was suspicious and the scenario ended with Martin shooting and killing Zimmerman we wouldn't be talking about this.

Maybe you had something else in mind because both of these suppositions miss the point. People aren't talking about this because of who shot and killed whom. They are talking about it because Martin was on his way home minding his own business when Zimmerman, for whatever reason, started a confrontation that ended with taking Martin's life and then Zimmerman was not arrested. The bolded part is key; no arrest was forthcoming until after public outrage led to the appointment of a special prosecutor. People are talking about this case because it looked as if the Sanford Police were not going to do enough to get to the bottom of this case. Would they have eventually? Who knows. Maybe they would have or maybe all the discussion/outrage/protest is exactly what was needed for the right thing to happen.

I am happy with the outcome. In my admittedly non-expert opinion, based on the information that I have heard from the much maligned media, Zimmerman has no right to invoke the SYG law and should be prosecuted.

 

[Maria D]

[quote="beebrisk|

I think the more telling question is, if Trayvon was the person with the gun and GZ was now dead, would we have had this conversation in the first place?

nope, and if Trayvon was an Asian it wouldn't even be on the 6:00 news.[/quote]

Oh please. So you are saying the EXACT same thing had happened except replace Trayvon Martin with, I don't know, Tran Thuy, no one would be the least bit upset? We'd have Mrs. Thuy asking why no arrest had been made, where's the justice and we'd all say, ho hum, who cares, your kid ain't black, so what? If you believe that to be true, or let's just assume that it IS true (that the media wouldn't even pick up the story), then you should be MORE inclined to be outraged and speak out about what happened here. People speaking up and bringing injustices to light can help change things for the better for everyone. How does sitting back and saying, yeah so what, kids get killed every day, help anything?

 

[beebrisk]

[quote="beebrisk|

I think the more telling question is, if Trayvon was the person with the gun and GZ was now dead, would we have had this conversation in the first place?

nope, and if Trayvon was an Asian it wouldn't even be on the 6:00 news.

Oh please. So you are saying the EXACT same thing had happened except replace Trayvon Martin with, I don't know, Tran Thuy, no one would be the least bit upset? We'd have Mrs. Thuy asking why no arrest had been made, where's the justice and we'd all say, ho hum, who cares, your kid ain't black, so what? If you believe that to be true, or let's just assume that it IS true (that the media wouldn't even pick up the story), then you should be MORE inclined to be outraged and speak out about what happened here. People speaking up and bringing injustices to light can help change things for the better for everyone. How does sitting back and saying, yeah so what, kids get killed every day, help anything?[/quote]

It doesn't. But have you looked at the crime stats in a place like Chicagoland lately? Where's the outrage? Why aren't people speaking up about that?? Kids kill other kids there almost on a daily basis!! Many are not even caught, much less arrested. And, while it is reported, it's not exactly a national discussion and certainly wouldn't get 18 pages of attention here on PS.

Why don't Sharpton, Jackson and the NBP's get involved there? Why don't they walk their camera crews through the streets and try, for once, to effect some positive change??

So yes, I will stand by my original statement that if Trayvon were the shooter we would not be having this discussion. Arrest or not. And I agree with Dancing Fire, too.

The only reason this particular case turned into a national event was because of the race of the shooter and of the young man. Period.

 

[Gypsy]

Speaking of firearms brings up a thought. If Zimmerman had not had a gun on him that night, would we even be discussing this? Or would Trayvon still be with us? Did the mere existence of the weapon ensure that one person would not get through an encounter unscathed?

I would imagine that GZ would not have been nearly so brave in chasing down these bad guys, (that look like there is something wrong with them, they are on drugs or something, just walking around looking at houses... ) had he not had a... weapon.

... NOTHING good can come from allowing every person to have a gun...


Without the gun, there would still be 2 people alive. I don't for a minute think that TM would have beaten GZ to death.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Gun control is the one area of Constitutional protections and liberties I'm happy to pass an amendment and 'fix'. Cause I think it's broke. I know why it's there, so we can form a militia and protect our liberties with guns and I don't agree with it even with that understanding. I think it's outdated. Of course, amending the Constitution to outlaw guns is not going to happen in my lifetime but boy, would I be a happy camper if it did.

If this case is anything TO ME (I know many of you don't agree) it's a PRIME example of why we should amend the Constitution and do away with the right to bear arms. The public interest, since that document was drafted, has changed significantly and in my opinion guns are more of a harm than any help at all for the public.

 

[Imdanny]

Yet one more example of how we could follow the EU countries by adopting proven, sane public policy, while we alone stick our heads in the sand. Of course, I understand what the Constitution says, but just because you have a right, in no way means that the government can not impose viable restrictions and rules regarding it.

 

[Imdanny]

The only reason this particular case turned into a national event was because of the race of the shooter and of the young man. Period.

I think this is just a sad argument. The alternative was for a black teenager to be murdered and for his death to be swept under the rug by a police department and State Attorney who have a decades long record of doing just that. Would that have made you happier?

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="beebrisk|

It doesn't. But have you looked at the crime stats in a place like Chicagoland lately? Where's the outrage? Why aren't people speaking up about that?? Kids kill other kids there almost on a daily basis!! Many are not even caught, much less arrested. And, while it is reported, it's not exactly a national discussion and certainly wouldn't get 18 pages of attention here on PS.

Why don't Sharpton, Jackson and the NBP's get involved there? Why don't they walk their camera crews through the streets and try, for once, to effect some positive change??

So yes, I will stand by my original statement that if Trayvon were the shooter we would not be having this discussion. Arrest or not. And I agree with Dancing Fire, too.

The only reason this particular case turned into a national event was because of the race of the shooter and of the young man. Period.[/quote]

+1!!!

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="Gypsy|1334280064|

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Gun control is the one area of Constitutional protections and liberties I'm happy to pass an amendment and 'fix'. Cause I think it's broke. I know why it's there, so we can form a militia and protect our liberties with guns and I don't agree with it even with that understanding. I think it's outdated. Of course, amending the Constitution to outlaw guns is not going to happen in my lifetime but boy, would I be a happy camper if it did.

If this case is anything TO ME (I know many of you don't agree) it's a PRIME example of why we should amend the Constitution and do away with the right to bear arms. The public interest, since that document was drafted, has changed significantly and in my opinion guns are more of a harm than any help at all for the public.[/quote]


i'd agree but will the criminals give up their guns??...

 

[Laila619]

The only reason this particular case turned into a national event was because of the race of the shooter and of the young man. Period.

No. It would be a national event if both the shooter and the victim were white, or asian, or polka-dotted.

It's a national event because it's so shocking and tragic and so egregiously wrong.

 

[beebrisk]

The only reason this particular case turned into a national event was because of the race of the shooter and of the young man. Period.

I think this is just a sad argument. The alternative was for a black teenager to be murdered and for his death to be swept under the rug by a police department and State Attorney who have a decades long record of doing just that. Would that have made you happier?

No. None of it makes me happy. Both scenarios are tragic but that's not my point and I think an honest rebuttal would acknowledge that. What makes me angry AND not happy is the reaction by the media and public and the ensuing hypocrisy.

 

[beebrisk]

The only reason this particular case turned into a national event was because of the race of the shooter and of the young man. Period.

No. It would be a national event if both the shooter and the victim were white, or asian, or polka-dotted.

It's a national event because it's so shocking and tragic and so egregiously wrong.

Take a look at what happens every day in Chicago. It's shocking. It's tragic. It keeps happening. It's egregiously wrong. No discussion, no hand-wringing.

The only difference is that the situation there isn't being used to promote any political/social agenda. The Martin case is nothing more than "useful" to those figures that want to make a point--Not because they actually care about the boy.

 

[Maria D]

[quote="beebrisk|

I think the more telling question is, if Trayvon was the person with the gun and GZ was now dead, would we have had this conversation in the first place?

nope, and if Trayvon was an Asian it wouldn't even be on the 6:00 news.

Oh please. So you are saying the EXACT same thing had happened except replace Trayvon Martin with, I don't know, Tran Thuy, no one would be the least bit upset? We'd have Mrs. Thuy asking why no arrest had been made, where's the justice and we'd all say, ho hum, who cares, your kid ain't black, so what? If you believe that to be true, or let's just assume that it IS true (that the media wouldn't even pick up the story), then you should be MORE inclined to be outraged and speak out about what happened here. People speaking up and bringing injustices to light can help change things for the better for everyone. How does sitting back and saying, yeah so what, kids get killed every day, help anything?

It doesn't. But have you looked at the crime stats in a place like Chicagoland lately? Where's the outrage? Why aren't people speaking up about that?? Kids kill other kids there almost on a daily basis!! Many are not even caught, much less arrested. And, while it is reported, it's not exactly a national discussion and certainly wouldn't get 18 pages of attention here on PS.

Why don't Sharpton, Jackson and the NBP's get involved there? Why don't they walk their camera crews through the streets and try, for once, to effect some positive change??

So yes, I will stand by my original statement that if Trayvon were the shooter we would not be having this discussion. Arrest or not. And I agree with Dancing Fire, too.

The only reason this particular case turned into a national event was because of the race of the shooter and of the young man. Period.[/quote]

Attention on PS is hardly a barometer of any importance -- I've seen as many pages dedicated to such mundane things (in the relative sense of life and death matters) as someone's trip to Vegas. OK, so as I understand you Beebrisk, your irritation stems from the fact that Sharpton and the NBP (not sure what that is) are selective in the injustices they'd like to highlight. You are bothered that they don't fix black-on-black crime and somehow conflate that with fellow PSers talking about THIS particular case here -- saying that WE would not be talking about it if it were not for race. (Actually, you may be right there -- if Martin had been the shooter he probably would have been arrested pronto by the Sanford police so what would there have been to talk about?)

I don't follow Sharpton and I don't know what the NBP is, nor do I care to know. But if they had anything to do with the special prosecutor appointment, then good for them. I came here to talk about THIS case because it is interesting to me. The interest lies in the fact that for a month and a half it appeared that you could shoot and kill in Florida with impunity by invoking SYG. It's got nothing to do with race for me, but clearly it does for you because you believe that anyone talking about this is a "reverse" racist. The last time I got interested in a case in Florida, it had to do with the fact that if you're smart enough to hide the corpse of the child you killed in a place where it will decompose rapidly, a jury will find you not guilty of any charges whatsoever because "beyond a reasonable doubt" has turned into "beyond the shadow of any doubt whatsoever" in the days of d.n.a. evidence and CSI tv shows. In that particular thread PSers were taken to task for too much discussion of a white murdered child when so many children of color are killed, neglected each day. Now we are being taken to task for discussing the killing of a black kid by a non-black...gotta love net nannies.

 

[beebrisk]

[quote="beebrisk|

I think the more telling question is, if Trayvon was the person with the gun and GZ was now dead, would we have had this conversation in the first place?

nope, and if Trayvon was an Asian it wouldn't even be on the 6:00 news.

Oh please. So you are saying the EXACT same thing had happened except replace Trayvon Martin with, I don't know, Tran Thuy, no one would be the least bit upset? We'd have Mrs. Thuy asking why no arrest had been made, where's the justice and we'd all say, ho hum, who cares, your kid ain't black, so what? If you believe that to be true, or let's just assume that it IS true (that the media wouldn't even pick up the story), then you should be MORE inclined to be outraged and speak out about what happened here. People speaking up and bringing injustices to light can help change things for the better for everyone. How does sitting back and saying, yeah so what, kids get killed every day, help anything?

It doesn't. But have you looked at the crime stats in a place like Chicagoland lately? Where's the outrage? Why aren't people speaking up about that?? Kids kill other kids there almost on a daily basis!! Many are not even caught, much less arrested. And, while it is reported, it's not exactly a national discussion and certainly wouldn't get 18 pages of attention here on PS.

Why don't Sharpton, Jackson and the NBP's get involved there? Why don't they walk their camera crews through the streets and try, for once, to effect some positive change??

So yes, I will stand by my original statement that if Trayvon were the shooter we would not be having this discussion. Arrest or not. And I agree with Dancing Fire, too.

The only reason this particular case turned into a national event was because of the race of the shooter and of the young man. Period.

Attention on PS is hardly a barometer of any importance -- I've seen as many pages dedicated to such mundane things (in the relative sense of life and death matters) as someone's trip to Vegas. OK, so as I understand you Beebrisk, your irritation stems from the fact that Sharpton and the NBP (not sure what that is) are selective in the injustices they'd like to highlight. You are bothered that they don't fix black-on-black crime and somehow conflate that with fellow PSers talking about THIS particular case here -- saying that WE would not be talking about it if it were not for race. (Actually, you may be right there -- if Martin had been the shooter he probably would have been arrested pronto by the Sanford police so what would there have been to talk about?)

I don't follow Sharpton and I don't know what the NBP is, nor do I care to know. But if they had anything to do with the special prosecutor appointment, then good for them. I came here to talk about THIS case because it is interesting to me. The interest lies in the fact that for a month and a half it appeared that you could shoot and kill in Florida with impunity by invoking SYG. It's got nothing to do with race for me, but clearly it does for you because you believe that anyone talking about this is a "reverse" racist. The last time I got interested in a case in Florida, it had to do with the fact that if you're smart enough to hide the corpse of the child you killed in a place where it will decompose rapidly, a jury will find you not guilty of any charges whatsoever because "beyond a reasonable doubt" has turned into "beyond the shadow of any doubt whatsoever" in the days of d.n.a. evidence and CSI tv shows. In that particular thread PSers were taken to task for too much discussion of a white murdered child when so many children of color are killed, neglected each day. Now we are being taken to task for discussing the killing of a black kid by a non-black...gotta love net nannies.[/quote]

Nope. I was talking about the media coverage and NATIONAL interest, not my own. And that had everything to do with race. Let's face it, horrific crimes are committed every day and it often takes way more than a month and a half for law enforcement to make a decision and act upon it.

 

[Imdanny]

...gotta love net nannies.

Ok, I have to go there. Mary Poppins, I don't know you very well and when I see your name I always wonder if you're a netnanny. I hope I can be forgiven.

 

[Maria D]

Nope. I was talking about the media coverage and NATIONAL interest, not my own. And that had everything to do with race. Let's face it, horrific crimes are committed every day and it often takes way more than a month and a half for law enforcement to make a decision and act upon it.

This wasn't a month and a half for law enforcement make a decision and act upon it. This was law enforcement dropping the ball and when enough time went by without reasonable action, people said WTF pretty loudly. Reasonable people complained non-violently. A special prosecutor had to be appointed so that something would finally be done. If the victim had been a white or Asian child, Sharpton wouldn't have been there but reasonable people would still have protested -- so I really don't get exactly what is your beef. Does the race of the people that spoke out against the scandal at Penn State matter? Would Paterno have been thrown out if the media had ignored the whole thing? Are you also angry and claiming "ensuing hypocrisy" about the fact that children continue to be sexually abused every day without media attention or do you save this only for when the media hype up a story about a black victim?

 

[beebrisk]

Nope. I was talking about the media coverage and NATIONAL interest, not my own. And that had everything to do with race. Let's face it, horrific crimes are committed every day and it often takes way more than a month and a half for law enforcement to make a decision and act upon it.

This wasn't a month and a half for law enforcement make a decision and act upon it. This was law enforcement dropping the ball and when enough time went by without reasonable action, people said WTF pretty loudly. Reasonable people complained non-violently. A special prosecutor had to be appointed so that something would finally be done. If the victim had been a white or Asian child, Sharpton wouldn't have been there but reasonable people would still have protested -- so I really don't get exactly what is your beef. Does the race of the people that spoke out against the scandal at Penn State matter? Would Paterno have been thrown out if the media had ignored the whole thing? Are you also angry and claiming "ensuing hypocrisy" about the fact that children continue to be sexually abused every day without media attention or do you save this only for when the media hype up a story about a black victim?[/quote]

Nope. But I do notice that arguments fall apart when the insinuation that I'm a racist is pulled out of the hat.

 

[Maria D]

Nope. I was talking about the media coverage and NATIONAL interest, not my own. And that had everything to do with race. Let's face it, horrific crimes are committed every day and it often takes way more than a month and a half for law enforcement to make a decision and act upon it.

This wasn't a month and a half for law enforcement make a decision and act upon it. This was law enforcement dropping the ball and when enough time went by without reasonable action, people said WTF pretty loudly. Reasonable people complained non-violently. A special prosecutor had to be appointed so that something would finally be done. If the victim had been a white or Asian child, Sharpton wouldn't have been there but reasonable people would still have protested -- so I really don't get exactly what is your beef. Does the race of the people that spoke out against the scandal at Penn State matter? Would Paterno have been thrown out if the media had ignored the whole thing? Are you also angry and claiming "ensuing hypocrisy" about the fact that children continue to be sexually abused every day without media attention or do you save this only for when the media hype up a story about a black victim?[/quote]

Nope. But I do notice that arguments fall apart when the insinuation that I'm a racist is pulled out of the hat.

Again, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. I don't think my argument is "falling apart" and I'm not insinuating that you are racist. I am pointing out that your thesis that the reason for the media coverage, NATIONAL interest, and 18 PS pages on this particular case is solely based on race has no basis. The media makes a big deal out of particular issues without delving into the larger problem all the time. The Penn State scandal is an example of this. Children are sexually abused every day but THAT case got attention because it involved a cover-up by a (yet another) revered institution. To hear you tell it, the media made a big deal out of this case only because Martin is black. It simply isn't true. I don't think believing this makes you racist, just wrong. I also happen to disagree that peaceful protest against a particular injustice is a bad thing, or a hypocritical thing, if the protestors are not protesting every similar injustice out there.

 

[FrekeChild]

Beebrisk, I don't think anyone here thinks you're racist, and I'm really not sure where you would get that from?

At this point, I don't really know what to think. I know that Trayvon should still be here. I feel like George should have been held in custody while everything was investigated. I think that the police department really screwed this one up. I think that George should have never been in possession of a firearm in the first place. I think that George will be ostracized and he may be better off in prison, probably would have to be in solitary confinement. I think that someone with a failed law enforcement career and an over-eager trigger finger jumped to conclusions without thinking or talking first, took justice into his own hands, and as a result, a boy is dead.

Am I familiar enough with the justice system to say that a crime was committed? No. Other people who are more educated in that say that it would be very hard to prove. I have to take their word on that. I have to depend on other people to interpret the law the best that they can.

But my internal moral code is shouting at me that Trayvon should not have died that night. That George is responsible for Trayvon's death. That an armed man came across an unarmed boy and the man killed the boy. And that is not ok. That that man needs to be held responsible for taking that boy's life.

I don't know if there was struggle. I don't know if Trayvon came at George in the way that teenage boys do, like they are invincible (I have a 17 year old nephew, they are idiots at that age). I don't know if George was following Trayvon and Trayvon felt like he had to protect himself and turned to fight. I don't know if George actually thought that Trayvon was a threat to his life and thought that the only way to protect himself was to shoot.

(I really do not think that George needed to shoot Trayvon in the chest. If there is an incident and a gun is your only method of protecting yourself, and you feel like you have no other choice but to shoot that weapon, there are plenty of other non-lethal areas of the body to shoot that will put a non-horror movie villain down in an instant.)

I do know that George is going to have to live with this every day for the rest of his life. But that's not good enough for my internal moral code.

 

[GlamMosher]

But my internal moral code is shouting at me that Trayvon should not have died that night. That George is responsible for Trayvon's death. That an armed man came across an unarmed boy and the man killed the boy. And that is not ok. That that man needs to be held responsible for taking that boy's life.

That's it in a nutshell. And to me, it does not matter what colour or creed either of them were. It may have played a part in what happened but to me it is wrong regardless.

 

[GlamMosher]

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Gun control is the one area of Constitutional protections and liberties I'm happy to pass an amendment and 'fix'. Cause I think it's broke. I know why it's there, so we can form a militia and protect our liberties with guns and I don't agree with it even with that understanding. I think it's outdated. Of course, amending the Constitution to outlaw guns is not going to happen in my lifetime but boy, would I be a happy camper if it did.

If this case is anything TO ME (I know many of you don't agree) it's a PRIME example of why we should amend the Constitution and do away with the right to bear arms. The public interest, since that document was drafted, has changed significantly and in my opinion guns are more of a harm than any help at all for the public.

That's the Aussie in you coming out, Gyps!

 

[minousbijoux]

I think the more telling question is, if Trayvon was the person with the gun and GZ was now dead, would we have had this conversation in the first place?

Huh?

I don't understand your implication.

Are you saying that if Zimmerman had been an unarmed self-appointed neighborhood watchman following/confronting a person (Martin) he deemed suspicious who happened to have a gun and who then used it to shoot and kill Zimmerman we wouldn't be talking about this?

Or are you saying that if Martin had been following Zimmerman around with a gun because he thought Zimmerman was suspicious and the scenario ended with Martin shooting and killing Zimmerman we wouldn't be talking about this.

Maybe you had something else in mind because both of these suppositions miss the point. People aren't talking about this because of who shot and killed whom. They are talking about it because Martin was on his way home minding his own business when Zimmerman, for whatever reason, started a confrontation that ended with taking Martin's life and then Zimmerman was not arrested. The bolded part is key; no arrest was forthcoming until after public outrage led to the appointment of a special prosecutor. People are talking about this case because it looked as if the Sanford Police were not going to do enough to get to the bottom of this case. Would they have eventually? Who knows. Maybe they would have or maybe all the discussion/outrage/protest is exactly what was needed for the right thing to happen.

I am happy with the outcome. In my admittedly non-expert opinion, based on the information that I have heard from the much maligned media, Zimmerman has no right to invoke the SYG law and should be prosecuted.

Absolutely great response, Maria, I could not agree more.

 

[minousbijoux]

The only reason this particular case turned into a national event was because of the race of the shooter and of the young man. Period.

There is absolutely no indication that this would be so and for you to assume that is exactly that - a huge assumption on your part.

 

[minousbijoux]

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Gun control is the one area of Constitutional protections and liberties I'm happy to pass an amendment and 'fix'. Cause I think it's broke. I know why it's there, so we can form a militia and protect our liberties with guns and I don't agree with it even with that understanding. I think it's outdated. Of course, amending the Constitution to outlaw guns is not going to happen in my lifetime but boy, would I be a happy camper if it did.

If this case is anything TO ME (I know many of you don't agree) it's a PRIME example of why we should amend the Constitution and do away with the right to bear arms. The public interest, since that document was drafted, has changed significantly and in my opinion guns are more of a harm than any help at all for the public.

Well said, Gypsy!

 

[Gypsy]

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Gun control is the one area of Constitutional protections and liberties I'm happy to pass an amendment and 'fix'. Cause I think it's broke. I know why it's there, so we can form a militia and protect our liberties with guns and I don't agree with it even with that understanding. I think it's outdated. Of course, amending the Constitution to outlaw guns is not going to happen in my lifetime but boy, would I be a happy camper if it did.

If this case is anything TO ME (I know many of you don't agree) it's a PRIME example of why we should amend the Constitution and do away with the right to bear arms. The public interest, since that document was drafted, has changed significantly and in my opinion guns are more of a harm than any help at all for the public.

That's the Aussie in you coming out, Gyps!

Probably. Because we now have the example of democratic (ish) freedom loving countries (that the Founding Father's did not have) like Australia that don't need that right to protect themselves against the government. We've evolved beyond it (IMO). And with that better example in my minds eye, I see the news here about shooting (there was a bad one in Oakland in a nursing school just last week where a ton of people died) and after shooting, after shooting and I think... if there were no guns that would be harder to do.

And DF-- Yes, it will be hard to run down criminals with guns. But if the police aren't kept busy with tragedies like this one that COULD have been prevented with Gun Control, then they would have more time to run after the criminals with the guns. Win/win. Trayvon is alive and the cops can devote their time and effort (and the time and effort of the courts and prosecutors) toward getting the criminals that won't give up their guns willingly.

 

[minousbijoux]

But my internal moral code is shouting at me that Trayvon should not have died that night. That George is responsible for Trayvon's death. That an armed man came across an unarmed boy and the man killed the boy. And that is not ok. That that man needs to be held responsible for taking that boy's life.

I agree as well and the only thing that I would add is "That an armed man came across an unarmed boy, followed the boy and the man killed the boy." "And there was no arrest for weeks." "That that man needs to be held responsible for taking that boy's life."

 

[beebrisk]

The only reason this particular case turned into a national event was because of the race of the shooter and of the young man. Period.

There is absolutely no indication that this would be so and for you to assume that is exactly that - a huge assumption on your part.

Not an assumption. An opinion. Based on facts and evidence.

There is every indication it's so. When was the last time the president commented about a young person dying on the streets? An inordinate amount of death and destruction happens on his own turf; in in his own hometown of Chicago yet I've never heard him comment the way he did a few weeks ago. Yes, there is every indication it's so.

I maintain that if GZ killed a white boy, we'd not be having this discussion. If he killed an Asian boy, there'd be no outrage. Those 2 scenarios would have made the local broadcasts and that's about it.

This incident was used by the media and others who took a tragedy and turned it into a cynical political ploy.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi Bee Brisk,

I don't think you know Chicago very well. The outrage in Chicago is expressed by people every day. Jessie jackson has always been involved, along with churches, community groups, law enforcement and just plain folk. Actually crime has fallen dramatically in Chicago, but they do have gangs that are a big problem. Crime makes our newpapers all the time. Gee, I think our President was a community organizer, which deals with all aspects of city life.

Here's the question. Do you think that if you can't deal with all questionable crime, horrific as it may be, you should not deal with any? That amazes me. Even if what you say has truth, we have deallt with one bad action, trying to right it. I didn't make the difference. One by one more people became involved. Where is the hypocracy? You seem so angry, I can't really make sense of your posts. Most of us recognize the problem in the media. In the end, even if it was race, which is in the court documents for second degree murder as, HE PROFILED TM, what do you want?

You appear to be out of sync.with the rest of the dscussion. Why not start a thread on how terrible the media is or any other topic you're angry about.

Annette

 

[beebrisk]

Hi Bee Brisk,

I don't think you know Chicago very well. The outrage in Chicago is expressed by people every day. Jessie jackson has always been involved, along with churches, community groups, law enforcement and just plain folk. Actually crime has fallen dramatically in Chicago, but they do have gangs that are a big problem. Crime makes our newpapers all the time. Gee, I think our President was a community organizer, which deals with all aspects of city life.

Here's the question. Do you think that if you can't deal with all questionable crime, horrific as it may be, you should not deal with any? That amazes me. Even if what you say has truth, we have deallt with one bad action, trying to right it. I didn't make the difference. One by one more people became involved. Where is the hypocracy? You seem so angry, I can't really make sense of your posts. Most of us recognize the problem in the media. In the end, even if it was race, which is in the court documents for second degree murder as, HE PROFILED TM, what do you want?

You appear to be out of sync.with the rest of the dscussion. Why not start a thread on how terrible the media is or any other topic you're angry about.

Annette

You are factually incorrect about Chicago. Homicide rate is up 60% in the last 3 months alone. While the overall picture is slightly lower than the last few years, violent crime rates there are double and triple the national median. Not exactly stellar stats, if you ask me. And yet, the president from Chicago doesn't seem to address his former neighbors and friends very much, does he? Why don't those gang kids "look like his son"? Why Trayvon? Because Trayvon is being used as a symbol by those who want to divide us, not unite us. The president, Sharpton, Jackson and the media are all guilty of this.

And no, I'm not angry. Just frustrated by how this story has played out in the "national" discussion. Understand, I am NOT angry or upset about the arrest...I believe the right thing was done there!

Perhaps my unique viewpoint (unique to this forum, anyway) on the incident is seen as "out of synch", but hey, isn't that what discussions are all about?

 

[beebrisk]

Hi Bee Brisk,

I don't think you know Chicago very well. The outrage in Chicago is expressed by people every day. Jessie jackson has always been involved, along with churches, community groups, law enforcement and just plain folk. Actually crime has fallen dramatically in Chicago, but they do have gangs that are a big problem. Crime makes our newpapers all the time. Gee, I think our President was a community organizer, which deals with all aspects of city life.

Here's the question. Do you think that if you can't deal with all questionable crime, horrific as it may be, you should not deal with any? That amazes me. Even if what you say has truth, we have deallt with one bad action, trying to right it. I didn't make the difference. One by one more people became involved. Where is the hypocracy? You seem so angry, I can't really make sense of your posts. Most of us recognize the problem in the media. In the end, even if it was race, which is in the court documents for second degree murder as, HE PROFILED TM, what do you want?

You appear to be out of sync.with the rest of the dscussion. Why not start a thread on how terrible the media is or any other topic you're angry about.

Annette

You are factually incorrect about Chicago. Homicide rate is up 60% in the last 3 months alone. While the overall picture is slightly lower than the last few years, violent crime rates there are double and triple the national median. Not exactly stellar stats, if you ask me. And yet, the president from Chicago doesn't seem to address his former neighbors and friends very much, does he? Why don't those gang kids "look like his son"? Why Trayvon? Because Trayvon is being used as a symbol by those who want to divide us, not unite us. The president, Sharpton, Jackson and the media are all guilty of this.

And no, I'm not angry. Just frustrated by how this story has played out in the "national" discussion. Understand, I am NOT angry or upset about the arrest...I believe the right thing was done there!

Perhaps my unique viewpoint (unique to this forum, anyway) on the incident is seen as "out of synch", but hey, isn't that what discussions are all about?