Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

[beebrisk]

[quote="beebrisk|1332897304|3157815"
You also proved my point, thank you. Because YOU just jumped to a conclusion about my upbringing, lifestyle and access to "reality", didn't you??

Au contraire, my opinion of you is based entirely upon YOUR description of yourself, mostly from the BC thread. You've made it clear that if you don't experience it, it isn't so; if you don't feel it, it can't possibly be; you're strong and impervious and others who don't measure up to your ideal of strength are weak and/or idiots. Your words convey that your world is black and white rather than shades of gray. You take quick umbrage at opinions formed about you based on your words which belies your claim of strength and reveals an Achilles Heel. You are also capable of rational and cogent thought. I think you are incredibly interesting.[/quote]

I am opinionated for sure. I believe in right and wrong and I believe in absolutes (see my tag below). Relativism isn't my thing..

You are correct that I have an issue with "gray areas" which I believe are often either concocted to confuse and obfuscate important issues, or simply the result of intellectual laziness and lack of critical thinking.

While I disagree that this makes me some kind of "interesting" yet uncaring and unfeeling louse, it certainly doesn't win me any "most popular" awards. If I was concerned about that, I'd keep my mouth shut.

Getting back to the topic at hand here, my point was that THIS particular case (as opposed to so many other violent crimes) is clearly being used by the media, profiteering race-baiters and a politically correct culture that would have us believe anyone willing to remain impartial, wait for the facts, and unwilling to condemn George Zimmerman without proper evidence or any of the facts is is obviously a "racist".

I'm not here defending George Zimmerman and I'm not making him into a hero. I'm also not here to turn Trayvon into a martyr or some morbid symbol of how a few loud mouths wish to promote their view of race relations in this country.

But in the meantime I certainly will take umbrage at anyone who suggests that a person who thinks as I do is too sheltered to understand or too prejudiced to feel anything. I'm not suggesting that YOU did that Matata, but I will not take part in propagating the idea. No way. No how.

 

[beebrisk]

I have a few questions that I've been thinking about as I read through the thread and various articles. I'm going to apologize first for my wording, because I am not sure how to get this out the right way (my thoughts are jumbled), so I apologize.

Based on his size, would there have been as much coverage/discussion (wrong word, I'm sorry) had Martin been 18+? I keep hearing "teenager/kid/child" being used, however, from what I understand it was night time. When the killer went after him, is it possible that he wasn't seeing this boy as a child, but more a "suspicious" adult? Again, doesn't give him a right to follow him- I'm just curious if the public is thinking Zimmerman knew he was a child and if it makes the tragedy worse?

Another question: I am personally against personal gun use (especially those that can be concealed!), however, I understand it that the gun was holstered when the police took it from him. Obviously he put it back after use, but is it possible it remained in the holster and was only taken out after/while being attacked (ie when he felt threatened). Of course, this is assuming the story of being attacked is correct. Would this make a difference, regarding motif, had the gun remained in the holster and only came out after being attacked? Or is it of everyone's opinion that he was carrying it in hand while chasing him?

With all due respect, what difference does it make?

There's not a single "opinion" with regards to Zimmerman's actions that matters here. Not mine. Not yours.

Is this a concept too difficult for some to understand? We know NOTHING of what really happened. Nothing except what we have been able to glean from an overly eager media and the few carefully chosen words the authorities have released.

 

[beebrisk]

this story made the head line news b/c TM is black if he was an Asian or shot by another black man this story would be mute.

Thank you DM for having the b-lls to be honest.

 

[beebrisk]

THIS is the direct result of reprehensible, irresponsible behavior by the unjust thugs who want to poison the jury pool and not only convict a suspect without facts or evidence, but perhaps even seek his blood. Spike Lee ought be to shamed into oblivion. Disgusting. Grrrr!

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/03/28/Spike-Lee-Forces-Elderly-Couple-to-Abandon-Home-Hide-for-Safety-from-Vigilantes

 

[galeteia]

Nobody has suggested lynching anyone. What a totally absurd and insensitive comment.

Danny, an exchange was made earlier discussing the phrase 'stringing him up' and the connotations thereof. Considering the parallels being drawn to the public 'outcry' re: immediate arrest/charge/trial/guilty demands, I thought it was an apt parallel when it was originally made in the thread, but wanted to clarify that it was not expressly a racially motivated practice (albeit a heinous one!) which was I would have originally taken away from the discussion.

 

[Circe]

One thing I tell my students is that context matters. My most recent example for them comes from a gallery opening I attended that had a good cross-section of attendees. I saw a nice Upper East Side lady in her thirties compliment a young black art student with a great natural - "Oh, I loooooooooove your hair! SO John-Paul Basquiat!"

She was trying to be nice, I think. And he smiled, and thanked her. And when she was out of earshot, he looked at the girl he was with, sighed, and said, "Yep. We all look alike."

(Making it worse, Basquiat's famous hair style wasn't even a natural - he had locks.)

Without understanding his context, she hit a very sore spot - two, even, if you count hair as a popular site of difference, and inability to differentiate one black person from another - while in all likelihood trying to make him feel included in the art world. A good motive, if a condescending application.

In the US, "stringing up" does very commonly reference lynching - but more importantly, the circumstances of the discussion do. THAT context, of young black men having been strung up, literally or figuratively, for the last hundred years, is what makes this into a volatile discussion.

I think DF and Bee are right: if the victim had been a different ethnicity, this thing would be treated very differently. Because it would be a different narrative. It would have a different context. But since it happened in this one ... this is the narrative we need to pay attention to.

P.S. - Bee, tell you what: you don't hold me responsible for Spike Lee, and I won't hold you responsible for Andrew Breitbart. Deal?

 

[beebrisk]

One thing I tell my students is that context matters. My most recent example for them comes from a gallery opening I attended that had a good cross-section of attendees. I saw a nice Upper East Side lady in her thirties compliment a young black art student with a great natural - "Oh, I loooooooooove your hair! SO John-Paul Basquiat!"

She was trying to be nice, I think. And he smiled, and thanked her. And when she was out of earshot, he looked at the girl he was with, sighed, and said, "Yep. We all look alike."

(Making it worse, Basquiat's famous hair style wasn't even a natural - he had locks.)

Without understanding his context, she hit a very sore spot - two, even, if you count hair as a popular site of difference, and inability to differentiate one black person from another - while in all likelihood trying to make him feel included in the art world. A good motive, if a condescending application.

In the US, "stringing up" does very commonly reference lynching - but more importantly, the circumstances of the discussion do. THAT context, of young black men having been strung up, literally or figuratively, for the last hundred years, is what makes this into a volatile discussion.

I think DF and Bee are right: if the victim had been a different ethnicity, this thing would be treated very differently. Because it would be a different narrative. It would have a different context. But since it happened in this one ... this is the narrative we need to pay attention to.

P.S. - Bee, tell you what: you don't hold me responsible for Spike Lee, and I won't hold you responsible for Andrew Breitbart. Deal?

Not in a million years would I hold you or anyone else responsible for the actions of that SOB, but honestly, if you did attach me to Breitbart (may he rest in peace) I'd be honored. He my journalistic hero. But that's probably a whole other thread.

 

[Imdanny]

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.[/b]

Wow, that is truly despicable. Though not surprising sad to say.

From http://www.news.com.au/world/murder...a-nation-divided/story-e6frfkyi-1226311542251

An attorney for Martin's mother has also confirmed that she filed trademark applications for two slogans containing her son's name: "Justice for Trayvon" and "I Am Trayvon." The applications said the trademarks could be used for such things as DVDs and CDs.
The trademark attorney, Kimra Major-Morris, said in an email that Fulton wants to protect intellectual property rights for "projects that will assist other families who experience similar tragedies."
Asked if Fulton had any profit motive, the attorney replied: "None."

Ha! Excellent spin!

Because lawyers' motives are always pure, yes?

Because it's reasonable that a grieving mother should seek the immediate comfort of a trademark attorney/ambulance chaser by protecting her recently dead child's "intellectual property rights", yes??

Yeah. Totally reasonable behavior.

It is completely reasonable behavior for victims' families to raise money for charities, start foundations, etc. concentrating on helping other members of society in preventing what happened to the victim from happening to anyone else, and it happens every day.

 

[beebrisk]

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.[/b]

Wow, that is truly despicable. Though not surprising sad to say.

From http://www.news.com.au/world/murder...a-nation-divided/story-e6frfkyi-1226311542251

An attorney for Martin's mother has also confirmed that she filed trademark applications for two slogans containing her son's name: "Justice for Trayvon" and "I Am Trayvon." The applications said the trademarks could be used for such things as DVDs and CDs.
The trademark attorney, Kimra Major-Morris, said in an email that Fulton wants to protect intellectual property rights for "projects that will assist other families who experience similar tragedies."
Asked if Fulton had any profit motive, the attorney replied: "None."

Ha! Excellent spin!

Because lawyers' motives are always pure, yes?

Because it's reasonable that a grieving mother should seek the immediate comfort of a trademark attorney/ambulance chaser by protecting her recently dead child's "intellectual property rights", yes??

Yeah. Totally reasonable behavior.

It is totally reasonable behavior for victims' families to raise money for charities, start foundations, etc. concentrating on helping other members of society in preventing what happened to the victim from happening to anyone else, and it happens practically every day.

Yep, it does. But what part of trademarking your son's name for use in digital media and other consumer goods is.....charitable?

It's unfathomable to me the lengths that people will go to and the scenarios they will conjure up in order to excuse and justify behavior that would in any other case, be considered utterly despicable.

 

[beebrisk]

this story made the head line news b/c TM is black if he was an Asian or shot by another black man this story would be mute.

Thank you DM for having the b-lls to be honest.

DF* Ugh...need more coffee.

 

[PetitiePoire]

I have a few questions that I've been thinking about as I read through the thread and various articles. I'm going to apologize first for my wording, because I am not sure how to get this out the right way (my thoughts are jumbled), so I apologize.

Based on his size, would there have been as much coverage/discussion (wrong word, I'm sorry) had Martin been 18+? I keep hearing "teenager/kid/child" being used, however, from what I understand it was night time. When the killer went after him, is it possible that he wasn't seeing this boy as a child, but more a "suspicious" adult? Again, doesn't give him a right to follow him- I'm just curious if the public is thinking Zimmerman knew he was a child and if it makes the tragedy worse?

Another question: I am personally against personal gun use (especially those that can be concealed!), however, I understand it that the gun was holstered when the police took it from him. Obviously he put it back after use, but is it possible it remained in the holster and was only taken out after/while being attacked (ie when he felt threatened). Of course, this is assuming the story of being attacked is correct. Would this make a difference, regarding motif, had the gun remained in the holster and only came out after being attacked? Or is it of everyone's opinion that he was carrying it in hand while chasing him?

With all due respect, what difference does it make?

There's not a single "opinion" with regards to Zimmerman's actions that matters here. Not mine. Not yours.

Is this a concept too difficult for some to understand? We know NOTHING of what really happened. Nothing except what we have been able to glean from an overly eager media and the few carefully chosen words the authorities have released.

I'm not sure why there is such a hostile tone in this thread, I was merely asking a few questions.

Moving on... I should have phrased it better as I didn't mean my opinion vs yours. I am not asking for "opinions" because it matters to the case (as in trial vs no trial, right/wrong, whatever), I am just trying to understand the different viewpoints. If some people are hearing that he had gun in hand vs gun only taken out after feeling physically threatened maybe it would explain the motif behind it.

Also, regarding your last part. I don't think the concept is too difficult to understand, at all. Like all cases we hear about, we know nothing besides what is given to us. We can still have our own thoughts and discussion about the case.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

I just want to get this factoid out of the way. The 911 plane that went down in Pa. brought forth a hero that used a certain phrase to get others on the plane to attack the terrorists. I have forgotten the phrase,(Ifeel sure some of you will remember). It became a symbol of the heroism of those people on the plane, although non survived. His last phone call to his wife was played so we all could hear.

Very shortly after things settled down Mrs. Hero went in to try to trademark that slogan I can't remember. Teeshirts and coffee cups were suggested items to sell. She was turned down because the phrase could not be trade marked. People do all sorts of things.

Pretty irrelevant to the discussion.

I agree it is annoying to always see Jessie jackson and Al Sharpton in the public eye whenever there is a photo opportunity.

 

[TooPatient]

Great article:


By JUAN WILLIAMS


The shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida has sparked national outrage, with civil rights leaders from San Francisco to Baltimore leading protests calling for a new investigation and the arrest of the shooter.

But what about all the other young black murder victims? Nationally, nearly half of all murder victims are black. And the overwhelming majority of those black people are killed by other black people. Where is the march for them?

Where is the march against the drug dealers who prey on young black people? Where is the march against bad schools, with their 50% dropout rate for black teenaged boys? Those failed schools are certainly guilty of creating the shameful 40% unemployment rate for black teens.


Rev. Jesse Jackson leads a rally for Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla., on March 26.
.How about marching against the cable television shows constantly offering minstrel-show images of black youth as rappers and comedians who don't value education, dismiss the importance of marriage, and celebrate killing people, drug money and jailhouse fashion—the pants falling down because the jail guard has taken away the belt, the shoes untied because the warden removed the shoe laces, and accessories such as the drug dealer's pit bull.

Supposedly all of this is just entertainment and intended to co-opt the stereotypes. But it only ends up perpetuating stereotypes in white minds and, worse, having young black people internalize it as an authentic image of a proud black person.

There is no fashion, no thug attitude that should be an invitation to murder. But these are the real murderous forces surrounding the Martin death—and yet they never stir protests.

The race-baiters argue this case deserves special attention because it fits the mold of white-on-black violence that fills the history books. Some have drawn a comparison to the murder of Emmett Till, a black boy who was killed in 1955 by white racists for whistling at a white woman.

The Martin case is very different from the Emmett Till case, in which a white segregationist Mississippi society approved of the murder of a black child. Black America needs to get out of the rut of replaying racial injustices of the past.

All minority parents fear that children who embrace "gangsta" fashion, tattoos and a thug attitude will be prejudged as criminal.

Recall what Jesse Jackson once said: "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved. . . . After all we have been through. Just to think we can't walk down our own streets, how humiliating."

That is the unfair weight of being black in America for both the black person who feels the fear and the black teen who is judged as a criminal.

.Despite stereotypes, the responsibility for the Florida shooting lies with the individual who pulled the trigger. The fact that the man pursued the teen after a 911 operator told him to back off, and the fact that he alone had a gun, calls for him to be arrested and held accountable under law. The Department of Justice is investigating the incident and the governor of Florida has appointed a special prosecutor to review the case.

But on a larger scale, all of this should open a serious national conversation about how our culture made it easier for this type of crime to take place.

As President Obama said last week, "I think all of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how does something like this happen. And that means we examine the laws and the context for what happened, as well as the specifics of the incident."

While civil rights leaders have raised their voices to speak out against this one tragedy, few if any will do the same about the larger tragedy of daily carnage that is black-on-black crime in America.

The most recent comprehensive study on black-on-black crime from the Justice Department should have been a clarion call for the black community to take action. There is no reason to believe that the trends it reported have decreased since 2005, the year for which the data were reported.

Almost one half of the nation's murder victims that year were black and a majority of them were between the ages of 17 and 29. Black people accounted for 13% of the total U.S. population in 2005. Yet they were the victims of 49% of all the nation's murders. And 93% of black murder victims were killed by other black people, according to the same report.

Less than half of black students graduate from high school. The education system's failure is often a jail sentence or even a death sentence. The Orlando Sentinel has reported that 17-year-old Martin was recently suspended from his high school. According to the U.S. Department of Education's Civil Rights Office, in the 2006-07 school year, 22% of all black and Hispanic K-12 students were suspended at least once (as compared to 5% of whites).

This year 22% of blacks live below the poverty line and a shocking 72% of black babies are born to unwed mothers. The national unemployment rate for black people increased last month to over 13%, nearly five points above the average for all Americans.

The killing of any child is a tragedy. But where are the protests regarding the larger problems facing black America?

 

[smitcompton]

Hi Again,

In the early 80's , a group called the Guardian Angels, formed in N.Y. to help fight Crime. This was the start of Neighbood watch groups. They were opposed by police initially, but as public pressure forced police depts to be more open, a partnership evolved between the police and these groups. At the time there were rules set down limiting what Neighborhood watch groups could do or they would lose the support of the police.

The group I was associated with went out Friday and Sat nights in passenger cars and patroled the streets of this neighbood.
They had walkie talkies, and the number one promise we had to make was that no one would go after any possible crimal activity
by themselves or with a group of them. They had to call police, wait for the police to arrive, explain what they saw to the officers and let them handle it. They were the rules everyone obeyed.

We asked for volunteers and did turn down one that I remember, as we decided he was overly hyped up. He had a police radio and checked the calls and sometimes went out to see what was happening. As I recall the Guardian Angels were under strict rules as well.
I am just giving the history as I knew it. I think the Association may have a law suit coming. Zimmerman was acting like a police officer.

Annette

 

[beebrisk]

Great article:


By JUAN WILLIAMS


The shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida has sparked national outrage, with civil rights leaders from San Francisco to Baltimore leading protests calling for a new investigation and the arrest of the shooter.

But what about all the other young black murder victims? Nationally, nearly half of all murder victims are black. And the overwhelming majority of those black people are killed by other black people. Where is the march for them?

Where is the march against the drug dealers who prey on young black people? Where is the march against bad schools, with their 50% dropout rate for black teenaged boys? Those failed schools are certainly guilty of creating the shameful 40% unemployment rate for black teens.


Rev. Jesse Jackson leads a rally for Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla., on March 26.
.How about marching against the cable television shows constantly offering minstrel-show images of black youth as rappers and comedians who don't value education, dismiss the importance of marriage, and celebrate killing people, drug money and jailhouse fashion—the pants falling down because the jail guard has taken away the belt, the shoes untied because the warden removed the shoe laces, and accessories such as the drug dealer's pit bull.

Supposedly all of this is just entertainment and intended to co-opt the stereotypes. But it only ends up perpetuating stereotypes in white minds and, worse, having young black people internalize it as an authentic image of a proud black person.

There is no fashion, no thug attitude that should be an invitation to murder. But these are the real murderous forces surrounding the Martin death—and yet they never stir protests.

The race-baiters argue this case deserves special attention because it fits the mold of white-on-black violence that fills the history books. Some have drawn a comparison to the murder of Emmett Till, a black boy who was killed in 1955 by white racists for whistling at a white woman.

The Martin case is very different from the Emmett Till case, in which a white segregationist Mississippi society approved of the murder of a black child. Black America needs to get out of the rut of replaying racial injustices of the past.

All minority parents fear that children who embrace "gangsta" fashion, tattoos and a thug attitude will be prejudged as criminal.

Recall what Jesse Jackson once said: "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved. . . . After all we have been through. Just to think we can't walk down our own streets, how humiliating."

That is the unfair weight of being black in America for both the black person who feels the fear and the black teen who is judged as a criminal.

.Despite stereotypes, the responsibility for the Florida shooting lies with the individual who pulled the trigger. The fact that the man pursued the teen after a 911 operator told him to back off, and the fact that he alone had a gun, calls for him to be arrested and held accountable under law. The Department of Justice is investigating the incident and the governor of Florida has appointed a special prosecutor to review the case.

But on a larger scale, all of this should open a serious national conversation about how our culture made it easier for this type of crime to take place.

As President Obama said last week, "I think all of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how does something like this happen. And that means we examine the laws and the context for what happened, as well as the specifics of the incident."

While civil rights leaders have raised their voices to speak out against this one tragedy, few if any will do the same about the larger tragedy of daily carnage that is black-on-black crime in America.

The most recent comprehensive study on black-on-black crime from the Justice Department should have been a clarion call for the black community to take action. There is no reason to believe that the trends it reported have decreased since 2005, the year for which the data were reported.

Almost one half of the nation's murder victims that year were black and a majority of them were between the ages of 17 and 29. Black people accounted for 13% of the total U.S. population in 2005. Yet they were the victims of 49% of all the nation's murders. And 93% of black murder victims were killed by other black people, according to the same report.

Less than half of black students graduate from high school. The education system's failure is often a jail sentence or even a death sentence. The Orlando Sentinel has reported that 17-year-old Martin was recently suspended from his high school. According to the U.S. Department of Education's Civil Rights Office, in the 2006-07 school year, 22% of all black and Hispanic K-12 students were suspended at least once (as compared to 5% of whites).

This year 22% of blacks live below the poverty line and a shocking 72% of black babies are born to unwed mothers. The national unemployment rate for black people increased last month to over 13%, nearly five points above the average for all Americans.

The killing of any child is a tragedy. But where are the protests regarding the larger problems facing black America?

Bravo, Juan Williams and thanks for posting this, Too Patient!

I will never understand the inconsistant knee-jerk reactions to these issues by a bleeding heart public so sadly brainwashed by years of politically correct indoctrination that it virtually renders them blind to reality and ultimately mute when it comes to honest discourse.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

Twinkle brought this to our attention and I for one am glad she did. I wouldn't have paid much attention to it, because I am also weary of hearing of so many tragedies, everything race related, and in general everyone demanding I get worked up over just about everything. We all just have so much energy to give, But I'm on board with this and with twinkle because I believe it warrants a show of solidarity to see if an injustice has been done. i only read what items and articles people posted here. And I do believe there are facts here.
Listen to the 911 tape. Gypsy, I don't think a dispatcher is a police officer. As part of Zimmermans training he should know not to pursue He is to stay put so that the officer can speak to him when he arrives.. Which is why he gave the dispatcher his cell phone number. He pursued the boy.

He said on the call the individual is suspicious looking. He's looking at houses, may be on drugs. Sorry, there is nothing suspicious
about someone walking down a street. You all want objectivity, Zimmerman had none. The facts bear that out. I don't know if the other 41 calls involved white kids, we can check that out as well.

They can voice analysize now, but i believe its Zimmerman. Once he was knocked down his mentality would call for help, the boy not so much. He was on the phone with a friend, who told him to run.

Yes, some of our lawyers want to give us the legal view and we should keep that in mind. But my own thinking in this case instinctively tells me that kid didn't have a chance. He punched him in the nose and knocked him down, and was shot. That appears to be a fact.

I;ll stick with Twinkle and join her and I hope millions of others who say, if this man is quilty, and he looks like that to me, I want him arrested and prosecuted. The jury can then do its job.

Annette

 

[ericad]

Here's what I think.

- A tragedy has most certainly occurred. An unarmed boy was shot dead. There's no question that something is terribly wrong.

- After following many homicide cases over the years (I have an interest in true crime, criminal psych, etc.), I've come to the conclusion that media reporting is almost always inaccurate and sensational. They frequently get their facts plain wrong so all "facts" about any case taken from the media should include a grain or two of salt. We need to act as critical thinkers - for example, think Nancy Grace is experienced and reliable? She gets facts wrong all the time. I don't assume that what's being reported are the actual facts of the case and investigation (Amanda Knox is one high profile example.)

- I always assume that there's a substantial amount of information and evidence that law enforcement is not disclosing to the public.

- We know very little, if anything at all, about what actually happened between the 911 call and the arrival of police on the scene apart from the fact that Zimmerman shot an unarmed Trayvon dead.

- I try give the benefit of the doubt to law enforcement. That being said, over the years I've been disappointed and stunned at LE's botching of crime scenes, investigations, corruption, etc. I struggle with this, but I try not to jump to conclusions about LE until I have the facts to support it. I continue to respect LE and the difficult job they are tasked with, but I also know that racism, profiling, etc. run rampant in many LE departments across the country and, if this is the case here, they need to be held accountable.

- There is a big difference between what's right/wrong and what's prosecutable. At this point in time I feel we just plain don't have enough information to demand anything apart from a thorough and complete investigation.

- Zimmerman claimed that Trayvon attacked him. There may or may not be witnesses (to either corroborate or contradict his story). He had injuries that may or may not support his claim. I think getting punched in the nose could incapacitate a larger man enough that perhaps he could have been overtaken by the smaller teen for a period of time. BUT it's also possible that he received his injuries in a struggle with Trayvon over the gun as he tried to defend himself against Zimmerman. We just don't know if his injuries are relevant or tell a story.

Questions I want LE to answer:

Were there any witnesses to the supposed struggle or the shooting?
Did Trayvon have any injuries apart from his gunshot wound?
Where was Trayvon shot (I've read that he was shot in the chest, but not sure if that came from a quote by LE or just reported by the media)?
Was he shot point blank? Close range? From a distance?
Do Trayvon's injuries match up to Zimmerman's version of the events? Does other evidence at the scene corroborate or contradict Zimmerman's story?
Was Zimmerman tested for drugs and alcohol?

I'm sure I could think of 100 questions that need answers, but these are the ones at the forefront of my mind.

Now, just based on the few facts we have, and the 911 call, my current gut feeling is that Zimmerman behaved criminally and that Trayvon lost his life as a result, and my heart breaks for the Martin family. If this is the case, I hope justice is served and that prosecutors build an airtight case against him. But I'm keeping my mind open and will watch the case as it unfolds. If evidence comes to light that Zimmerman indeed acted in self defense, I'll eat crow and be grateful for our justice system.

Of course, we also need to stay prepared for the possibility that there may be no witnesses and no prosecutable evidence and Zimmerman will remain free because they simply can't build a case against him. This happens a lot. The prosecution must prove Zimmerman's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - the burden of proof is not on Zimmerman. He doesn't need to prove his innocence. He can shut his mouth and not say another word and the prosecutors will have to prove to a jury that he committed a crime.

 

[Dancing Fire]

this story made the head line news b/c TM is black if he was an Asian or shot by another black man this story would be mute.

Thank you DM for having the b-lls to be honest.

yep, it was okay for O.J. to murder two white person?... what you think would of happened if O.J. was the victim and Goldman was found not guilty by the court of law? Jessie jackson and Al Sharpton then would have yell "FOUL" all over those liberal medias like MSNBC and NBC...

 

[TravelingGal]

this story made the head line news b/c TM is black if he was an Asian or shot by another black man this story would be mute.

Thank you DM for having the b-lls to be honest.

yep, it was okay for O.J. to murder two white person?... what you think would of happened if O.J. was the victim and Goldman was found not guilty by the court of law? Jessie jackson and Al Sharpton then would have yell "FOUL" all over those liberal medias like MSNBC and NBC...

DF, as an Asian person also, I do think you are right that not much press would have gone to this had Martin been Asian. However...

I am not saying that Asians haven't experienced racism in this country. We certainly have. But the heaviest fight for racial equality has been fought for by Black Americans. Their history in this country is one I don't think that I, even as a minority, can really grasp. There are many of them that still remember what it was like to ride the back of the bus, or be hunted down just because of the color of their skin. If it weren't for a black man and a white woman who felt it was their right to love one another, I today, would not have been able to marry a white man myself.

To have that history...well, I'd fight harder and be louder too, especially since so many people today would like to think all is hunky dory and sweep it under the rug. I don't always agree with what specific cases they rally around, but I will always support the cause of awareness that they bring.

ETA, correction it was a white man and black woman, I believe!

 

[Dancing Fire]

this story made the head line news b/c TM is black if he was an Asian or shot by another black man this story would be mute.

Thank you DM for having the b-lls to be honest.

yep, it was okay for O.J. to murder two white person?... what you think would of happened if O.J. was the victim and Goldman was found not guilty by the court of law? Jessie jackson and Al Sharpton then would have yell "FOUL" all over those liberal medias like MSNBC and NBC...

DF, as an Asian person also, I do think you are right that not much press would have gone to this had Martin been Asian. However...

I am not saying that Asians haven't experienced racism in this country. We certainly have. But the heaviest fight for racial equality has been fought for by Black Americans. Their history in this country is one I don't think that I, even as a minority, can really grasp. There are many of them that still remember what it was like to ride the back of the bus, or be hunted down just because of the color of their skin. If it weren't for a black man and a white woman who felt it was their right to love one another, I today, would not have been able to marry a white man myself.

To have that history...well, I'd fight harder and be louder too, especially since so many people today would like to think all is hunky dory and sweep it under the rug. I don't always agree with what specific cases they rally around, but I will always support the cause of awareness that they bring.

ETA, correction it was a white man and black woman, I believe!

now imagine if you (an Asian) had married a black man during the 60's..

 

[AGBF]

yep, it was okay for O.J. to murder two white person?...

A ways back in this thread Matata posted something pithy (which I cannot recall offhand) that basically said that there is no justice in the world. I really liked what she posted. I really think that it was right on target.

However, once in a while, by persevering, the legal system manages to right part of a wrong. OJ Simpson obviously murdered two white people and no, it wasn't OK with me. I was absolutely outraged that a jury acquitted him! I was very pleased that at least he was nailed on on the civil side when he was sued by Nicole Simpson's family.

I was hoping that something similar would occur in the case of Trayvon Martin (which I have said above). I was hoping that if he was deliberately confronted and then shot by George Zimmerman and Florida law gave him a pass on that, that the federal government would look into whether his civil rights had been violated.

Deb/AGBF


Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend

 

[Gypsy]

yep, it was okay for O.J. to murder two white person?...

A ways back in this thread Matata posted something pithy (which I cannot recall offhand) that basically said that there is no justice in the world. I really liked what she posted. I really think that it was right on target.

However, once in a while, by persevering, the legal system manages to right part of a wrong. OJ Simpson obviously murdered two white people and no, it wasn't OK with me. I was absolutely outraged that a jury acquitted him! I was very pleased that at least he was nailed on on the civil side when he was sued by Nicole Simpson's family.

I was hoping that something similar would occur in the case of Trayvon Martin (which I have said above). I was hoping that if he was deliberately confronted and then shot by George Zimmerman and Florida law gave him a pass on that, that the federal government would look into whether his civil rights had been violated.

Deb/AGBF


Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend

Deb honey. I don't understand your statement.

Here's what I see, and I might be wrong. It sounds like you think civil court is for civil right violations. Is that what you think?

Who do you think violated Trayvon's civil rights to anything? And why do you think there is a federal case there?

 

[AGBF]

yep, it was okay for O.J. to murder two white person?...

A ways back in this thread Matata posted something pithy (which I cannot recall offhand) that basically said that there is no justice in the world. I really liked what she posted. I really think that it was right on target.

However, once in a while, by persevering, the legal system manages to right part of a wrong. OJ Simpson obviously murdered two white people and no, it wasn't OK with me. I was absolutely outraged that a jury acquitted him! I was very pleased that at least he was nailed on on the civil side when he was sued by Nicole Simpson's family.

I was hoping that something similar would occur in the case of Trayvon Martin (which I have said above). I was hoping that if he was deliberately confronted and then shot by George Zimmerman and Florida law gave him a pass on that, that the federal government would look into whether his civil rights had been violated.


Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend

Deb honey. I don't understand your statement.

Here's what I see, and I might be wrong. It sounds like you think civil court is for civil right violations. Is that what you think?

Who do you think violated Trayvon's civil rights to anything? And why do you think there is a federal case there?

No, Gypsy. At least you made me smile!

As I said before, I think that when a southern state has laws that hinder the prosecution of hate crimes, that federal statutes preventing civil rights violations are useful. They were used in the 1960's after the Civil Rights Act was passed and can be used again.

Deb

 

[Gypsy]

yep, it was okay for O.J. to murder two white person?...

A ways back in this thread Matata posted something pithy (which I cannot recall offhand) that basically said that there is no justice in the world. I really liked what she posted. I really think that it was right on target.

However, once in a while, by persevering, the legal system manages to right part of a wrong. OJ Simpson obviously murdered two white people and no, it wasn't OK with me. I was absolutely outraged that a jury acquitted him! I was very pleased that at least he was nailed on on the civil side when he was sued by Nicole Simpson's family.

I was hoping that something similar would occur in the case of Trayvon Martin (which I have said above). I was hoping that if he was deliberately confronted and then shot by George Zimmerman and Florida law gave him a pass on that, that the federal government would look into whether his civil rights had been violated.


Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend

Deb honey. I don't understand your statement.

Here's what I see, and I might be wrong. It sounds like you think civil court is for civil right violations. Is that what you think?

Who do you think violated Trayvon's civil rights to anything? And why do you think there is a federal case there?

No, Gypsy. At least you made me smile!

As I said before, I think that when a southern state has laws that hinder the prosecution of hate crimes, that federal statutes preventing civil rights violations are useful. They were used in the 1960's after the Civil Rights Act was passed and can be used again.

Deb

Okay. Whew, didn't catch that.

You think that the Federal Protections would render the Stand Your Ground laws unconstitutional. Potential issue there... someone would have to have standing to challenge the law, and I'm not sure if his family would in this case.

 

[Imdanny]

***"It is totally reasonable behavior for victims' families to raise money for charities, start foundations, etc. concentrating on helping other members of society in preventing what happened to the victim from happening to anyone else, and it happens practically every day." is what I said (I don't want to muck up the thread by quoting all the rest of it, to anyone who wants to read how we got here, please see the previous page)***

Yep, it does. But what part of trademarking your son's name for use in digital media and other consumer goods is.....charitable?

It's unfathomable to me the lengths that people will go to and the scenarios they will conjure up in order to excuse and justify behavior that would in any other case, be considered utterly despicable.

To your first sentence- it raises money. That's not a difficult question with all due respect.

To your second- you are interpreting the grieving mother's behavior. This seems kind of ironic to me because you have told us all we know nothing about any of the facts in this case other than what the media has told us.

But let's please be clear about one thing- in terms of your quote "...scenarios they will conjure up..." and "behavior that would in any other case, be considered utterly despicable"- no one in this thread has 'conjured up' anything with regard to the grieving mother. You are interpreting this through, as Circe said, your "lens". That's fine. I've just explained to you how her behavior is reasonable and expectable. If you want to think she is guilty of attempting to profit off of her son's dead body, it won't be because others haven't given you reasons why she might have done this that have nothing to do with maligning her character.

 

[Karl_K]

re: Mom and trademarks.
There are a couple companies out there that as soon as some thing like this gets out they grab the trademarks and have even sued the family for using them in fundraisers.
The one that tried to trademark "lets roll" after 9/11 being one scummy example.
So there is little doubt in my mind that the lawyer told her to do so, to protect herself should they have the need of a fundraiser of some kind and to keep those particular scumbags from profiting from her sons death.

 

[Imdanny]

Thank you, Karl. There is little doubt in my mind either that this was done on advice.

BTW, Beebrisk, whenever I see your screen name, I read it as, "Berserk".

 

[Gypsy]

Ha! Excellent spin!

Yep, it does. But what part of trademarking your son's name for use in digital media and other consumer goods is.....charitable?

It's unfathomable to me the lengths that people will go to and the scenarios they will conjure up in order to excuse and justify behavior that would in any other case, be considered utterly despicable.

I don't have the facts of how this came about so I'm not going to assume anything. Bee, you are slamming the 'bleeding heart' posters in this thread for their assumptions. And then you turn around and do the EXACT SAME THING but instead of bleeding heart you have a cynical one. Which really isn't any better.

The FACT is there is a trademark on certain things and the family owns it.

If all the proceeds go to fund a charity it could be charitable. It could be that the grieving mother asked for something to help her make lemonade out of lemons. She could have said, "this is the WORST THING that has ever happened to me, what can I do to contribute this to that would help others" and her lawyers could have suggested this. And hurting, she grasped the idea and approved it happy that something was in her control in what might be a very out of control situation for them.

If all the proceeds go to them it could be venal. She could be profiting from her child's death.

The POINT though, is that we do not know. We can speculate and assume. But, as you have SAID to OTHERS, assumptions are dangerous and irresponsible.

Just saying that walking your own talk might make you more credible.

 

[Imdanny]

I am riveted by this case. I mention it because I used to follow the news every day and read political sites, too. I never posted at any political site, but I used to talk about politics at an off-topic forum similar to this one.

It was very stressful (there is a lot of bad news, people can't agree, things that need to be changed rarely do, etc.). I decided to stop looking at the news about six months ago. I'm still self-banned from news and politics, but SO told me about this case.

SO and I met in Florida, we both grew up there, and I was born there. I can honestly say SO's opinions and sentiments about everything we are talking about in this thread and mine are the same. The only difference is I'm following it daily and delving into the minutiae of it, and he's following the major developments. We don't even talk about it amongst ourselves. It's almost as if it's not news to us.

This is the only place I feel I have to talk about it, so I'd like to say thank you Pricescope for letting us have this thread, and thank you Twinkle for starting it.

 

[Sha]

Did anyone see the new video of Zimmerman yesterday, where he comes out of the police car, is inspected by the cops, and then is escorted into the Station?