beating the crap out of someone for following you = self defense.
shooting someone who's bashing your head into concrete and reaching for your gun = murder. Zimmerman didn't shoot him for being black. he shot him because Trayvon was going to select him out of the gene pool.
would be appropriate for a white boy to bash black man's head into the pavement, grab for a gun and tell him he's gonna die, because he felt the black man was following him? he couldn't choose the color of his skin. but he could choose not to try murder Zimmerman for following him.
the point being made is that Trayvon did nothing wrong, and that he was "unlawfully executed", presumably for being black. which is racist bullshit. he tried to kill a man who wasn't hurting him in any way. is it wrong to presume that a black teen in a hoodie is up to no good? it may be wrong, but it's not a crime. is it wrong to shoot someone who tries to kill you? definitely not.
Stalking someone is a crime. And why isn't everyone afforded the right to "stand his ground"? Plus, it's a huge leap to say that Zimmerman's life was in danger (you were there, no?). Killing someone with your bare hands is not really that easy, especially for a skinny teenager. FL law is fucked. In MI where I live, Zimmerman is unambiguously guilty of murder. That should be the law everywhere.
stalking is a crime, but only being followed does not justify using lethal force. i wasn't there, but jury has seen the evidence, and seems to believe Trayvon was smashing Zimmerman's head into the pavement. care for being repeatedly hit in the head with a brick? exactly the same thing. and 17 year old "skinny teenagers" commit the largest percentage of all murders, so it can't be that hard for them.
So your logic includes: - Trayvon's guilt is inherent because he is 17 years old - Trayvon must have tried to kill Zimmerman even though we have no evidence supporting that - Zimmerman had the right to shoot Trayvon, even though Zimmerman started the altercation and Zimmerman had the gun - not Trayvon. Put yourself in Trayvon's shoes. I was 17. I experienced nights like Trayvon's. He was just going to get junk food from a variety store. It is dark. A man that is 50 lbs heavier and 10 years older starts following you. He has a gun. That is terrifying. That is actually all we know. Then we find that Trayvon is shot. Even if Trayvon did attack Zimmerman... it was Trayvon who was defending himself... not the other way around. Trayvon was followed by a man with a gun. Not the other way around. If you twist it, then you are clearly biased. And if Trayvon was a white kid, he would have enjoyed his evening and spent the remainder of it watching an NBA game. But he is black. And blackness is demonized within American culture. Blackness is seen as violent and dangerous. I'll quote again from the article: EDIT: Also, as mk said, the point of this article clearly went over your head.The people whose ancestors were kidnapped, sold into slavery, and treated like farm animals for centuries, are the people who are stereotyped as “violent” and “dangerous”. It is sickening.
i have nothing against the rest of the article. but arguing that Trayvon did nothing wrong, "even if he attacked Zimmerman" is plain stupid. racial profiling is not fair, and you are basically arguing the same thing in reverse. if Trayvon was right to preemptively attack Zimmerman to "defend" himself, then what exactly did Zimmerman wrong by preemptively following Trayvon to make sure he isn't vandalizing something?
Zimmerman demonstrated why we have "don't try this at home" disclaimers. Because of ignorant laws he was permitted to act as though he was a trained law officer, without the training. He carried with him the ability to use deadly force, yet lacked the training and experience of how to use it. He approached Trayvon Martin with all of the power, but without the wisdom of how to use it properly. Would he have aggressively tailed and approached Trayvon if he was was not carrying his sidearm?
he had no clue that Zimmerman was armed, not until he was on top of him and allegedly started reaching for his gun. Zimmerman might have thought that Trayvon is up to vandalize something. that's not very nice of him, sure, but that doesn't mean Trayvon is acting in self defense when he initiates the violence.Trayvon's guilt is inherent because he is 17 years old
that's not what i wrote, at all.Trayvon must have tried to kill Zimmerman even though we have no evidence supporting that
yes, we have. for one, Zimmerman's head injuries and Trayvon's fatal wound are consistent with Zimmerman's story. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Florida_vs._George_Zim...Even if Trayvon did attack Zimmerman... it was Trayvon who was defending himself.
so when you think someone is following you, you have the right to attack them? in a way that can very much kill them dead? and call it self–defense? are you out of your freaking mind?!
1. K, then what was this: Sounds a lot like you are marshalling evidence that just being 17 makes you "suspicious" (which is a ridiculous thing to state). 2. Medical examiner testified that Zimmerman's head injuries were "insignificant", not "life threatening" Here is the article: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/medical-examiner-testifies-zimmer.../ 3. If someone is following you and approached you with a gun at night... then that is terrifying. What are you supposed to do? We don't know whether Zimmerman first attacked Trayvon or the reverse. We don't know that. You don't know that. So shut up about who started it. All we know is that Zimmerman was the instigator in that Zimmerman approached Trayvon and Zimmerman had the gun; not the reverse. Your assertion that Trayvon started the fight without evidence is your inherent bias. And if you don't drop that bias I have no choice but to conclude that you are a racist because you wouldn't be giving the same benefit of the doubt to a black man with a gun approaching a white boy. We don't know what happened in the altercation at all. Zimmerman asserts that Martin didn't know about the gun until he was on the ground - but that is what Zimmerman tells us, and we already know that A) his story is inconsistent, B) he comes from a racist family, C) he was power hungry and didn't listen the 911 operator to back the fuck off. AND FINALLY ONE MORE TIME: STOP SAYING TRAYVON INITIATED VIOLENCE. STOP IT. YOU DON'T KNOW THAT. YOU ARE SAYING SOMETHING YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT A BOY WHO IS DEAD. Moron. EDIT: I'll state again. This article went over your head. The fact that you are even using this discussion platform to make the points you are is evidence enough that you didn't get it at all. This article was about the cause of our unjust systems in former settler colonies and the cultural prejudices that developed over the past 500 years. Educate yourself.17 year olds are no little angels, but a demographic most likely to commit murder. whether they use guns or pavement doesn't make much of a difference for the dead or brain–damaged victim
I agree with you in that it is more likely Zimmerman who instigated aggression because had a gun, and felt "in charge" to take control of the situation. In a more professional manner, he should have identified himself as neighborhood watch, he should have warned Martin that he was armed. Not threateningly, that's against the law, but informing the suspect that you're armed might have diffused this whole fiasco.
so you find it more likely that Zimmerman approached Trayvon with the gun drawn, let Trayvon get over him, took some beating, and then shot him at last?Sounds a lot like you are marshalling evidence that just being 17 makes you "suspicious" (which is a ridiculous thing to state).
i agree that such thing would be ridiculous. i was arguing that killing someone, even using bare hands, isn't physically hard for healthy 17-year old males.
Here is what we know: 1) Martin was coming back from the variety store and heading to his dad's house. He was not a stranger to the neighbourhood, but had been going to visit his dad in the area for years. 2) Zimmerman saw a kid with a hoodie on. Called the cops and said "These assholes always get away" (after first identifying Martin as "a black wearing a hoodie." 3) Zimmerman (armed) starts following Trayvon (17 year old boy w/ no weapon). 4) Zimmerman approaches Trayvon (phone call w/ Martin's friend proves Martin was scared that someone was following him) Then we don't know what happened. We know we can't trust Zimmerman's side of the story. It is useless and not evidence. We know that his head injuries were not life threatening. We know that there is a 17 year old boy who is dead. I don't know who started the fight. We just know Zimmerman approached him. We can't say who started the fight. What I am saying is that it doesn't matter who started the fight. You can't approach anyone at night without any reason (and after the police told you to stop following the person) and then kill the person when they did not lethally threaten you. This is manslaughter. Murder.
IMO if an older and heavier man followed me in the dark for no reason with a gun... and I felt that I needed to physically defend myself... then I would be in my right to do that. So IMO, Trayvon did nothing wrong, regardless of whether he attacked Zimmerman first or not. What everyone should remember is that Martin was approached (without justification) and the man who approached him was armed (not the other way around). Also, there is NO EVIDENCE that Zimmerman's life was in jeopardy. So it is pretty clear to me that Zimmerman is guilty without a reasonable doubt. Zimmerman is just lucky that Martin was black and not white or else he would be in jail for the rest of his life (but of course if Martin was white the altercation never would have occurred).
If you ran, what would the person following you (with a gun) do?
it's much harder to hit someone running away, in the dark, than someone right on top of you. and i really don't think Trayvon knew about the gun. if the gun has already been drawn during the initial approach, he wouldn't get shot from below.The only evidence we have that Trayvon bashed someone's head against a sidewalk is from Zimmerman's story of what transpired
we know that Trayvon was shot from a very close distance, while on top of Zimmerman. yes, he didn't manage to inflict life–threatening injuries on Zimmerman, but one does not need to wait until sustained injuries become life–threatening. if he was attacked, he had every right to stop him.
if an older and heavier man followed my 17-yo-self in the dark—and i find it highly improbable that Zimmerman made known that he has a gun, but even more so then—i would run. i'm not saying that Zimmerman did everything right. he certainly shouldn't have followed him. but who initiated the violence is of utmost importance. following someone in the dark is stupid. bashing someone's head in the sidewalk is attempted murder.
I honestly have not followed this case at all but from what I have gathered from all the Monday morning quarterbacks in my life: 1. Zimmerman became the aggressor when he decided to ignore his responsibility to just notify police and wait in his car. -In essence he began stalking the kid. 2. What I didn't realize, and correct me if I am wrong, is that Trayvon got away from Zimmerman for an extended amount of time and instead of calling 911 or heading home he reengaged. Lot's of bad calls on either side. I enjoyed the article theadvancedapes, it's important to remember what brought us to this point and I don't disagree with you that had it been a 17 year old you walking down that street, nothing would have happened. Pretty f*ck'd up situation.
1. Correct 2. From Martin's call with his friend we know that Martin realized he was being followed and was unnerved by it. After that we only have testimony from Zimmerman, which is non-evidence. Should Martin have called 911? Probably. But the fact that he didn't isn't evidence that he did anything wrong. He was being followed and we don't know how much time he had to make that decision. Could he have continued heading home? We don't know the answer to that either. He was being followed by a man with a gun. We don't know if Zimmerman would have let him if he did just run or walk faster home. 3. I ask myself what could Martin have done. And there is no easy answer. It seems like he was going to be framed as the bad guy no matter what (because of his skin colour). I don't know what parents with black or brown children are supposed to tell their children. The answer seems to be don't go outside at night.
cgod had a comment on Hubski recently about having a large group of black clients in to his bar right after the verdict. From his account, their reaction seemed to be just that "what do we do to keep our kids safe?" If all it takes is a Hoody and some increased pigment in your skin to be a "bad guy after sundown," I don't know what I'd be thinking if I were a black parent. This is worth further honest discussion.
That is the saddest aspect of this decision. Geraldo Rivera actually proposed that minorities should stop "wearing hoodies". So ridiculous. That is pretty much telling minorities to: "Accept the institutional injustice. Just shut up and take it." Here is important food for thought provided by the anthropologist Michel-Rolph Trouillot:What matters here is how the changing construction of whiteness intersects with the maintenance of a white/black divide that structures all race relations in the United States. Whether significant numbers of the people now called Latinos or Asian Americans–or the significant numbers of their known “mixed” offspring with whites–will become probationary whites and thus reinforce the structure is an important indicator of the future of race relations in the United States.
Geraldo Rivera actually proposed that minorities should stop "wearing hoodies".
Anyone else see this comment by Rivera as analogous to blaming women for being assaulted because of how they dress. This is how the annual slutwalks started: The rallies began when Constable Michael Sanguinetti, a Toronto Police officer, suggested that to remain safe, "women should avoid dressing like sluts
I would highly recommend reading/watching this post by shoe77. theadvancedapes, you could certainly cite this teachers lesson in future conversations about race. -Extremely interesting and certainly relevant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge7i60GuNRg Here's an illuminating experiment on Racial Profiling
I showed this to my introductory biological anthropology class when we discussed the construction of race and discrimination.
Check out this post. What do you make of this premise? His death wasn’t about race, guns, or your pet issue. It was about misjudgment and overreaction—exactly what we’re doing now to the verdict.
Read it and agree. Having a "Stand Your Ground Law" and untrained neighborhood volunteers packing heat is a recipe for future disasters. Can we not see our limitations as human beings? George Zimmerman should never have had the right to carry a weapon and use deadly force.
The author made some good points. The problem is with the law. I suppose that all we can say is that Zimmerman was in the moral wrong; but in the state of Florida he was "not guilty" because of the messed up laws there. The system needs to change or else there will be more innocent minorities killed.
If you ran, what would the person following you (with a gun) do? As I already said, the medical examiner said head injuries were "insignificant". The only evidence we have that Trayvon bashed someone's head against a sidewalk is from Zimmerman's story of what transpired. Which is non-evidence.i would run
bashing someone's head in the sidewalk is attempted murder
I am not sure if many of you have ever lived in or near that community, but I have, in Lak Monroe, a few short miles away. That community is centered around a bunch of run down housing projects, and that 7-11 has a history of being robbed. The pictures the media shoves down your throat of Trayvon are from when he was 12. A 17 year old black male is WAY morel likely to engage in violence than someone like Zimmerman (race, age) as a matter of fact Gangs purposefully use those children for the fact that they ARE Juveniles. A lot of you do not know half of the truth. The fact that the IT admin for the D.A. got fired for pointing out that he found a bin file on Travons phone outlining a gun sale in txt, pics of a black hand holding a gun, and a pic of some drugs. The trial should never have happened. The law is clear. The Federal Government had to bring in an outside prosecutor who said she brought charges "To bring out the facts of the case". First of all you don't charge people with murder unless you 100% believe it to be true, and secondly, you do not do it "To bring out facts" so that the media and the black community will shut up. That night should never have happened, and it is both of their faults ultimately. None of you have lived near there, I have; white is the minority, nice is the minority, slums run by the government are the majority and so is crime, by young blacks (due to demographics, but still). IF Trayvon was wearing a hoodie, and it was night, how then could George even tell his color? He could have been a dark latino. Anyway, I think he could and should have been convicted with the proper crime, like negligence, or manslaughter, but not any degree of murder and that is where they messed up.
I'm sure if we were to engage in a dialogue about this we could find some common ground. However, like many other people in this comment thread, you seem to miss the actual point of the article.
I would imagine so, if circumstances were not as they were. I admit, my statement was not on par with the point of the article, nor was it meant to be. As you said, the majority of the people missed the point of the actual article, and the discussion had begun to center around generalization, so I chimed in on the general topic. I used to go with friends, when I was young, to purchase drugs in that area. I know 3rd Street, 13th Street, and that 7-11 very well. I also know that there is no sure answer as to whether or not Trayvon Martin would or would not have been followed or shot had he been white, and nobody ever will, save one person, and that is Mr. Zimmerman. None of you know what was in that man's heart that night. He could very well have been out to get someone, anyone, that night. Maybe, just maybe, regardless of whoever was under that hoodie, they would have been followed due to the route they took, or how George felt that night, maybe he caught his wife with a young man, speculation serves no purpose but to inflame.
I think your analysis of this situation would have greater merit if the larger body of statistics showing that white men disproportionately get away with unjustifiably shooting white men, than vice versa. The law, the fundamental institutions of the U.S.A. are promoting white supremacy (because they were initially created by people we would consider white supremacists). That is the point that matters. It is the fact that the police showed up to the scene of the crime... saw a black kid dead and a "white" man with a gun... and immediately gave Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt. If the dead kid was white and the shooter was black... what would the police have done? What would the NRA have said? What would the jury have thought? You know the answers to those questions.
Racism, white supremacy, whatever it is you are calling it, is not localized to this Country. It is the same thing around the World. Every set of peoples trusts its own kind more than others. Substitute Jews and Palestinians for Trayvon and Zimmerman, substitute Hutu and Tutsi. I simply cannot abide the fact that people act like this is some sort of localized super issue with this Country. It is a horrible part of the human condition. Eventually as evolution takes its toll, we will all be of the same race, or something near it, and then, they will find other reasons to marginalize certain types of people. This is not Black v White, Minority v Majority, Rich v Poor; this is humanity, and you would be well advised to understand the nature of it.
I never claimed that racism is localized in the United States. Racism does have an evolved biological base. I never stated anything counter this point. I am an evolutionary anthropologist. I understand the nature of it very well. You should be well advised to understand social theory in greater depth. Clearly you don't.you would be well advised to understand the nature of it.
That is a completely different context. If there was institutional racism against white people in Zimbabwe I would attempt to explain that in proper historical and colonial context. You are just evading the fact that there is institutional injustice against black people in America and why that is. EDIT: Furthermore, from my experience in Africa, if ANY black man shot a white man in almost any African country, there would be international outrage and the African government in question would do whatever they could to bring the black man to justice for fear that the tourism industry would be destroyed.
That is why I chose that particular country, and not any other African Country. But again, you can garner the same results that occurred by substituting values other than location, and black and white. Of course there is racism in America, and of course the fact that the ruling class, save it's current political leader, marginalizes black people. You don''t go from rolling children's heads down the side of a temple, to slavery, to marginal equality, to equality, in a day, or even thousands of them apparently. I still think it is less of a direct issue with color and more a direct issue with the psychology of the person, or people.
The point is that this is not one isolated issue. This keeps happening because there is a cultural sickness in America that demonizes blackness. This has an important socio-historic context, which is what the article is about.
As the American Anthropological Association stated, race relations in America are being constructed around "whiteness" and "blackness". Zimmerman, due to his socio-economic status and cultural affiliations, was imaged by the American people to be "white". Or "awarded white status".