Trayvon Martin discussion

[Jaylan]

The area had a large number of break-ins recently and he was an unknown in the neighborhood. Is that so hard for you to grasp?

How is he an unknown? His dad lives there and it wasnt his first time visiting. Why did the guy have to bother someone who was simply walking home minded his own business? Since when is walking suspicious. People have freaking visitors all the time.

I dont notice every single person that visits my community, but I know people have visitors come see them...whats the problem with that.

If Zimmerman was the assaulter then yes Trayvon has the right to defend himself. But you seem to have already decided it was all Zimmerman on the assault, and what evidence do you have for this?

If Zimmerman intended to shoot Trayvon, why would he call the police before hand?

If Zimmerman could manhandle Trayvon, why would he need to shoot him?

Again, use that brain of yours and ask some tough questions on the logistics of how things went down.

You are not understanding what I have been saying. Lets disregard who threw the first punch. The DA can build a case that says Martin was in fear for his safety and lashed out due to Zimmermans behavior. Fight or flight right? A lot of people would be ready to brawl if someone talked them from a car and then began to chase them on foot. I know for me, Id be on edge if a car followed me and then someone got out of the car and chased me...Id be ready for a fight because Id assume the person was looking for trouble.

Next, I never said Zimmerman intended to shoot the kid. If I felt that way, then Id be arguing first degree murder, since that requires premeditated intent. I simply think he profiled the kid, and then things went awry. And we dont know the facts of the fight, so we have no idea as of yet the truth behind why Martin was shot. Theres several possibilities.

I agree, and I'm smart enough to know it could go either way, but I have some questions regarding the lynch mob's perspective on things, it simply doesn't make sense to say that Zimmerman assaulted and killed Trayvon.

We dont know that he didnt assault Martin. I remember arguing with people about the Danziger Bridge case from a few years ago. Some folks were so sure that the cops were telling the truth when they said the people they shot had guns and were firing upon them. Well the verdict came down this month and it was found out they lied, and planned a cover up, and they all got jail time.

So a lot of things could have happened in this case, and we cannot simply go by Zimmermans account of things. We will find out what happened in more time though. The guy has a history of getting off scott free due to his fathers connections. Thats the only way one could explain him not getting in trouble for assaulting an officer. Cops and the DA dont let just anyone get away with that.

Zimmerman appears to be fat in the photo's I have seen, but if you have other evidence, feel free to link it.

Omg...dude...simply google the surveillance footage of his at the police house. Hes not fat. Dont be lazy.

I would bet money though that a 17 year old football player is in much better shape than Zimmerman.

In boxing, height is an advantage, in wrestling, weight is, assuming all things equal. I highly doubt all things were equal between a 17 year old football player and a 28 year old fat guy.

Hes a skinny high school athlete. Hes not an elite. At 6'3, 140 to 150 pounds is not great shape. Hes very underweight for his size and Id throw a block on Martin like nobodys business if I met him on the football field.

Again, Zimmerman is not fat. Those photos of him that first went around are from like 5 years ago. And they werent boxing, so height didnt play a roll in their scuffle.

It has everything to do with the case. Perception creates reality and the media gives the perception of a 28 year old man gunning down a 12 year old child in cold blood. Someone on this forum should know enough about perception and it's effects on women to also project that same perception knowledge upon public opinion.

I dont care if the kid was a drug addict lead singer of a rock band and beat women...I dont care if he was in a silly teenage street crew and gambled dice and smoked weeed all day....On the night of his death he was an innocent boy walking home from the store looking forward to watching the end of the NBA all star game. What matters is what he was doing that night...and it was nothing criminal.

Again, you need critical thinking skills.

Take your own advice buddy.

Plenty of 17 year olds have deep voices, and plenty of older men do not. we will have to wait for sound analysis on the shouts for help.

And we have heard Zimmerman speak. His voice does not sound like a boys, and many, many people hear a boy screaming on the 911 tapes. 2 audio experts have already ruled him out as being the screaming voice...look up those stories.

Though Id love to see who they bring in to test the voice at the trial. Hopefully someone tied to the FBI to give more credibility to the process so people cant deny what they are told.

Learn to write, it was written poorly enough that it is easy to surmise you are giving conflicting stories.

Actually, you really need to learn to read with comprehension. I used the phrase "initial contact" in my previous post. Its not my fault you skipped over it, or simply did not acknowledge its meaning.

Not trying to help Trayvon does not mean he is guilty of racial profiling, or that he was not defending himself. Have you ever even been in a fight? For you life even?

Actually it helps builds a manslaughter case. After shooting the boy who laid there defenseless on the ground, theres no reason to hold him down while applying pressure onto his injured body. Showing "depraved indifference" definitely could add to the DAs potential Negligent Homicide charge.

This case is about someone not even being arrested. That is one of the Public rallying points. Arrest the man! Well, where's the outrage on a murder contract? Where's the arrest for such a thing?

You cannot have it both ways where we arrrest someone because of a public outcry based on a media circus of lies, yet we turn our heads when a racist Panther Party puts out a murder contract.

Again, the Panthers have nothing to do with this case. People arent arrested for things all the time. We arent going to sit here and complain about all the people not being arrested for certain things...we are going to focus on this case, because THIS CASE is the topic.

No ones focused on the Panthers because no one cares about them. They dont deserve attention. Racists dont deserve attention. The Klan still had rallies and crap, and they still recruit people and say dumb crap...but no one cares about idiots and dont give them the time of day. I could easily drum up all the new White nationalist bullcrap thats sprung up since the Martin case got big...but its a waste of time and has nothing directly to do with this case. So lets move on shall we.

We don't know if a crime was committed in the first case, but we sure as hell know that murder contracts are illegal. Where's the outrage? Where's the arrests for that?

Im sure the FBI is on that just like they were following the original panthers back in the day. The thing here is that grown ups arent going to give immature racist children, like the KKK or the Panthers, any sort of reaction so they can feel good about themselves. Several people in the media have acknowledge how dumb they are. And thats that....no reason to keep them in the news.

 

[Jaylan]

Yes but Fox news is not editing audio footage related to this case. Aren't we supposed to stay on this case like you suggested above? Who the fvk cares what fox news does that is not related to this?

I really dont care what fox news does with this case. I am merely acknowledging that all media outlets do this all the damn time...and its a fact of life.

Bottom line is the media is creating, fueling and perpetuating the drama by making it appear racist. And too many people are too stupid to use critical thinking skills and buying into it. Yet I am the one who isn't reading between the lines???? Horse-$hit.

They do it all the time. Wait until the November elections. More media sh*t stirring to come. You dont know for sure that race didnt play a role in this case. But Id say its silly to not even think theres a possibility of a racial component in this case. It could be, it might not be, but its dumb to think there no possibility of it.

They will never shut up, their money is made from the victimization of blacks. Their lack of apologies regarding Duke speaks volumes of their true agenda.

And I agree that there are plenty of credible claims, but as long as you have the Sharptons and Jackson's of the world inciting hatred and racism, proper attention will not be given to those who have truly been denied justice. Those two men are destroying your credibility.

Since you are not someone of the black community, you couldnt understand some of the good Al and Jesse do for our community. With the good does come the bad. But I acknowledge both parts. I also understand that without Al, this case would have never got the much needed attention it deserved. Because it seemed like the Sanford PD were intent on sweeping this under the rug.

Again, listen to the link on the racial slur, he said "COLD". I don't deny evidence. Not sure where you are getting that. And he did arrest him until the prosecutor said he couldn't make the case. Now that could be corruption, but it also might not be. Investigators are not lawyers. But neither of that proves Zimmerman innocent or guilty.

Zimmerman was never arrested. Theres a difference between being placed under arrest and being detained.

And I still dont hear cold in that link.

And if it's found that Zimmerman's story is accurate? Will you buy that? Or will you claim corruption or some other foul?

I will eat crow and eat my hat all in one sitting. Not because I agree with the verdict, but because Id be that surprised that he actually got off lol

Again, how do you know he is innocent? How do you know he didn't assault Zimmerman?

Read my post above. The boy was bothering nobody and was on his way home to watch a basketball game. He broke no laws. Zimmerman instigated this whole mess...so based on all of that, I feel an innocent citizen was harassed, provoked, and killed that night.

Many people, in fact most people, haven't heard the audio provided by CNN, they only heard things like what NBC put up (the fake edit they did).

Are you saying that you listened to the CNN video tape and you still think it was a slur?

Actually plenty of people have heard the CNN version. And still many people feel they hear a slur. CNNs staff doesnt all agree themselves.

According to his statement, he did head back to his car only to be attacke by Trayvon during his walk back. But I suppose you don't believe that either?

Again, in any case where someone kills a person, the killers story has to be taken with a grain of salt if they are trying to avoid jailtime.

 

[Bible_Belt]

The difference with the stand your ground law is that it authorizes deadly force. It does so if you feel that you are going to be somewhat harmed. A belief that you are going to die is not required. It even lets you kill somebody for committing a property crime, which is another first in the half-millenia history of the law. (unless Texas beat Florida to it)

Prior to stand your ground, you could not commit violence to stop a property crime. You were also held to the old self-defense standard of only being able to retaliate with the same level of force used against you. You couldn't shoot a guy yelling or even swinging at you. Under that old standard, Zimmerman would have needed to have had his head being pounded against pavement severely in order to justify the killing.

I'm not exactly sure at all how to defend myself from a firearm. I dont wear ballistic vest around town.

I suppose the only tactic I really have it just to close the distance and tie up the gun hand, and at some point in the scuffle draw my knife and target the throat/eyes. Grisly work for sure, not something I really want to think about.

What sort of training would be effective to learn counter-firearm techniques?

Close the distance, yes, which is the hardest part, but criminals typically haven't been trained to handle a firearm, so it's not impossible. An mma fighter in Chicago last month took away a mugger's gun and beat him with it. Once you get tied up, it is a specialized sort of grappling in that the other guy wins as soon as he can get the gun pointed at you. It's common in training to do things like practice grappling without using one arm. It makes you better if you can force yourself to work with less, and in the case of a gun, you have to use one hand just to keep the gun pointed away from you.

People think weapons change fighting a lot more than they really do. We have a tendency to obsess over the weapon and fixate on it, both offensively and defensively. Holding a knife in your hand is the easiest way to kick someone in the nuts, because all they can see is the knife. Offensively, people tend to think that as long as they're holding a gun, they're invincible. So they have a loose grip on the weapon, a poor stance, cross their feet when moving, turn away from their target instead of directly facing, and do basically everything wrong, thinking it doesn't matter because anyone with a gun is invincible.

My girlfriend's ex is a Federal Marshall. He does swat raids and tactical stuff all the time. If he tried to mug me on the street with a gun, I know that I wouldn't have a chance. That's due to his extensive training in how to use that gun on people. But I suspect the next mugger I meet will not be a Fed cop, but instead more like a strung-out, jonesing junkie. Even if he has the same gun, and in my mind at least, he's the one with no chance in that encounter. The difference is the bearer of the weapon. That's why a gun with no training is false security.

 

[SoldMySoul]

Interesting debate going on. What some fail to see it is how you articuale what happened. I have roughly 10 years experience law enforcement. If you can articulate why you did it, you may be able to beat it. Beat the rap, not the ride. 17 year old 6 foot 3 is grown enough most states to hurt u badly, kill you and go to jail. The damn media keeps showing a pic of a kid. This is not a kid anymore...while his body may almost grown, mind not quite there. Fbi terms the phrase exigent circumstance. If zimmerman story is true, he was legally justified. Did travoyn have a weapon? Did he? If you answered no, you are wrong. If zim was beaten any further...travoyn had his, zim's weapon. As danger eluded toto height is advantage, in open area. If in small space, no. I have wrestled with plenty of smaller and attitude and will makes up for size. Btw, intetesting to note...news media totally hacked and edited 911 call. Original call was dispatch asking what color travoyn was....not at all zim saying a black from go. Just mt opinion, travoyn is 6 foot under because he beat a guy down. I bet facts will show travoyn was aggressor. Damn media should be ashamed of race baiting. Tragic yes, common place with young thug. Yes! My take may not be worth a dime, but my two cents.

 

[Jaylan]

^Thats if Zimmermans story about getting beat up is true. I and many others dont buy it since the screams on the 911 tapes sound like a boy to us.

But time will tell in court.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Using "shaken baby syndrome" as a defense is indeed some creative lawyering. I never would have thought of that one.

"Shaken Baby Syndrome" used in defense of Trayvon Martin's killer

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-rt-usa-floridashootingl2e8f6220-20120406,0,7043281.story

 

[d!ckmojo]

In that article, his lawyer says:

"He didn't commit any crime," Unrig said on CBS. "He was
attacked, broke his nose, hit his head into the ground and he
defended himself. That's not against the law."

Well, that's the crux of the issue. Even you Jaylan have to admit that if what Zimmerman claims is true, then he has no case to answer for under the law.

Whether or not you or I agree with the law is another matter. I tend to think that common law is usually fine adequate in most cases, and this 'Stand Your Ground' Law might be taking things a bit too far if you ask me.

But that's not the issue right now, the issue is, should Zimmerman go to jail. And the answer is, no; not unless there is solid evidence that he was not acting in self defense. Circumstantial or speculative evidence will not do, only solid proof can successfully prosecute Zimmerman now.

 

[Jaylan]

Beyond a *reasonable* doubt is different from proving something beyond all possible doubt.

People get convicted by juries based on circumstantial evidence all the time. Where have you been?

 

[user43770]

The difference with the stand your ground law is that it authorizes deadly force. It does so if you feel that you are going to be somewhat harmed.

From the Florida statute:

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;​

Again, I think you are exaggerating a bit.

A belief that you are going to die is not required. It even lets you kill somebody for committing a property crime, which is another first in the half-millenia history of the law. (unless Texas beat Florida to it)

Not sure where you found that, but it wasn't in a Florida law book. The Florida statute says nothing about killing a person for property crimes; it mentions "forcible felonies." Florida defines a forcible felony as a "felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual." LINK

Prior to stand your ground, you could not commit violence to stop a property crime. You were also held to the old self-defense standard of only being able to retaliate with the same level of force used against you. You couldn't shoot a guy yelling or even swinging at you. Under that old standard, Zimmerman would have needed to have had his head being pounded against pavement severely in order to justify the killing.

In order to use deadly force in the state of Florida, you have to be able to prove that you were in fear for your life or great bodily harm. The meaning of "great bodily harm" varies from court to court, but I'm positive that yelling and being "somewhat harmed" would not qualify. Again, I'm speaking of Florida here; Texas may be different.

 

[don't]

I believe that TX or maybe, Kansas, has a law letting even a NEIGHBOR use deadly force to protect YOUR property! Sounds like a disaster waiting to happen, to me. How does your neighbor know if you've let your buddy go get something, for instance?

 

[don't]

if you are less than 10 ft away, as most confrontations ARE, you can THROW something at his face, and, if fit and trained, either take 1-2 steps or jump kick or jump punch him. You don't need a knife to rip out throat, eyes, testicles, you use a knife to slash at his arms, rendering him much less able to harm you, while staying further away from him.

Given a jump and twisting into the Horse position, leaning, etc, it's possible to punch from MUCH further away than amost anyone realizes is feasible, and quick enough to score on most people, do. Notice that UFC guys rarely punch at chest? A trained man's punch can EASILY break ribs, putting that fighter out of action for months.

 

[Rubato]

There are a lot of people here who don't have enough to do with their time!!

I didn't read everything here, but of what I read:

I emphatically agree with Quicksilver about everything he said. He knows what he is talking about regarding gun rights - sorry BibleBelt - I've had martial arts training in Kempo and while using a gun is technically a "martial art" in that it pertains to martial warfare, that's really a stretch of the historical connotation of the word. The reason why the original "martial arts" made use of body parts and extensions of the body like a sword or staff is because those were all the weapons they had to work with. Depending on how you define "long range" attack, it just wasn't possible unless you were proficient with a bow or could throw a sharp object accurately.

Bottom line - you can learn all the martial arts you want to - God like even. But if I have a gun and you are not within a relatively close proximity to me, your skill is virtually irrelevant because a bullet can travel infinitely faster than you, even if I don't have extensive training or experience in firearm handling/use.

Quicksilver is also right about the legal procedure in this case (coming from a former law student.

Danger is right about his overall assessment:

Bottom line, Trayvon should not have assaulted Zimmerman.

If you knew that a string of break-ins was occurring in your neighborhood, would you not follow someone who you have never seen before and looked suspicious? Is that really a crime? Does that confer to Trayvon the right to assault Zimmerman?

This isn't about racism, this is about assault, plain and simple.

What I find tragic is that the New Panthers have not been arrested for offering a contract on a person. As far as I know, that is illegal. But then, I do not expect Holder do push for that sort of thing amongst his administration.

Add to that how the media only shows pictures of Trayvon that are four years old and Obama's idiotic statement, not unlike "beergate" where he accused police of acting stupidly, and you have a media circus with an agenda. Oh, and I almost forgot NBC editing the 911 call to make it sound like Zimmerman was racist....

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/he-...o-selective-editing-of-zimmerman-police-tape/

When I first saw the pictures and reports, I thought some man had shot a 12 year old kid who was minding his own business. Come to find out it was a 17 year old 6' 3" athlete that was pounding Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk. Did anyone else feel manipulated?

It would be nice if a reporter had the balls to ask Obama if his son would have gold teeth as well. Or if he would have been suspended from school for graffiti, which of course the news reported as Trayvon being suspended for TEN days for being late. Yeah right.

In short, no I do not think it was racism, as of course the enhanced audio shows here.

I even agree with most of what Backbreaker said except for:

I'm not trying to condemn the Zimmerman dude just yet. i'm a pretty rational dude even though i think he should be locked up until they decide if they want to go ahead with him or not....

but this black kid walking down the street in a nice place with a hoodie thing... this type of talk i can't stomach that. we should be past that as a society. i should be able to walk outside of my house, of my dad's house, my wife's brother's house, my mom's house wearing what i damn well please and feel safe.

As a libertarian, I emphatically disagree with the idea that a person should be "locked up" until they figure out whether he did something wrong! You don't incarcerate someone on an assumption that they may have done something... you incarcerate them after the judicial system has obtain enough evidence and authority to determine they actually did something!

Second, Backbreaker, and everyone else, you have to recognize, especially given that you guys are posting on a PUA website, that the image your project is the image people will perceive you by. For better or for worse, there is a dress code the average person is going to stereotype as "thuggish". Just like there is a dress code the average person will stereotype as "professional", "slobbish", "preppy", "sexy", and so on. White people AND black people can dress thuggish.

While I was getting my political science BA, I spent a lot of time studying racial issues. I got a certificate from my university of racial and gender conflict management (the gender issues they discussed were feminized beyond the point of utility BTW). I'm familiar with a lot of the academic scholarship surrounding the current black/white racial un-pleasantries there are in this country. I've done original research that I will not link to on this website because I don't want my personal identity to be associated with my identity here (If you really want to read my published journal article, PM me). But it focused on the disparity that exists in the justice system of the United States in the administration of felonies and prison sentences for white people and black people based on similar crimes committed. I also conducted a number of personal qualitative interviews from black people at various metropolitan urban leagues in my state. You know what?

It's not fair.

That was the conclusion of my journal article. And there is enough current academic literature on the subject to keep any doubters busy for a long time. Go to your library and and use a academic journal search engine to read more about this. There is an unequal application of justice afforded to white people and black people in this country. But just because justice isn't always applied equally doesn't mean that every time a legal issue arises between a black person and a white person that the black person is automatically vindicated and the white person is automatically guilty, particularly in an incident like this.

There was a particularly thought provoking article I read in one of my law classes 2 or 3 years ago about trends in black insurgency in metropolitan areas, and the conclusions of the writers were essentially that first you need to look at a demographic racial breakdown of the population of the US and consider that about 70% of the population is white and a little more than 10% is black. When you look at the number of crimes committed adjusted according to the proportion of the black population vs the white population in the country (that's a very important adjustment to make... raw figures will give an inflated figure because it doesn't account for the fact that there are 7 white people for 1 black person), black people are convicted of a much higher percentage of crimes that white people. The big caveat with this, that the authors admitted, was that white people are not arrested as frequently as black people and are able to plead down to lesser offenses much more often than black people. The disparity between the racial crime rates is large enough however, that the authors still believe black people commit more crimes than white people.

Why?

They went back to the original premise of my journal article - the justice system in this country is unfairly harsh towards black people and the unequal enforcement of formal social control in black societies tends to take away their sense of agency and legitimizes their perception of law enforcement and the judicial system. And it reinforces a general negative attitude towards white people since they are "getting away" with more than they are, legally. And unfortunately, that tends to be true.

But back to this case, and my original point, lol. The fact of the matter is that there is a lot of history behind a "thuggish" dress style that gives white, black, and even purple people reason to feel uneasy in its presence. It's not about the race. If a white guy was acting sketchy in a neighborhood that had been having a high number of robberies and was dressed "thuggish", I bet the average person would have the same reaction they would have if he was black. If the black guy were dressed in a very clean cut way and wasn't acting sketchy, do you really think the average person would get all bent out of shape about the fact that a clean cut black guy was outside walking around? Those people have issues. The people who react uneasily to the thuggish guys, black, white, or purple do not.

 

[Rubato]

Finally, let's take a look at who this Zimmerman guy actually is.

He's a 28 year old half Hispanic guy. So he's not technically "white". He is part of a minority group even smaller than the blacks. He's also 28. "Coon" was a word that was a part of my dad's generation's vernacular, not his. I've only heard that word a few times in my life, and it's always been from old people. I'll bet most people in their 20's may be able to figure out what it means based on its contextual use, but many may not have ever heard it before. Let's not forget that Zimmerman also mentors young black kids on the weekends free of charge and even invited a black man to live with him when he experienced financial hardship. He's a registered Democrat, probably voted for Obama. It seems like the entire argument for Zimmerman being a racist hinges on the idea that he used the word "coon". First, does the caricature this paragraph paints describe the sort of guy who would use a racial slur, especially against a black person? Why would a racist let a black guy who was down on his luck live with him for a while and spend his weekend free time mentoring black kids? It doesn't make any sense!

No one will ever know with absolute assurance whether or not he said "coon". The audio is too garbled. If there's a detail in a painting you can't make out, increasing your focus on that detail doesn't help distinguish what it is. Instead, zoom out and see if the rest of the painting gives any useful context to what the detail may be. In this case, I think you have all you need to make a rational assumption.

 

[Jaylan]

Plenty of people know what the word Coon means and use it in the present day. I see stupid little kids saying it on youtube comments all the time.

I used to hear that crap on Xbox live from freaking preteens and teenagers. I even had someone call me it before back in high school and almost whipped his ass for it.

So lets not be silly and think its simply a throwback term thats never used anymore. I remember when I was younger and Id play Tony Hawk Underground online. I obviously made my skater black, and of course heard the N word and C word from backwoods idiots almost daily.

And just because someone does something nice for a few black people, does not mean they cant be prejudiced. My grandmother is civil and nice to some white folks, but shes definitely a bit prejudiced. But I understand she grew up in a different time and doesnt trust them much.

The whole idea of bringing up who Zimmerman mentored in the past is like when racists say "my best friend is black". Having friends of any racial group does not mean a person cannot still show bias against that group.

Btw, when it comes to looking at crime rates among races...people need to ask "why" questions? Why the disparity? There are many, but ill highlight a couple. One reason is socioeconomics. Poverty perpetuates crime, and there is a far higher percentage of Latinos and Blacks living in the lower class, hence more crime. In more affluent minority communities, there is less crime. Especially in minority filled suburbs.

Also, one needs to realize that statistics are often manufactured by profiling and bias in law enforcement and the courts. There are just as many suburban white kids smoking weed as there as inner city minorities doing it...but obviously police presence will be different in the areas. If you are on the look out for a specific type of person, it pads the stats in a way that reinforces the already existing profiling behavior. So its like this: does the bad behavior create the profiling behavior, or does the profiling and bias create the stats and bad behavior?

Does anyone follow? At the end of the day, if you start to control for all factors, and even things out across the board...crime rates would drop significantly and even out. Once people also start getting a sense of community, the crime rate drops even more. The problem is that historically, social and economic lines were drawn in the sand based on race, color, and ethnicity....and it takes a long time to overcome centuries of racial and ethnic discrimination all over the world. Its not just for black and latinos, but also for darker Indians in India, certain ethnic groups in China, and for middle easterners who try to make a new life for themselves in the West.

P.S. - Hispanics are not a smaller minority groups than African Americans in this country. Check your statistics. Also, hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race. You can be ANY race and be hispanic. Latin America is as racially divided as the US is, if not more so.

P.P.S. - Since when is a hoodie and shorts thuggish? Especially if its raining outside. Sounds like normal attire in the humid Florida rain. Now if Martin wasnt wearing thuggish attire the night of his killing, what exactly made him so suspicious to Zimmerman? My point is that I feel race does play into how people react to someone regardless of their outfits. Outfits will play a role, but race is still its own factor.

 

[Jaylan]

Actually, some black people are hard on the trouble makers, and others are not. It really depends on the person. Part of the reason some black folks wont be as hard on the troublemakers is because they see less evil in the trouble makers then they see in law enforcement. Some black folks are raised not to trust law enforcement. I was raise in a racially mixed middle class neighborhood, so I wasnt instilled with such a belief, but I have friends who grew up in the hood who were taught it.

Why were they taught not to trust the police? Well simply look at the Rampart Scandal of the LAPD in the 90s, or the recent Danziger scancal in Louisiana. Crap like that makes people trust the bangers more for protection than the police, and it shouldnt be that way. People start thinking they get better opportunities for a decent home life from falling in line with the bangers instead of law enforcement.

It creates a vicious cycle in those areas, where police profile the residents, and the residents profile the police. Nothing gets better when theres no trust amongst citizens are law enforcement. But that isnt all black folks. Many are truly trying to keep their family on the right path, but its easy to get sucked in if you grow up and live in a chaotic environment. But it all takes time. As decades go buy, more minorities of all backgrounds are rising out of poverty and going to school.

Next, about Trayvon being suspended...what exactly does that have to do with the case? The kid smokes weed just like MANY kids all across the country do. It says nothing about his character. Apparently the kid was an honor roll athlete as well. He just happened to be mischievous. A lot of high school kids are. But to demonize him for something a wide variety of kids do--from the best to the worst behaved kids--makes no sense to me.

All that matters about either of Martins or Zimmermans past is if they had a history of violent behavior. Martin did not. Zimmerman did. Zimmerman has a history of police assault and domestic violence, and thats say a lot more about him than anything weve heard about Trayvon. And Trayvon was simply watching the Allstar game with his brother and went to the store. Not every kid gets super punished when he gets in trouble at school. Many simply dont get to see their friends or hang out outside of the house.

Now for everything people may dislike about Jesse and Al...those two were needed in making this case a national story. Without them, this case would have been swept up under the rug and probably would have never had a chance to get to trial despite the obvious necessity for a trial. Theres plenty of evidence here for one, the lead detective shouldnt of been overstepped, and the Sanford PD and state DA shouldnt have flubbed on this.

Remember, Jesse and Al werent on this story from day one. Nobody was....it was a couple to a few weeks later when the feds became aware of this, that "Law & Order" actually started going into affect. So I commend those two for their presence and helping get the word out. You think they are race baiting this case? I call bull on that. Its not race baiting to acknowledge the obvious racial component that exists in this case. They arent making things up out of thin are. Based on some things in this case, it seems to many, many people that Trayvon was racially profiled.

An please dont speak about things you do not know. Jesse and Al speak out against black on black crime, but you wouldnt know about that because those are the kind of things the media will not show nationally. My father has met Mr. Sharpton and Mr. Sharpton has spoke at my fathers church. I may not agree with everything Jesse and Al do, but they do reach out to the black community and urge us to come together and stop the violence. But as I said, black on black crime and stories about raising up the black community arent juicy stories for the media. If black controlled the media, youd hear more about it. Many black folks dont like Al and Jesse too much...hell I wish Cornell West and Bill Cosby would be seen as our national leaders...but Jesse and Al do bring attention to some cases that need it, despite bringing the wrong attention to some cases that dont need it.

Lastly, let this quoted post sink in for folks here. A buddy on another forum I frequent wrote it in a discussion of this case. It was in reply to someone bringing up the unrelated black on black crime issue, when we here are trying to talk about the facts of this case. So for future posters...do not deflect solid points being made by trying to bring up non-related topics.

But again, even more importantly Knight, why is this really an issue in the case of Trayvon Martin? I can understand why it's an issue relative to the media coverage, but none of this should change how we feel about the facts of this case. Why point out black on black crime? Why point out deadbeat fathers? Why point out any of this stuff? It's a distraction.

The point was, the comment has nothing to do with the case....it has nothing to do with what we're discussing, but it did succeed in derailing the discussion and taking this from a discussion about real issues that affect all of us (like are public officials doing what we pay them to do), and instead turned it into a page or so of comments about how a lot of black men are bad fathers. You got suckered into it - pretty easily. The comment shows how easily people can be distracted from the real issue here, which is a dead teenager, a sh*tty police "investigation", and an absolute nutty bit of state legislation that apparently comes dangerously close to encouraging this sort of High Plains Drifter behavior among the general population.

It just shows how easily this sort of case can be manipulated to fit perceptions. Sheesh, some reporter asks President Obama a question about the case and the moment he finishes his first sentence, he's already being accused of exploiting the case for political gain. It's not enough that some whites want a servile black population; the nation's first black president has to be a mute as well, it would seem. Is he not allowed to comment?

 

[penkitten]

i am outraged and angry about what happened to this boy who had a future and potential and instead has suffered a painful death on a street with a girlfriend listening to his murder and his skittles in his pocket.
i'm pissed that this zimmerman freak is loose on the streets.
in my state, if i self appointed myself to stalk out people to hurt them based on what i didn't like about their appearance, it would be considered a hate crime and i would go to jail. why isn't he?
honestly, he needs to be in an institution wearing a white straight jacket for being as freggin insane as he is.
i do not want that animal loose on the streets. he will hurt others. he will kill again. he has serial killer traits except for his big mouth part.

 

[Warrior74]

I'm just surprised the mods haven't locked this thread yet. That's pretty much a miracle for anything approaching a racial discussion on SS.

 

[Quiksilver]

I'm just surprised the mods haven't locked this thread yet. That's pretty much a miracle for anything approaching a racial discussion on SS.

I don't lock threads unless they're clearly overboard or I receive a few legitimate complaints.

--

I'm concerned about the perspective of the event from some members... To me there seems to be a disconnect in the logic where walking behind someone (stalking by english definition, not legal definition) is illegal, and that Martins physical attack on Zimmerman is thus justified.

I am also concerned about the age factor. He was 17.

In Afghanistan, 10 year old kids are recruited to throw grenades/shoot at NATO forces. Avoiding the politics of the situation, I am merely illustrating that even children can do great/lethal/deadly violence, and the attackers age should not be a factor in the ability/Right of the victim of the attack to defend themselves.

If a 10 year old runs at me with a katana and an angry expression on his face, I don't care how bright a future he has in front of him or how cute his yearbook photo is, I'm going to defend myself even with lethal force if necessary.

--

For those who accuse Zimmerman of stalking, please point out which definition is pertinent to the discussion:

1. To walk with a stiff, haughty, or angry gait: stalked off in a huff.
2. To move threateningly or menacingly.
3. To track prey or quarry.

1. To pursue by tracking stealthily.
2. To follow or observe (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement.
3. To go through (an area) in pursuit of prey or quarry.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stalking

--

And a legal definition:

Stalking is a distinctive form of criminal activity composed of a series of actions that taken individually might constitute legal behavior. For example, sending flowers, writing love notes, and waiting for someone outside her place of work are actions that, on their own, are not criminal. When these actions are coupled with an intent to instill fear or injury, however, they may constitute a pattern of behavior that is illegal. Though anti-stalking laws are gender neutral, most stalkers are men and most victims are women.

[augmented by case law]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stalking

 

[Bible_Belt]

If it can be proven that Zimmerman did anything he did for racial reasons, then he will be convicted of a hate crime or civil rights violation. The reason that we had civil rights law in the first place was to override ridiculous state laws instituting discrimination in the old South. When the state courts wouldn't convict the Klan of murder, the FBI could get them on the civil rights violation for a five-year prison sentence. Like I said earlier, they are going to do the same thing here. It doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks, Fed law trumps state. And when you make the Feds look bad, which is what this case does, they will find someone to put in jail.

 

[FairShake]

Several people here are talking about the situation as if they witnessed it. None of us know what happened in between the ending of the 911 call and the fight and we shouldn't cast stones like we do.

But as for those claiming if the roles were reversed we would have a different outcome I want to show you a recent case involving a black shooter and an unarmed "white hispanic" victim (who was mentally disabled no less) where the shooter was also not arrested after claiming self defense.

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/new...-victim-was-holding-leash-not-weapon-4-4-2012