George Zimmerman verdict thread
Options
Comments
-
COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE EVENTS LEADING UP TO TRAYVON MARTIN'S DEATH PT 2
If Zimmerman is lying you also have to come up with a theory of events that makes sense in relation to what we do know. For example, there were screams with time between them, pure sound screams
and separately screaming calls for "help", the word. The screams occurred before the gunshot is heard.
If the screams were Martin's and not Zimmerman's how did they come about?
If they were the screams of Martin he was either in pain before the gunshot or made these high pitched screaming sounds out of pure fear of Zimmerman. If it was physical pain then Zimmerman would have been beating him up but that seems unlikely because he had a gun and would not need to risk getting in close to throw some punches.
Did Zimmerman have the gun out and say he was going to ? Martin and then Martin screamed a couple of times out of pure fear? It's slightly more possible but to me seems unlikely. People are more likely to say "don't shoot" if threatened then to just scream or at least scream “help” only.
Zimmerman had wounds suggesting he lost a fist fight. Was his pride hurt and had Martin stopped beating him when Zimmerman pulled out his gun and shot him, not out of self defense but just because he just wanted to?
It seems unlikely because he knew police were on their way and could have seen him do that.
He also has no history of racist remarks even though he might have profiled Martin on the basis of race. However any unknown male walking around at night in that neighborhood with a black hoodie on might have looked suspicious Zimmerman.
One problem with this case if that we first saw the young picture of Trayvon. It seemed like there is no way he could have been a threat to Zimmerman and only harmless kids eat skittles.
So this was the perfect case to hang our hats on, to speak out about against racial profiling.
It seemed at the time like an easy case to win and if we won it would serve as a warning that it is wrong to racially profile. A heavy looking frowning Zimmerman and a small younger Trayvon with a big smile.
But we invested too heavily in the politics of this case.
Trayvon was not a criminal or thug but when we saw the later pictures it looked possible that he was athletic enough could have beaten up a flabby George Zimmerman. He was not a little kid either, in fcat taller than Zimmerman.
So even if we thought Zimmerman was guilty our perspective changed. It was no longer physically impossible for Trayvon to have beaten him in a fight and once we realize that we realize that we really can’t be certain who started the physical confrontation.
In the beginning there was a big debate about Zimmerman walking around the police station not appearing to be bruised. It seemed like he was lying about being attacked but later we saw the picture of his swollen broken nose , bleeding lip and bruised head. So even if we thought Zimmerman was responsible for the whole situation the whole situation was different. A 17 year old who ate Skittles might not have beaten up Zimmerman but after seeing these pictures it became possible. Who threw the first punch? We don’t know.
Do we want new laws making it illegal to follow somebody? Do we want to make new laws that if somebody follows you illegally that you can attack them? I don’t know but these things are issues raised by this case even though we don’t know if Zimmerman took it to a physical level first.
We don’t know exactly how the fight may have went. Hypothetically, in general not even looking at this case, if someone is sitting on you punching you in the head and you are yelling help and you have a gun should you be able to shoot them?
Some lawyers are saying that a civil case is easier to prove that the burden of evidence is 50% of what it takes to prove a criminal case but most are not for a different reason. The fact is that a civil case would be based on a recent 2009 hate crime law which came about based on some murders of ? people. To use this law you may not need as much physical evidence but what you need is several overt anti-? hate remarks or in this case overt anti-black hate remarks and they don’t have that and there are even some stories that he helped some black people.
That is not to say he might not also have had prejudiced concepts as well but that is not against the law and you can't read a person's mind.
Even though Zimmerman wasn’t convicted this case has brought a very large spotlight to the issue of racial profiling and some newspapers, even conservative ones have been more sympathetic than expected. That is a good thing.
We are very frustrated about profiling. But one lesson from this case is we must deal with it intelligently and not lose our cool. My philosophy is that I can’t stop you from following me just make sure you don’t touch me.
And think did Trayvon necessarily think he was being racially profiled? He was being followed and didn’t like it. I feel for him and I feel for the Martin family.
Message to George Zimmerman, there was a reason you didn’t make the police force, you were protecting no one,
peace -
godbynature wrote: »I actually do take offense to this drivel that you posted
Meh, well so much for civility and maturity. If you do take offense to my "drivel," then that's out of my hands because, once again, I meant no disrespect.godbynature wrote: »because its an insult to my intelligence.
Not sure I'm understanding you here. If you're saying that I'm being condescending, then you've misunderstood me. Either that or you don't handle criticism very well. [/quote]godbynature wrote: »You could've kept this to yourself
Heh, and why would I do that? And why are you taking this so personal heh? I'm getting the impression that you thought that whole post was addressed to you. If so, don't flatter yourself. Only the first three sentences were addressed to you. The other 90% of the post had nothing to do with you and was just a general post.godbynature wrote: »because you didn't say ? .
Well, I guess we disagree.
And the fact that you got into your feelings may say otherwise. And the fact that you replied to me but didn't really address anything means that you're the one who didn't say ? . And I still have no idea why you're butthurt. [/quote]
I'm not "butthurt" about anything, I meant exactly what I said. Your post was an insult to me and every other black person who followed the Zimmerman trial. This situation was all about race and people like you try to deny or downplay that is part of the problem. This whole deal has been nothing but an illustration of how little this society values the lives of black people. The police did a half ass job with this case from the very beginning because they simply didn't value the life of Trayvon Martin. By all accounts it was a sloppy investigation by a police department that has been accused of improperly investigating crimes involving black victims in the past. Remember, the police weren't even going to charge Zimmerman initially. They were just going to let him go. The outcry from the black community is the only reason that he was charged in the 1st place.godbynature wrote: »I actually do take offense to this drivel that you posted
Meh, well so much for civility and maturity. If you do take offense to my "drivel," then that's out of my hands because, once again, I meant no disrespect.godbynature wrote: »because its an insult to my intelligence.
Not sure I'm understanding you here. If you're saying that I'm being condescending, then you've misunderstood me. Either that or you don't handle criticism very well.godbynature wrote: »You could've kept this to yourself
Heh, and why would I do that? And why are you taking this so personal heh? I'm getting the impression that you thought that whole post was addressed to you. If so, don't flatter yourself. Only the first three sentences were addressed to you. The other 90% of the post had nothing to do with you and was just a general post.godbynature wrote: »because you didn't say ? .
Well, I guess we disagree.
And the fact that you got into your feelings may say otherwise. And the fact that you replied to me but didn't really address anything means that you're the one who didn't say ? . And I still have no idea why you're butthurt.
Again, it's clear that race played a monumental factor in this case from the very beginning and you denying or trying to downplay it is an insult. There's a reason that Zimmerman has been adopted by racist whites and propped up as some kind of hero. There's a reason that the jury was 5/6 white in the 1st place. You can keep your head in the sand and ignore the role that race played here, but try as convince others of that dumb ? .
-
godbynature wrote: »godbynature wrote: »I actually do take offense to this drivel that you posted
Meh, well so much for civility and maturity. If you do take offense to my "drivel," then that's out of my hands because, once again, I meant no disrespect.godbynature wrote: »because its an insult to my intelligence.
Not sure I'm understanding you here. If you're saying that I'm being condescending, then you've misunderstood me. Either that or you don't handle criticism very well.godbynature wrote: »You could've kept this to yourself
Heh, and why would I do that? And why are you taking this so personal heh? I'm getting the impression that you thought that whole post was addressed to you. If so, don't flatter yourself. Only the first three sentences were addressed to you. The other 90% of the post had nothing to do with you and was just a general post.godbynature wrote: »because you didn't say ? .
Well, I guess we disagree.
And the fact that you got into your feelings may say otherwise. And the fact that you replied to me but didn't really address anything means that you're the one who didn't say ? . And I still have no idea why you're butthurt. [/quote]
I'm not "butthurt" about anything, I meant exactly what I said. Your post was an insult to me and every other black person who followed the Zimmerman trial. This situation was all about race and people like you try to deny or downplay that is part of the problem. This whole deal has been nothing but an illustration of how little this society values the lives of black people. The police did a half ass job with this case from the very beginning because they simply didn't value the life of Trayvon Martin. By all accounts it was a sloppy investigation by a police department that has been accused of improperly investigating crimes involving black victims in the past. Remember, the police weren't even going to charge Zimmerman initially. They were just going to let him go. The outcry from the black community is the only reason that he was charged in the 1st place.godbynature wrote: »I actually do take offense to this drivel that you posted
Meh, well so much for civility and maturity. If you do take offense to my "drivel," then that's out of my hands because, once again, I meant no disrespect.godbynature wrote: »because its an insult to my intelligence.
Not sure I'm understanding you here. If you're saying that I'm being condescending, then you've misunderstood me. Either that or you don't handle criticism very well.godbynature wrote: »You could've kept this to yourself
Heh, and why would I do that? And why are you taking this so personal heh? I'm getting the impression that you thought that whole post was addressed to you. If so, don't flatter yourself. Only the first three sentences were addressed to you. The other 90% of the post had nothing to do with you and was just a general post.godbynature wrote: »because you didn't say ? .
Well, I guess we disagree.
And the fact that you got into your feelings may say otherwise. And the fact that you replied to me but didn't really address anything means that you're the one who didn't say ? . And I still have no idea why you're butthurt.
Again, it's clear that race played a monumental factor in this case from the very beginning and you denying or trying to downplay it is an insult. There's a reason that Zimmerman has been adopted by racist whites and propped up as some kind of hero. There's a reason that the jury was 5/6 white in the 1st place. You can keep your head in the sand and ignore the role that race played here, but try as convince others of that dumb ? .
[/quote]
How did you wish the jury to be made up? -
I wish the jury was made up in a way that was more reflective of the community. Blacks make up 31% of the Sanford population yet not one black person was on the jury.
This whole trial was nothing but window dressing. Zimmerman was never going to be convicted. It's a shame that so many people are so stupid. -
godbynature wrote: »I wish the jury was made up in a way that was more reflective of the community. Blacks make up 31% of the Sanford population yet not one black person was on the jury.
This whole trial was nothing but window dressing. Zimmerman was never going to be convicted. It's a shame that so many people are so stupid.
Jurors cannot be hand picked. They are selected randomly and anonymously one by one. Lawyers can object to a juror when he/she is selected if they feel the person has prior knowledge to the case or in any way related or known to any of the people involved or other reason, but they cannot object based on race or class. Also, you are judged by a jury of your peers ........ so the jury pool would be the peers of the Defendant. -
Good point Godbynature.....I shouldv'e known Zimmerman's White Hispanic ass wouldv'e gotten off once the jury was made of 5 Whites and one White Hispanic. We now know a White guy can stand his ground in this country and a Black boy armed with Skittles and iced tea is not allowed to stand his ground.
-
I don't know why everybody was so surprised when the verdict was read. The prosecution in this case messed up worse than in the Casey Anthony case. After the first three days it was clear he was gonna be acquitted. Only way he would be convicted is if he had the worst lawyers in the world or the jurors made a decision that was not based on law and evidence, in which case it would be overturned by appeal. You need to remember that the jurors are not privy to information that the rest of us get of TV and the opinions that are shared by panelists after the day in court. They cannot make a decision based on feelings or "common sense", they have to make it based on what facts and evidence they are allowed to use and on the law of the district.
I guarantee that if any of you were on the jury you would have made the same decision too. -
godbynature wrote: »I'm not "butthurt" about anything, I meant exactly what I said.
To be fair, I never denied that you didn’t mean exactly what you said. I’m sure that you did, and I can respect that. But it’s exactly what you said that gave me the impression that you were butthurt. But I think that arguing about whether you were butthurt or not isn’t entirely relevant or desirable so meh.godbynature wrote: »Your post was an insult to me and every other black person who followed the Zimmerman trial.
? . That’s ridiculous. So you now speak for every other black person (which includes me ironically and many others) who followed the Zimmerman trial? Perhaps you think I’m white or a “? ,” but that’s beside the point for at least two reasons:
1. When people get all high and mighty and heavily invest in their own emotions about an issue, an intellectual and respectful debate (like the one I had with desertrain for instance) about said issue with someone with an opposing viewpoint is highly unlikely. Your post was a good example of this.
2. Just because you despise my opinion, doesn’t mean that it’s false or unworthy. Once again, let me reiterate. Nothing that I said was meant and nothing that I say is meant to insult anyone. The fact that you feel insulted is your problem and not mine. I think that we’d actually get somewhere if you set aside your feelings and actually debate the issue at hand. But if you feel so hurt/insulted about what I said and want nothing more to do with me, then why are you still responding to me?godbynature wrote: »This situation was all about race and people like you try to deny or downplay that is part of the problem.
You see? I disagree and would say that your viewpoint is actually part of the problem. And I have thoroughly explained and defended my viewpoint already. You offered no evidence for viewpoint, ignored mine, and just assumed that you were right. I still honestly have no idea how I was so “insulting.” But what’s the point in arguing with someone who already has their mind made up and is harping about how “insulting” I am as if that is the real issue?godbynature wrote: »This whole deal has been nothing but an illustration of how little this society values the lives of black people.
I think that certainly applies to some of this ordeal but not all of it. But really though? This whole ordeal is nothing but racism? I’ve seen people compare Trayvon Martin to Emmett Till. Now if you ask me, that is insulting. Incredibly insulting. There are a lot of Emmett Tills that exist today in this nation, and they need our attention, but Trayvon Martin is no Emmett Till no matter how hard we want to force the issue.
You talk about how little “society” values the lives of blacks, but who and what the hell is society? Seems like a pretty big generalization. If you speak of our government, then yes, I can agree. I realize how racist America can be, but the Zimmerman verdict isn’t a shining example of this racism. We need to pay more attention to other less-sensationalized cases that happen every day in America.
-
godbynature wrote: »The police did a half ass job with this case from the very beginning because they simply didn't value the life of Trayvon Martin. By all accounts it was a sloppy investigation by a police department that has been accused of improperly investigating crimes involving black victims in the past. Remember, the police weren't even going to charge Zimmerman initially. They were just going to let him go. The outcry from the black community is the only reason that he was charged in the 1st place.
Great, you’re finally offering some evidence. I can’t outright agree or disagree with a lot of what you’ve said here. Honestly, this and many parts of the whole ordeal are very complicated and debatable to me. Did the police do a ? job? Probably. Though it might be fair to say that they did in follow standard procedures, arrested him, questioned him at a police station for hours, made him take a lie-detector test, photographed him and took more evidence, and only released him because they did not have enough evidence to legally detain him. But state AND federal officials (and fortunately the local citizens as well) were still in the process of drawing up a difficult charge against him.
Now, did the police intentionally do a ? job because Martin was black? That I find dubious and hard to prove. Is it even possible that the police were incompetent to begin with since they might have done a poor job with other cases that DID NOT involve blacks? That’s much more likely in comparison imo. Would the police have done a better job if Martin was white? I honestly don’t know, but I think it would depend mostly on his class like if he was rich. Police deal with whites and look down on them for many reasons as well. Regardless, if police do a ? job, the family or the community will always demand justice and usually succeed just as it fortunately happened with Martin. And Zimmerman was successfully investigated, tried, and a verdict, which was faulty but not necessarily racist, happened as a result.godbynature wrote: »Again, it's clear that race played a monumental factor in this case from the very beginning
I still disagree and have stated my case.godbynature wrote: »and you denying or trying to downplay it is an insult.
I’m sorry that you feel this way. And to be fair, I will reiterate that I think that race played a role, but I think that you are exaggerating its role because of bias, and I find that insulting. -
godbynature wrote: »There's a reason that Zimmerman has been adopted by racist whites and propped up as some kind of hero.
Why would anyone take what racist whites believe in seriously? And just because someone is adopted as a hero by racists, doesn’t mean that said person is racist. That’s clearly faulty logic. ? idolized Nietzsche, but Nietzsche would’ve been rolling over in his grave at the time. And again, let’s not forget that Zimmerman is NOT white. It’s too convenient that people are basically stretching this into a white vs. black thing, and Zimmerman is supposed to be the white oppressor. Zimmerman is a ? patsy!godbynature wrote: »There's a reason that the jury was 5/6 white in the 1st place.
Ridiculous. Someone has already pointed out your error here. I was talking to my (black) homegirl (who apparently should also feel insulted by what I say) about this case. She’s a lawyer and happens to agree with me. But she told me that people fallaciously expect juries to be racially diverse because they’re legally supposed to be a jury of your peers. But it’s all generally random, and if any kind of diversity is implemented, it only occurs after a random yet large sample of potential jury members are selected. If you’re mad that there was a predominantly white jury, and you don’t believe that it was an intentional “conspiracy,” then your beef is with a fault within the court system that has very little to do with race/racism. Nothing special or out-of-the-ordinary was done in this specific regard to accommodate this particular court case.
And why does everyone seem to be downplaying the role of the sixth jury member who wasn’t white? Why does she conveniently get a pass? Was she not part of the process of coming up with an acquittal verdict?? Again, people stretching themselves to make this so racial when it’s just not there.godbynature wrote: »You can keep your head in the sand and ignore the role that race played here, but try as convince others of that dumb ? .
This kind of sounds like what I think of your opinion about this case. Imo you’re the one that’s ignorant. -
Agree with godbynature.... window. Dressing. The whole thing doesnt add up.... everything comes together too convenient for it to be a real random act of murder. rip trayvon.
-
? zimmerman and mkultra
-
You should take what white racists believe in seriously. They still run this country as the things that they are doing directly effects you and other black people. Are you unaware of the laws being passed all over the country by these racist whites? You're completely ignorant man. Look at what they're doing in Texas and NC just to name 2 states. whites are tryin to take us back to the good ole days and with blacks such as yourself sleepwalking wallowing in ignorance, they'll be successful.godbynature wrote: »There's a reason that Zimmerman has been adopted by racist whites and propped up as some kind of hero.
Why would anyone take what racist whites believe in seriously? And just because someone is adopted as a hero by racists, doesn’t mean that said person is racist. That’s clearly faulty logic. ? idolized Nietzsche, but Nietzsche would’ve been rolling over in his grave at the time. And again, let’s not forget that Zimmerman is NOT white. It’s too convenient that people are basically stretching this into a white vs. black thing, and Zimmerman is supposed to be the white oppressor. Zimmerman is a ? patsy!
The point that I was making in that section of my comment went over your head though. I wasn't claiming that Zimmerman was a racist. Whether he is or isn't is beside the point. The point is that the reason that Zimmerman is being looked at as a hero to white racists is because he killed a young black man and was protected by the system. Be clear, Zimmerman is white. Hispanic is not a race, he classifies himself as white. There has even been reports that he has posted racist anti-Mexican thoughts and feelings on the Internet somewhere. You really sound like one of these Fox News watching sheep.godbynature wrote: »There's a reason that the jury was 5/6 white in the 1st place.
Ridiculous. Someone has already pointed out your error here. I was talking to my (black) homegirl (who apparently should also feel insulted by what I say) about this case. She’s a lawyer and happens to agree with me. But she told me that people fallaciously expect juries to be racially diverse because they’re legally supposed to be a jury of your peers. But it’s all generally random, and if any kind of diversity is implemented, it only occurs after a random yet large sample of potential jury members are selected. If you’re mad that there was a predominantly white jury, and you don’t believe that it was an intentional “conspiracy,” then your beef is with a fault within the court system that has very little to do with race/racism. Nothing special or out-of-the-ordinary was done in this specific regard to accommodate this particular court case.
And why does everyone seem to be downplaying the role of the sixth jury member who wasn’t white? Why does she conveniently get a pass? Was she not part of the process of coming up with an acquittal verdict?? Again, people stretching themselves to make this so racial when it’s just not there. [/quote]The only person that's stretching here is you in an effort to dismiss race. I really don't get it. This is America, race has always and will always play a huge role in any situation involving white and black people.
I know how jury selection is supposed to work in our judicial system. I simply have no faith in this system because of the history of racism and corruption when it comes to black people. I'm not giving the system the benefit of the doubt like you are. There's no reason to. This country hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt as far as not being racist to blacks. We as black people are not granted the same standard of justice as white people are in this country, and we never have been. It's convenient for you to just chalk the jury being 5/6 white up to coincidence because you're an apologist. You're someone who wants to believe that race and racism isn't that big of a deal. You're going to see what you want to see.godbynature wrote: »I'm not "butthurt" about anything, I meant exactly what I said.
To be fair, I never denied that you didn’t mean exactly what you said. I’m sure that you did, and I can respect that. But it’s exactly what you said that gave me the impression that you were butthurt. But I think that arguing about whether you were butthurt or not isn’t entirely relevant or desirable so meh.godbynature wrote: »Your post was an insult to me and every other black person who followed the Zimmerman trial.
? . That’s ridiculous. So you now speak for every other black person (which includes me ironically and many others) who followed the Zimmerman trial? Perhaps you think I’m white or a “? ,” but that’s beside the point for at least two reasons:
1. When people get all high and mighty and heavily invest in their own emotions about an issue, an intellectual and respectful debate (like the one I had with desertrain for instance) about said issue with someone with an opposing viewpoint is highly unlikely. Your post was a good example of this.
2. Just because you despise my opinion, doesn’t mean that it’s false or unworthy. Once again, let me reiterate. Nothing that I said was meant and nothing that I say is meant to insult anyone. The fact that you feel insulted is your problem and not mine. I think that we’d actually get somewhere if you set aside your feelings and actually debate the issue at hand. But if you feel so hurt/insulted about what I said and want nothing more to do with me, then why are you still responding to me?godbynature wrote: »This situation was all about race and people like you try to deny or downplay that is part of the problem.
You see? I disagree and would say that your viewpoint is actually part of the problem. And I have thoroughly explained and defended my viewpoint already. You offered no evidence for viewpoint, ignored mine, and just assumed that you were right. I still honestly have no idea how I was so “insulting.” But what’s the point in arguing with someone who already has their mind made up and is harping about how “insulting” I am as if that is the real issue?godbynature wrote: »This whole deal has been nothing but an illustration of how little this society values the lives of black people.
I think that certainly applies to some of this ordeal but not all of it. But really though? This whole ordeal is nothing but racism? I’ve seen people compare Trayvon Martin to Emmett Till. Now if you ask me, that is insulting. Incredibly insulting. There are a lot of Emmett Tills that exist today in this nation, and they need our attention, but Trayvon Martin is no Emmett Till no matter how hard we want to force the issue.
You talk about how little “society” values the lives of blacks, but who and what the hell is society? Seems like a pretty big generalization. If you speak of our government, then yes, I can agree. I realize how racist America can be, but the Zimmerman verdict isn’t a shining example of this racism. We need to pay more attention to other less-sensationalized cases that happen every day in America.
-
godbynature wrote: »The police did a half ass job with this case from the very beginning because they simply didn't value the life of Trayvon Martin. By all accounts it was a sloppy investigation by a police department that has been accused of improperly investigating crimes involving black victims in the past. Remember, the police weren't even going to charge Zimmerman initially. They were just going to let him go. The outcry from the black community is the only reason that he was charged in the 1st place.
Great, you’re finally offering some evidence. I can’t outright agree or disagree with a lot of what you’ve said here. Honestly, this and many parts of the whole ordeal are very complicated and debatable to me. Did the police do a ? job? Probably. Though it might be fair to say that they did in follow standard procedures, arrested him, questioned him at a police station for hours, made him take a lie-detector test, photographed him and took more evidence, and only released him because they did not have enough evidence to legally detain him. But state AND federal officials (and fortunately the local citizens as well) were still in the process of drawing up a difficult charge against him.
Now, did the police intentionally do a ? job because Martin was black? That I find dubious and hard to prove. Is it even possible that the police were incompetent to begin with since they might have done a poor job with other cases that DID NOT involve blacks? That’s much more likely in comparison imo. Would the police have done a better job if Martin was white? I honestly don’t know, but I think it would depend mostly on his class like if he was rich. Police deal with whites and look down on them for many reasons as well. Regardless, if police do a ? job, the family or the community will always demand justice and usually succeed just as it fortunately happened with Martin. And Zimmerman was successfully investigated, tried, and a verdict, which was faulty but not necessarily racist, happened as a result.godbynature wrote: »Again, it's clear that race played a monumental factor in this case from the very beginning
I still disagree and have stated my case.godbynature wrote: »and you denying or trying to downplay it is an insult.
I’m sorry that you feel this way. And to be fair, I will reiterate that I think that race played a role, but I think that you are exaggerating its role because of bias, and I find that insulting.
-
What was the jury make up in O.J. Simpson's case? Predominantly black .... a jury of his (the Defendant's) peers
-
godbynature wrote: »There's a reason that Zimmerman has been adopted by racist whites and propped up as some kind of hero.
Why would anyone take what racist whites believe in seriously? And just because someone is adopted as a hero by racists, doesn’t mean that said person is racist. That’s clearly faulty logic. ? idolized Nietzsche, but Nietzsche would’ve been rolling over in his grave at the time. And again, let’s not forget that Zimmerman is NOT white. It’s too convenient that people are basically stretching this into a white vs. black thing, and Zimmerman is supposed to be the white oppressor. Zimmerman is a ? patsy!godbynature wrote: »There's a reason that the jury was 5/6 white in the 1st place.
Ridiculous. Someone has already pointed out your error here. I was talking to my (black) homegirl (who apparently should also feel insulted by what I say) about this case. She’s a lawyer and happens to agree with me. But she told me that people fallaciously expect juries to be racially diverse because they’re legally supposed to be a jury of your peers. But it’s all generally random, and if any kind of diversity is implemented, it only occurs after a random yet large sample of potential jury members are selected. If you’re mad that there was a predominantly white jury, and you don’t believe that it was an intentional “conspiracy,” then your beef is with a fault within the court system that has very little to do with race/racism. Nothing special or out-of-the-ordinary was done in this specific regard to accommodate this particular court case.
And why does everyone seem to be downplaying the role of the sixth jury member who wasn’t white? Why does she conveniently get a pass? Was she not part of the process of coming up with an acquittal verdict?? Again, people stretching themselves to make this so racial when it’s just not there.godbynature wrote: »You can keep your head in the sand and ignore the role that race played here, but try as convince others of that dumb ? .
This kind of sounds like what I think of your opinion about this case. Imo you’re the one that’s ignorant.
According to a comprehensive report released by Equal Justice Initiative, the Alabama-based criminal civil rights organization, African Americans are consistently excluded from jury service in jurisdictions throughout the South. The numbers are staggering in some southern counties. For example, according to the report, between 2005 and 2009, 80 percent of eligible African Americans were removed from jury service in Houston County, Alab., where the population is 27 percent African-American.
The culprits here are prosecutors, and their use of peremptory challenges, which allow them to remove a certain number potential jurors for any reason at all. In too many instances, prosecutors use peremptory strikes to target African Americans, especially in homicide cases involving black defendants. In one judicial circuit in Georgia, prosecutors used 83 percent of their peremptory strikes to remove African Americans from juries.
http://www.theroot.com/category/views-tags/racist-jury-selection
Even CNN have done a lot of stories on racial biases and in the jury selection process ....
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/06/23/lyon.racial.jury.selection/index.html
i agree with so of you points, but again you're downplaying the role of race and ignoring the impropriety of racial bias in this case and our legal system
unfortunately racism has and continue to pervades every facet of american society including our criminal-justice system...and how could it not considering our country's history
so it did manner it was practically an all white jury
with that said i'm not saying the that zimmerman/jurors were all racist
just recognizing the fact that EVERYONE including state legislators, judges, lawyers, law enforcement, defendants, AND even jurors carry with them their own racial attitudes and prejudices where ever they go... the assumptions zimmerman made about trayvon that night these jurors could have shared the same sentiments
realize jurors are not just these non biased listeners, waiting until all available evidence was presented before attempting a rational process of deliberation... they aren't robots, they don't live in a vacuum and that is not how human decision making goes. in reality jurors are influenced by a variety of biases, not all of which are conscious....
biases can also impact jury deliberations. in theory, juries are used by our court system because we believe polling individuals’ on a topic will generate a less biased assessment of the evidence presented and leads to less error.... jurors are not “blank slates,” however. they come to trial with beliefs and knowledge that influences their decision making implicitly...for instance, individuals’ knowledge of a cultural stereotype of black individuals as aggressive and dangerous could influence jurors’ perceptions of blacks as more violent or aggressive ...in addition, attitudes of one juror can often influence other jurors’ attitudes
HOWEVER while i believe race played a role in the verdict, i more so feel that the prosecution did a bad job in presenting their case mainly because then the sanford pd would've had to answer to the public as to why they didn't arrest zimmerman in the first place and conducted such a flimsy investigation
just think...
sanford pd broke protocol and didn't test the killer for alcohol or drugs....yet they tested trayvon
they didn't use the victim's cell phone to reach relatives, and instead identified him as "john doe" for 3 days
they didn't EVEN interview the person to whom the victim was having a cell phone conversation moments before his murder
crime scene investigators didn't properly bag trayvon's hands and clothes
smh....
maybe it was mere incompetency but that's a lot of missteps. and considering sanford's and their police department's sordid legacy its not a complete reach or an emotional response when people make the claim that zimmerman would have differently had he killed a white teenager. in recent years sanford pd has been plagued by numerous allegations of racial injustice, and a series of public missteps. in 2006 a security guard and one of the sons of a sanford police officer killed a black teen with a gunshot in his back. even though he admitted to never identifying himself, he was released without charges.... -
desertrain10 wrote: »
Respect.desertrain10 wrote: »With that said I feel as though your downplaying the role race plays in our everyday lives...
I don't know. I know racism is a ? , and all people of color experience it daily. I know I do. I just believe that race didn't have as much to do with this particular verdict as most people seem to think. I guess we just disagree.desertrain10 wrote: »And I also disagree that class now trumps race...fact is poor white people still do not face the same problems, barriers as poor blacks...pretending that it does does blacks more harm then good
Ok, if I said that class trumps race, I take that back. But I do believe that classism is just as important as racism. Blacks, more than anyone else in the world, just happen to experience both. But blacks don't fight against classism as nearly as I think they should. And I see blacks use race/racism to divide and conquer among themselves (even dark-skin vs. light-skin) and other people of color when it's unnecessary and detrimental to the fight against discrimination and prejudice.
Blacks and Hispanics are more likely than whites to be poor, and to be in deep povertyBlacks and Hispanics are more likely than whites to be poor, and to be in deep poverty
I also think that poor whites get the short end of the stick as well when it come to employment, the court system, education, etc. Even if they don't experience racism like all blacks do.
its a disgrace how we treat poor people of every race ....but its no coincidence that blacks are more likely than whites to be poor, and to be in deep poverty, or that black unemployment rate is double that of whites
that didn't "just happen" ...that's the result of slavery, jim crow, institutionalized racism, government policies, etc
bruh
therefore classism will never reach the ranks of racism....well as long as things remain the same ( i.e. government policy, racial attitudes of the ruling group, etc)
and from where im sitting there are a lot of blacks and black lead organizations fighting for the poor and rallying for affordable housing, healthcare, decent wages, etc
i really don't see how blacks have used race to divide an conquer among themselves and other people of color as to where is has become detriment
-
So now the LONE woman of color on this ? jury now says that "Zimmerman got away with murder".
http://colorlines.com/archives/2013/07/lone_juror_of_color_zimmerman_got_away_with_murder.html
I wish that ? juror would have not caved in to what the other jurors wanted. If she really felt Zimmerman got away with murder, why the hell did she side with the defense of Zimmerman? The prosecution did not put on the greatest case but I thought it was very clear Zimmerman was the aggressor......smh at that chick NOW trying to save face. She gets no respect from me. -
What do you guys think of this video that just came out
http://youtu.be/Ebu6Yvzs4Ls -
you mean some white Hispanic? hmmmSo now the LONE woman of color-
this is her feeling guilty after the fact. you're absolutely right that if she thought he was guilty (or guilty of some but not all charges or whatever), then she's not supposed to just cave in.kingblaze84 wrote: »I wish that ? juror would have not caved in to what the other jurors wanted. If she really felt Zimmerman got away with murder, why the hell did she side with the defense of Zimmerman?
-
She didn't really cave in ....... she voted the way the Law required. She wanted to find him Guilty but he wasn't according to Florida Law. Basically the same thing the other jurors said. Just her time for fame now.
-
godbynature wrote: »You should take what white racists believe in seriously.
Ok, let me clarify because the statement that you’ve quoted from me wasn’t expressed clearly. When I said, “Why would anyone take what racist whites believe in seriously,” I wasn’t speaking generally. I was specifically responding to your statement about racist whites propping him up as a hero. I think that point is largely irrelevant for various reasons, some of which I’ve already stated.godbynature wrote: »They still run this country as the things that they are doing directly effects you and other black people. Are you unaware of the laws being passed all over the country by these racist whites? You're completely ignorant man. Look at what they're doing in Texas and NC just to name 2 states. whites are tryin to take us back to the good ole days and with blacks such as yourself sleepwalking wallowing in ignorance, they'll be successful.
People of all races run this country and promote their ignorant (whether its racist, sexist, elitist, etc.) policies that affect all citizens. I am very much concerned about all of these ignorant people in power and have actively been criticizing and fighting against them for a while not. So no, I’m not ignorant and am aware of all of this, but I do think that you’re short-sighted and unwittingly playing their game.godbynature wrote: »The point that I was making in that section of my comment went over your head though. I wasn't claiming that Zimmerman was a racist.
My bad, I misunderstood you or mixed you up with another poster there then. What I said there doesn’t apply to you, but it does to the many people who do believe that Zimmerman is a racist (which he very well might be, but there still is no strong evidence to assure this). -
godbynature wrote: »Whether he is or isn't is beside the point. The point is that the reason that Zimmerman is being looked at as a hero to white racists is because he killed a young black man and was protected by the system.
Sure, but I agree and disagree. You say that he was protected by the system, but my potential disagreement is that you think that it was racist and intentional whereas I think that that it was indirect, which means that the essential root of the problem lies in how our system works not anything else which is only superficial. And again, the fact that racist whites apparently love Zimmerman is insignificant regarding the essential problem imo.godbynature wrote: »Be clear, Zimmerman is white. Hispanic is not a race, he classifies himself as white.
Oh, the concept of race is soooo stupid. I won’t comment any further because I think we’ll just end up arguing about everything and nothing.godbynature wrote: »There has even been reports that he has posted racist anti-Mexican thoughts and feelings on the Internet somewhere.
Well, surely that settles it…godbynature wrote: »You really sound like one of these Fox News watching sheep.
LOL. Wow, you have terrible judgment.godbynature wrote: »The only person that's stretching here is you in an effort to dismiss race.
Once again (this might be my fourth time now), let me reiterate. I’m not dismissing race. I do think that race has something to do with this ordeal, but I don’t think that it has everything or so much to do with it, namely the Zimmerman verdict. Therefore, I honestly think that we truly just might be splitting hairs here. But you’re the one that sounds all appalled and outraged as if my views are the complete opposite of yours.
And let me furthermore clarify for those who have equally terrible judgment: I believe that the American system and government are racist, and I’m against it as much as (or maybe more than) the next man, but this particular ordeal is NOT a model example of racial injustice. Once again, if you truly want to see racial injustice, pay attention to the millions of cases that the news don’t tell you about because there’s no pretty white girl or juicy story. That takes nothing away from the injustice that Martin’s family is going through, and I wish them the best. -
godbynature wrote: »I really don't get it. This is America, race has always and will always play a huge role in any situation involving white and black people.
Sure, but race is neither the all-be-it nor the sole variable in situations involving white and black people. That is, unless we try to make it so racial and/or simplified…godbynature wrote: »I know how jury selection is supposed to work in our judicial system.
I’m confused. I’ve either misunderstood you or you’re misunderstanding me. If you meant that the jury selection is intentional and actively racist when you said – “There’s a reason that the jury was 5/6 white in the first place” – then I think I was correct in criticizing your understanding of how our judicial system works. If not, then my bad.godbynature wrote: »I simply have no faith in this system because of the history of racism and corruption when it comes to black people. I'm not giving the system the benefit of the doubt like you are. There's no reason to. This country hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt as far as not being racist to blacks. We as black people are not granted the same standard of justice as white people are in this country, and we never have been.
Once again, I think that you display poor judgment. I agree with everything you’ve said here. Why in the world would you think that I approve of our current system? I’ve been telling how incompetent it is since day 1 of our little argument!godbynature wrote: »It's convenient for you to just chalk the jury being 5/6 white up to coincidence because you're an apologist.
So you do think that the 5/6 white jury was intentional and racist? You do realize how “conspiracy-theorist” that sounds, right. You could very well be right, but I and others have given you solid evidence to the contrary. I even quoted a lawyer whom I know for evidence to suggest that jury selection is systematically random. You are the one stuck with the burden of proof. So just simply give me hard evidence to prove that this jury selection was intentionally racist because I don’t recall ever seeing such proof from you.godbynature wrote: »You're someone who wants to believe that race and racism isn't that big of a deal.
False and laughable.godbynature wrote: »You're going to see what you want to see.
Right back at you.
-
desertrain10 wrote: »According to a comprehensive report released by Equal Justice Initiative, the Alabama-based criminal civil rights organization, African Americans are consistently excluded from jury service in jurisdictions throughout the South. The numbers are staggering in some southern counties. For example, according to the report, between 2005 and 2009, 80 percent of eligible African Americans were removed from jury service in Houston County, Alab., where the population is 27 percent African-American.
The culprits here are prosecutors, and their use of peremptory challenges, which allow them to remove a certain number potential jurors for any reason at all. In too many instances, prosecutors use peremptory strikes to target African Americans, especially in homicide cases involving black defendants. In one judicial circuit in Georgia, prosecutors used 83 percent of their peremptory strikes to remove African Americans from juries.
http://www.theroot.com/category/views-tags/racist-jury-selection
Even CNN have done a lot of stories on racial biases and in the jury selection process ....
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/06/23/lyon.racial.jury.selection/index.html
i agree with so of you points, but again you're downplaying the role of race and ignoring the impropriety of racial bias in this case and our legal system
unfortunately racism has and continue to pervades every facet of american society including our criminal-justice system...and how could it not considering our country's history
so it did manner it was practically an all white jury
with that said i'm not saying the that zimmerman/jurors were all racist
just recognizing the fact that EVERYONE including state legislators, judges, lawyers, law enforcement, defendants, AND even jurors carry with them their own racial attitudes and prejudices where ever they go... the assumptions zimmerman made about trayvon that night these jurors could have shared the same sentiments
realize jurors are not just these non biased listeners, waiting until all available evidence was presented before attempting a rational process of deliberation... they aren't robots, they don't live in a vacuum and that is not how human decision making goes. in reality jurors are influenced by a variety of biases, not all of which are conscious....
biases can also impact jury deliberations. in theory, juries are used by our court system because we believe polling individuals’ on a topic will generate a less biased assessment of the evidence presented and leads to less error.... jurors are not “blank slates,” however. they come to trial with beliefs and knowledge that influences their decision making implicitly...for instance, individuals’ knowledge of a cultural stereotype of black individuals as aggressive and dangerous could influence jurors’ perceptions of blacks as more violent or aggressive ...in addition, attitudes of one juror can often influence other jurors’ attitudes
HOWEVER while i believe race played a role in the verdict, i more so feel that the prosecution did a bad job in presenting their case mainly because then the sanford pd would've had to answer to the public as to why they didn't arrest zimmerman in the first place and conducted such a flimsy investigation
just think...
sanford pd broke protocol and didn't test the killer for alcohol or drugs....yet they tested trayvon
they didn't use the victim's cell phone to reach relatives, and instead identified him as "john doe" for 3 days
they didn't EVEN interview the person to whom the victim was having a cell phone conversation moments before his murder
crime scene investigators didn't properly bag trayvon's hands and clothes
smh....
maybe it was mere incompetency but that's a lot of missteps. and considering sanford's and their police department's sordid legacy its not a complete reach or an emotional response when people make the claim that zimmerman would have differently had he killed a white teenager. in recent years sanford pd has been plagued by numerous allegations of racial injustice, and a series of public missteps. in 2006 a security guard and one of the sons of a sanford police officer killed a black teen with a gunshot in his back. even though he admitted to never identifying himself, he was released without charges....
Great post. Your respect and your evidence are highly appreciated. You’ve definitely seemed to solve some of the uncertainties that I’ve had about this ordeal, but since you seem to know a lot more than me about some of this, so I also have a few questions.
I think that the heart of this debate is whether or not the Zimmerman verdict was racist or not. You seem to say that race played a role, but other factors played a more important role. This is basically my opinion, so we might be in a general agreement here. But you did also seem to say that you think that the prosecution team took a dive to protect the Sandford police department? If so, could you explain?
Your evidence on racial discrimination in jury duty selection is certainly eye-opening, and I will definitely do some follow up research on that. I was ignorant in that regard (though I wonder what your opinion is on joshuaboy's claim that O.J. had a predominantly black jury). But don’t get me wrong. I’m aware that our system is flawed and racist (as well as elitist and sexist, which are apparently less popular concerns, which is part of my discontent). I just don’t think that the racist hammer didn’t fall as much as a lot of people think it did in this ordeal and especially in the verdict. But again, I do realize that racism did play a factor, so I might just be splitting hairs. It just irks me when people equate Martin to Emmett Till.
