Trayvon Martin case

[JVides]

This is why it matters (and I don't mean the LeBron angle):

http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/story/_/page/hill-120326/lebron-james-other-athletes-protest-trayvon-martin-shooting-show-change-agent-power-sports

Among the excerpts:

Ryan Moats, an NFL running back, is Trayvon Martin. A police officer named Robert Powell pulled a gun on him and his wife in a hospital parking lot as his mother-in-law died inside.  "I can screw you over," the officer said at one point in the videotaped incident. When another officer came with word that Moats' mother-in-law was indeed dying, Powell's response was: "All right. I'm almost done."

Robbie Tolan, a 23-year-old minor league baseball player, is Trayvon Martin. Tolan was shot in the chest by police in his own driveway in Bellaire, Texas, an affluent, mostly white suburb of Houston.

That this still goes on in this country is beyond ridiculous. 

[badger6]

I do.

How can you ? You'll never hear about it because it doesn't get ratings for the sick media. You'll only hear about the ones they want you to hear about !!!

WTF, indeed.  In this case, it's national news because an unarmed black kid was killed by a private citizen, and the shooter wasn't even arrested.

It's national news because it's racist sensationalist bullshit. Oh, the poor oppressed black kid with his skittles and iced tea who was hunted down and murdered in the street. Cry me an F'n river.Somehow I think that if it was an unarmed white kid that you wouldn't have much to say about it.

How dare Trayvon Martin go out and get himself shot by an overzealous vigilante!  And I hear he had purchased a gold grill and listened to rap music!  What a scumbag.

  Oh, is that what happened or just your assumptions ? You must be an eye witness to the incident because you seem to think you know exactly how it went down. Unlike you, I don't have that luxury because as I wasn't there.

That is 100% correct, because Martin would have been thrown in jail faster than you can blink.

There you go assuming things again. Did you know this Trayvon character personally or just like Sharpton and Jackson with that whole victim mentality thing.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Salman Rushdie is George Zimmerman.   Bounty placed on his head for publishing a book.

Terry Jones is George Zimmerman.  Bounty placed on his head for burning a book.

George Zimmerman had a bounty placed on his head for not being booked.  The one clear uniquivical injustice here is that the Black Panthers organization is not being treated like Al Quida.  

[CF DolFan]

Salman Rushdie is George Zimmerman.   Bounty placed on his head for publishing a book.

Terry Jones is George Zimmerman.  Bounty placed on his head for burning a book.

George Zimmerman had a bounty placed on his head for not being booked.  The one clear uniquivical injustice here is that the Black Panthers organization is not being treated like Al Quida.  

Spike Lee Tweeted his address (or attempted to) which turned out to be wrong. Imagine the lady's surpise when the news media showed up and the fear she is now going through.



Ex-NAACP Leader big rips Al & Jesse for handling of Trayvon Martin shooting

The furor over the shooting of Florida teen Trayvon Martin is being “exploited” by the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to “racially divide the country,” a civil-rights leader charged yesterday.

Martin’s “family should be outraged at the fact that they’re using this child as the bait to inflame racial passions,” the Rev. C.L. Bryant, a former NAACP leader, said of the 17-year-old hoodie-wearing black youth who was shot dead by a mixed white-Latino neighborhood-watch volunteer.

The pastor accused Jackson and Sharpton — who yesterday organized a thousands-strong protest in Sanford, Fla., where the shooting occurred last month — of “acting as though they are buzzards circling the carcass of this young boy” in an interview with The Daily Caller, a news Web site.

 
State Sens. Kevin Parker, Bill Perkins and Eric Adams wear hoodies in Albany yesterday in tribute to Trayvon.
 
Bryant, the past president of the NAACP chapter in Garland, Texas, called Jackson and Sharpton “race hustlers” for inserting themselves into the drama.

His scathing criticism came as:

* New York lawmakers in Albany, wearing hoodies in solidarity with Martin, said the demonization of minorities by police “was born here in New York City.”

* Mayor Bloomberg, a gun-control advocate, said the Feb. 26 shooting was proof that loose national gun laws defy common sense.

* Thousands in Sanford rallied to demand that Zimmerman, a 28-year-old cop wannabe, be arrested and prosecuted. Other protests occurred throughout the country

* Sanford named Capt. Darren Scott, who is black, as acting police chief. He will fill in for Police Chief Bill Lee, who is white and had temporarily stepped down amid controversy over how local cops had handled the shooting.

* Sanford Mayor Jeff Triplet called his city “a tinderbox” set to explode amid the racial tensions.

Former NAACP leader Bryant said the rallies organized by Sharpton and Jackson suggest there is an epidemic of “white men killing black young men” while ignoring much more prevalent black-on-black crime.

“The epidemic is truly black-on-black crime,” he said. “The greatest danger to the lives of young black men are young black men.”

Bryant said he wants to see protests about those problems.

“Why not be angry about the wholesale murder that goes on in the streets of Newark and Chicago?” he asked. “Why isn’t somebody angry about that 6-year-old girl who was killed on her steps last weekend in a cross fire when two gang members in Chicago start shooting at each other? Why is there no outrage about that?”

Bryant, an outspoken conservative, predicted that “people like Sharpton and those on the left” will make Martin’s death an issue in the presidential race.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/race_buzzards_circle_trayvon_AQGwCzQo59asT5aOevVojK#ixzz1qLo44dE9

[Phishfan]

This is why it matters (and I don't mean the LeBron angle):

http://espn.go.com/espn/commentary/story/_/page/hill-120326/lebron-james-other-athletes-protest-trayvon-martin-shooting-show-change-agent-power-sports

Among the excerpts:

Ryan Moats, an NFL running back, is Trayvon Martin. A police officer named Robert Powell pulled a gun on him and his wife in a hospital parking lot as his mother-in-law died inside.  "I can screw you over," the officer said at one point in the videotaped incident. When another officer came with word that Moats' mother-in-law was indeed dying, Powell's response was: "All right. I'm almost done."

Robbie Tolan, a 23-year-old minor league baseball player, is Trayvon Martin. Tolan was shot in the chest by police in his own driveway in Bellaire, Texas, an affluent, mostly white suburb of Houston.

That this still goes on in this country is beyond ridiculous. 

This is so far off base it is rediculous. I am familair with all three incidents and making the comparison does nothing but light fuses.

[Dave Gray]

I am against any form of vigilante justice.  However, that is a seperate incident.  When you have an entire community of both blacks and whites upset, you're going to have a few idiots do stupid things to compromise the message of the group.

It's counter-productive to focus on the response of a few.


As for Phish's response to JVides, I think that those cases, while not the same, are part of the same problem -- the black community has just reason to believe they are treated inequally by police.

[Spider-Dan]

It's national news because it's racist sensationalist bullshit. Oh, the poor oppressed black kid with his skittles and iced tea who was hunted down and murdered in the street. Cry me an F'n river.  Somehow I think that if it was an unarmed white kid that you wouldn't have much to say about it.

Do you seriously believe that an unarmed kid of any race being killed in the street by a wannabe cop who isn't even arrested for the shooting would not be a national story?

Yes, there is a racial component.  The racial component is heavily magnified because of the non-arrest of the shooter.  The fact that this kid appears to have been profiled and ultimately shot simply for being "in the wrong neighborhood" speaks strongly to historical racial issues.

If Zimmerman had been arrested for murder (or at least manslaughter) on the day of the shooting, this entire story goes down as "another black kid gets shot, film at 11."  The idea that a kid can be profiled, followed, and shot simply for being "in the wrong neighborhood," with are no legal repercussions to the shooter... that is what has blown this incident up.

Oh, is that what happened or just your assumptions ? You must be an eye witness to the incident because you seem to think you know exactly how it went down. Unlike you, I don't have that luxury because as I wasn't there.

That certainly doesn't seem to have stopped you from declaring both of them "scumbags."

If Martin was an innocent victim and Zimmerman was the aggressor, why is Martin a scumbag?
Conversely, if you believe Zimmerman was within his lawful rights and was defending himself from Martin's deadly assault, why is Zimmerman a scumbag?
Please do explain.

[badger6]

Do you seriously believe that an unarmed kid of any race being killed in the street by a wannabe cop who isn't even arrested for the shooting would not be a national story?

Yes I do believe that. The media has no problem stiring the racial pot of shit. If it came down between this incident and and the exact same story with a black person killing another black person the media would still pick this one to sensationalize because the evil white man vs the oppressed black man sells better. Didn't you know ?

Yes, there is a racial component.  The racial component is heavily magnified because of the non-arrest of the shooter. 

The shooter wasn't arrested because the police determined at the time that he didn't break the law. It is their job to figure it out, not you or anyone else. If evidence shows otherwise he can be arrested and indicted in the future.

The fact that this kid appears to have been profiled and ultimately shot simply for being "in the wrong neighborhood" speaks strongly to historical racial issues.

 

Was the dead guy in the wrong neighborhood ? I don't go to the wrong neighborhood. If I do and something happens, isn't it somewhat my fault ? I am one of the few white people where I work and I have had black co-workers tell me that I wouldn't dare go to certain neighborhoods because I don't belong there. Why is that if I may ask ?

If Zimmerman had been arrested for murder (or at least manslaughter) on the day of the shooting, this entire story goes down as "another black kid gets shot, film at 11."  The idea that a kid can be profiled, followed, and shot simply for being "in the wrong neighborhood," with are no legal repercussions to the shooter... that is what has blown this incident up.

Why should he be arrested for anything ? The police don't have evidence that he did anything wrong. In fact there is evidence that he was justified. No one should be arrested with no evidence of a crime just to "keep the incident from blowing up" or because a race feels slighted for things that have happened in the past.

That certainly doesn't seem to have stopped you from declaring both of them "scumbags."

If Martin was an innocent victim and Zimmerman was the aggressor, why is Martin a scumbag?
Conversely, if you believe Zimmerman was within his lawful rights and was defending himself from Martin's deadly assault, why is Zimmerman a scumbag?
Please do explain.

They both seem like scumbags to me. Could I be wrong about them ? Of course. Am I wrong ? Probably not. One seems like your typical jackass fake alpha male hip hop/rap thug wannabe and the other one seems off his fucking rocker crazy. Either way, I don't give 2 shits about either one of them.

[Spider-Dan]

Yes I do believe that. The media has no problem stiring the racial pot of shit. If it came down between this incident and and the exact same story with a black person killing another black person the media would still pick this one to sensationalize because the evil white man vs the oppressed black man sells better. Didn't you know ?

If an adult black man killed an unarmed black kid in the street and the police determined that they didn't even need to arrest him, it would still be a huge deal.
 

The shooter wasn't arrested because the police determined at the time that he didn't break the law.

This is exactly why you are seeing a backlash.

The idea that a law can exist that allows a 250lb grown-ass man to shoot and kill an unarmed 140lb kid in the street with no legal repercussions is an outrage.

Was the dead guy in the wrong neighborhood ? I don't go to the wrong neighborhood. If I do and something happens, isn't it somewhat my fault ? I am one of the few white people where I work and I have had black co-workers tell me that I wouldn't dare go to certain neighborhoods because I don't belong there. Why is that if I may ask ?

Jesus Christ, you are missing the point.

The suggestion that you shouldn't go to a rough area because of the risk of being a victim of violent crime is a damned far sight from the suggestion that you shouldn't go to a gated community because of the risk of being shot by crazy vigilantes (who then get off scot-free!), or even law enforcement.  Those two scenarios are NOT EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE.

Why should he be arrested for anything ? The police don't have evidence that he did anything wrong.

I would say that the corpse he left in someone's yard is "evidence."

He took it upon himself to pursue an unarmed kid for no legitimate reason (against the advice of the 911 dispatcher) and shot him.

They both seem like scumbags to me. Could I be wrong about them ? Of course. Am I wrong ? Probably not.

Again, please explain how Zimmerman is a scumbag if the shooting was "justified," or how Martin is a scumbag if it was not.

[CF DolFan]

He didn't stand out because he was black. Sanford has a high percentage of blacks everywhere. They arent ever "in the wrong neighborhood". This keeps getting overlooked because Al called us a Plantation town. A plantation town with a black city manager, one black commissioner and several high ranking black police officers? They can paint it over and over but it isn't true.

I played football in the 80s and was one of three white guys on defense. My wife ran track and was one of the two white girls. Little has changed. It might have some racists as all towns do but it isn't a racist town by any means.

[Spider-Dan]

He didn't stand out because he was black. Sanford has a high percentage of blacks everywhere. They arent ever "in the wrong neighborhood". This keeps getting overlooked because Al called us a Plantation town. A plantation town with a black city manager, one black commissioner and several high ranking black police officers? They can paint it over and over but it isn't true.

I played football in the 80s and was one of three white guys on defense. My wife ran track and was one of the two white girls. Little has changed. It might have some racists as all towns do but it isn't a racist town by any means.

DC and Atlanta are both cities with majority black populations.  Do you mean to say that there are no neighborhoods (particularly, gated communities) in DC or Atlanta where the population is not representative of the city as a whole?  Where a black or Latino kid wearing a hoodie might be subject to profiling?

[badger6]

If an adult black man killed an unarmed black kid in the street and the police determined that they didn't even need to arrest him, it would still be a huge deal.

Really, I doubt it. In fact there is a recent story out of KC about 2 black teenagers that poured gasoline on a white kid and lit him on fire. Ain't seen that on the mainstream media circus lately, huh

This is exactly why you are seeing a backlash. The idea that a law can exist that allows a 250lb grown-ass man to shoot and kill an unarmed 140lb kid in the street with no legal repercussions is an outrage.
Jesus Christ, you are missing the point.

But the law does exist in FL that says that you can protect yourself and don't have to retreat. Do you know for a fact that Trayvon didn't attack Zimmerman ? Prove it. For some reason these days, people in a certain lifestyle think that they can do whatever they want if they think they are "disrespected".  Ha, ha, not in the real world. Life ain't a rap video

The suggestion that you shouldn't go to a rough area because of the risk of being a victim of violent crime is a damned far sight from the suggestion that you shouldn't go to a gated community because of the risk of being shot by crazy vigilantes (who then get off scot-free!), or even law enforcement.  Those two scenarios are NOT EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE.

No, you inferred that that he was, "profiled, followed, and shot simply for being "in the wrong neighborhood". But now it's not even remotely close. So a black guy can go anywhere, but me being white I can't go to the rough neighborhood ? Double standard ? Yep !!! Where does it end ? How about I hear the "N" word at work 25 times a day. But If I said it I would be fired. Double standard ? Yep !!!
What about Black Entertainment TV and Miss Black America is OK ? If you had a network called White Entertainment TV(regardless of programming) or Miss White America, all of a sudden it would be racist and Sharpton, Jackson, and all the other nut jobs would be licking their chops. Double standard ? You bet your ass. I can't do any of that because I'm white, boo hoo, I'm so oppressed. Look ma, I can pull the race card too........

I would say that the corpse he left in someone's yard is "evidence."

Prove it. Your definition of "evidence" and opinion doesn't matter at all !!!

He took it upon himself to pursue an unarmed kid for no legitimate reason (against the advice of the 911 dispatcher) and shot him.

Zimmerman said that he stopped the pursuit and was headed back to his truck and he was attacked. Right now can you or anyone else prove anything different. If not he has done nothing wrong according to Florida law according to local PD. Hence he has not been arrested. Simple enough..........

Again, please explain how Zimmerman is a scumbag if the shooting was "justified," or how Martin is a scumbag if it was not.

You're silly, I already explained myself in my last post.

[Spider-Dan]

Really, I doubt it. In fact there is a recent story out of KC about 2 black teenagers that poured gasoline on a white kid and lit him on fire. Ain't seen that on the mainstream media circus lately, huh

In order for this comparison to be valid, the suspects in this case would have to a) have been identified (they haven't) and b) been interviewed by the police and released without any legal action being taken.

Suffice it to say, this is not a valid comparison.

But the law does exist in FL that says that you can protect yourself and don't have to retreat. Do you know for a fact that Trayvon didn't attack Zimmerman ? Prove it.

Again, you illustrate the point of the outrage:  if a grown man can shoot an unarmed kid (that he outweighs by 100 lbs), then throw up his hands and say, "self-defense!" when the only other witness is the person he killed, the law is incredibly unjust.

No, you inferred that that he was, "profiled, followed, and shot simply for being "in the wrong neighborhood". But now it's not even remotely close. So a black guy can go anywhere, but me being white I can't go to the rough neighborhood ? Double standard ? Yep !!!

Let me try to explain this to you again:

You can go anywhere you want.  Some places have a higher risk of crime than others, so you probably shouldn't go there.  But since violent crime is illegal, you can at least know that you (nominally) have the protection of law enforcement and state prosecutors, should you fall victim to crime.

In contrast, a black person that goes into the "wrong neighborhood" does not have the same such guarantees, because a) their problems would be caused by law enforcement themselves or b) private citizens can shoot them and law enforcement will do absolutely nothing about it.

How is this remotely comparable?  In your case, you are worried about crime.  In the other case, people are worried about being lawfully (<--- this part is important!) executed.

I have no interest in discussing your sense of aggrievement in your lack of ability to use the n-word or proclaim "white power!"  If you believe that this is of equal import and consequence to being killed for "suspiciously" being in a neighborhood that you're not good enough for, so be it.

Zimmerman said that he stopped the pursuit and was headed back to his truck and he was attacked. Right now can you or anyone else prove anything different.

So then, I presume you are equally willing to extend this same presumption of innocence to all homicides?  If one person says that he felt in danger (even if he is much larger, armed, and is the aggressor in the conflict), and there are no other living witnesses, we must take his word as fact?

If not he has done nothing wrong according to Florida law according to local PD.

The whole point is that if the law can be interpreted in this fashion, it is INCREDIBLY unjust.

[Sunstroke]

Disclaimer: I'm still firmly in "wait until all the details are known" mode, and am only offering rebuttal to individual statements made because the person making the statements would rip anyone else to shreds if they dared use the same faulty logic against him...

If an adult black man killed an unarmed black kid in the street and the police determined that they didn't even need to arrest him, it would still be a huge deal.
 This is exactly why you are seeing a backlash.

It would be a big deal, but nowhere near the national news item that this case has become...because of the racial issue.If you truly believe it would be "just as big" if it were a black on black shooting, then I think you are out of your mind.

The idea that a law can exist that allows a 250lb grown-ass man to shoot and kill an unarmed 140lb kid in the street...

He was 17 years old and 6'3", which while the age (unknown to Zimmerman at the time) legally categorizes him as a minor, his size puts him physically in the realm of "adult." The fact that Zimmerman was 250 lbs only indicates to me that "the adult-sized kid" was probably significantly faster than Zimmerman was.

I would say that the corpse he left in someone's yard is "evidence."

The only thing a dead body would qualify as "evidence" for is that a person had died, not that a crime had been commited.

He took it upon himself to pursue an unarmed kid for no legitimate reason (against the advice of the 911 dispatcher) and shot him.

I'd say the robberies that had recently been commited in that gated community would provide the impetus for Zimmerman wanting to follow Martin, especially if, as noted many times in the reports, Zimmerman said that Martin was "acting funny." Not saying that acting funny is justification to shoot anyone, but combined with the robberies, it certainly could make someone acting as part of a neighborhood watch unit a little suspicious and maybe wanting to give him a second look.

Additionally, at the time Zimmerman began following Martin, how in the world could he know if he was armed or not?

[badger6]

In order for this comparison to be valid, the suspects in this case would have to a) have been identified (they haven't) and b) been interviewed by the police and released without any legal action being taken.

We were discussing the media sensationalizing and exploiting race in an effort to gain ratings and push an agenda. The difference between them is that one in KC is a blatant crime with proof that got hardly any national air time and the other one has not been determined to be a crime at this time and it is plastered on every tv station, blog, and news site.

Suffice it to say, this is not a valid comparison.
Again, you illustrate the point of the outrage:  if a grown man can shoot an unarmed kid (that he outweighs by 100 lbs), then throw up his hands and say, "self-defense!" when the only other witness is the person he killed, the law is incredibly unjust.

In lack of any other physical evidence what else is there to do. You can't convict someone without any evidence. If me and you are alone and you kill me and say that I attacked you and there is no other contradictory evidence, it's a moot point. Innocent until proven guilty. They have to prove him guilty. And without any proof they can't do that !!!!

Let me try to explain this to you again:


You can go anywhere you want.  Some places have a higher risk of crime than others, so you probably shouldn't go there.  But since violent crime is illegal, you can at least know that you (nominally) have the protection of law enforcement and state prosecutors, should you fall victim to crime.

In contrast, a black person that goes into the "wrong neighborhood" does not have the same such guarantees, because a) their problems would be caused by law enforcement themselves or b) private citizens can shoot them and law enforcement will do absolutely nothing about it.

So you're saying that if law enforcement would have arrived before the shooting that they would have let him be shot. What don't you understand, there is no proof of a crime at this time. Can you provide some proof or evidence that we all don't know about or not ?

How is this remotely comparable?  In your case, you are worried about crime.  In the other case, people are worried about being lawfully (<--- this part is important!) executed.

No one has been executed and no one has been murdered at this point. That may change if some other evidence surfaces, but at this point the only thing that has happened is someone of questionable character has killed someone of questionable character.

I have no interest in discussing your sense of aggrievement in your lack of ability to use the n-word or proclaim "white power!"

No one ever does, they only want to discuss things that serve their purposes. I was making a point about the double standard that exists when it come to race and the media. Seems to me that instead of equality, some people want superiority. Racism is when someone of one race does something and tells another race that they can't do it.

If you believe that this is of equal import and consequence to being killed for "suspiciously" being in a neighborhood that you're not good enough for, so be it.So then, I presume you are equally willing to extend this same presumption of innocence to all homicides?  If one person says that he felt in danger (even if he is much larger, armed, and is the aggressor in the conflict), and there are no other living witnesses, we must take his word as fact?
The whole point is that if the law can be interpreted in this fashion, it is INCREDIBLY unjust.

Yes everyone is presumed innocent until there is sufficient proof the find them guilty. We don't know who the aggressor was at this point, you are assuming Zimmerman was the aggressor. You very well could be wrong about that. Your bias is blinding you....