Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Not Guilty: Zimmerman cleared of all charges

Posted 1 year ago on July 13, 2013, 11:07 p.m. EST by Narley (295)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

160 Comments

160 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by MsStacy (1035) 1 year ago

The evidence for a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt never seemed to be there in the first place.

[-] 0 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

Exactly. Also consider the prosecution was a disaster. At times it appeared the prosecution was working for the defense.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

A jury has found George Zimmerman not guilty of all charges in connection to death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. But while the verdict came as a surprise to some people, it makes perfect sense to others. This verdict is a crystal-clear illustration of the way white supremacy operates in America.

Throughout the trial, the media repeatedly referred to an “all-woman jury” in that Seminole County courtroom, adding that most of them were mothers. That is true—but so is that five of the six jurors were white, and that is profoundly significant for cases like this one. We also know that the lone juror of color was seen apparently wiping a tear during the prosecution’s rebuttal yesterday. But that tear didn’t ultimately convince her or the white people on that jury that Zimmerman was guilty of anything. Not guilty. Not after stalking, shooting and killing a black child, a child that the defense insultingly argued was “armed with concrete.”

In the last few days, Latinos in particular have spoken up again about Zimmerman’s race, and the “white Hispanic” label in particular, largely responding to social media users and mass media pundits who employed the term. Watching Zimmerman in the defense seat, his sister in the courtroom, and his mother on the stand, one can’t deny the skin color that informs their experience. They are not white. Yet Zimmerman’s apparent ideology—one that is suspicious of black men in his neighborhood, the “assholes who always get away—” is one that adheres to white supremacy. It was replicated in the courtroom by his defense, whose team tore away at Rachel Jeantel, questioning the young woman as if she was taking a Jim Crow–era literacy test. A defense that, during closing, cited slave-owning rapist Thomas Jefferson, played an animation for the jury based on erroneous assumptions, made racially coded accusations about Trayvon Martin emerging “out of the darkness,” and had the audacity to compare the case of the killing of an unarmed black teenager to siblings arguing over which one stole a cookie.

When Zimmerman was acquitted today, it wasn’t because he’s a so-called white Hispanic. He’s not. It’s because he abides by the logic of white supremacy, and was supported by a defense team—and a swath of society—that supports the lingering idea that some black men must occasionally be killed with impunity in order to keep society-at-large safe.

Media on the left, right and center have been fanning the flames of fear-mongering, speculating that people—and black people especially—will take to the streets. That fear-mongering represents a deep white anxiety about black bodies on the streets, and echoes Zimmerman’s fears: that black bodies on the street pose a public threat. But the real violence in those speculations, regardless of whether they prove to be true, is that it silences black anxiety. The anxiety that black men feel every time they walk outside the door—and the anxiety their loved ones feel for them as well. That white anxiety serves to conceal the real public threat: that a black man is killed every twenty-eight hours by a cop or vigilante.

People will take to the streets, and with good reason. They’ll be there because they know that, yes, some people do always get away—and it tends to be those strapped with guns and the logic of white supremacy at their side.

(Copyright 2013 'The Nation')

[Copied verbatim under 'Fair Use' from : http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/07/14 and also see : http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/opinion/krugman-lobbyists-guns-and-money.html for the 'Corporate Connection' to Gun Laws]

PS : The Police told Zimmerman to stay in his car when he called them but he made a choice to get out with a concealed loaded gun, so now who gets to 'stand whose ground' in those circumstances ?! Also :

fiat lux et fiat justitia ruat caelum ...

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

I admire your militancy; I too see this as fully representative of civil war in microscopic form. But what's interesting here is that all concerned - including the African American - perceive of the "Latino" as an ally of the establishment. I think that says volumes about the subliminal perceptions contained within our cultural subconscious.

The real question in the above is whether civil rights equates to uncivil riots; nobody's forgotten LA or the Latino who was chosen in the aftermath to be the scapegoat, rounded up, and shipped back across the border.

And we haven't forgotten Detroit, either. That is especially true of those that live there.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

There have been no riots and that is good but people see this for what it is - and it is something NOT good & also : http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/14/open-season-black-boys-verdict .

Shadows of the past seem to afflict so much of the present day U$A and there's no bigger shadow than that of slavery and segregation and the concomitant social disenfranchisement which still echoes today.

spero meliora ...

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (5956) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

No doubt race played a role in why this happened, but I think people are understating how much money had in the acquittal. Let us not forget that OJ got off too, Zimmerman had lots of money for his defense because so many lemme across the nation will open their check books to attack anything they see as opposing the right of gun owners to kill who they please. Now he has asked the state to pay for his cost to defend himself against these baseless charges of murder, if he succeeds he will have moved from middle class to the 1% by shooting an innocent black teenager.

Link to follow hasn't hit Goggle news yet.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

White supremacy doesn't exist. Well maybe it does in the minds of a few KKK members, but beyond that it's a fallacy. Using the term is just race baiting.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

Really ?!!! I can only take it that you are NOT a ''white'' person nor have you spent too much time in their private company !! This is, of course - a gross generalisation - but not unlike yours ! ''Race'' - I'm sorry to say, is the unspoken elephant in the room of American society, culture and politics and denying it won't make it go away. In a rather ironic yet nevertheless extremely significant way ... THE US institution that both realises & tries to get to grips with this reality is - The Current US Military Machine. Now go figure !

fallaces sunt rerum species ...

[-] 0 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

I am white. I also live in the south. I know for a fact racism exists. I know racism exists in both the black and white community. But it’s not as much about skin color as it used to be. Today racism tends to be more of resentment between the races.

Blacks are resentful they still seem to be victims of racism no matter what the laws are; or how hard they try for a just world. Whites are resentful that Blacks get all the perks and special laws just because of skin color. So we go around in circles, just hating each other. I see no end or to it. I suspect it’ll take at least a couple on generations for Blacks and Whites to accept each other.

Also, the military is as racist as everyone else. If anything it’s worse today than it’s ever been. For instance, there’s no Blacks in my VFW hall.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

''There is no doubt about who the aggressor was here. It appears that the only reason the two interacted at all, physically or otherwise, is that Zimmerman believed it was his civic duty to apprehend an innocent teenager who caused suspicion by his existence alone.

''Zimmerman's not guilty verdict will be contested for years to come. But he passed judgement on Trayvon that night summarily - "Fucking punks," Zimmerman told the police dispatcher that night. "These assholes. They always get away." So true it's painful. And so predictable it hurts.'' from :

Thanx for your candour. Your comment made me sad as did my linked article. I've nothing more to say.

pax ...

[-] 0 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

I'm not going to re-hash the trial. Zimmerman was found innocent Go to a protest or something an blow off some steam. It's a done deal.

[-] -3 points by bostongary (-7) 1 year ago

Petty forum squabbles are not the answer. Do not waste your time here, join the Occupy Political Party: http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-occupy-political-party/

[-] -1 points by highlander28 (-5) 1 year ago

they could have picked a better witness. Rachel Jeantel is the prime example of uneducated new eubonics negro who is being paraded as the victim.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

zimmerman should have to register as a teenager shooter

people need to know if people like zimmerman are in the neighborhood

to protect their children

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

As far as the justice system ss concerned, I think a 17 year old is considered an adult in the justice system.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

Why would you anticipate riots and looting? I don't believe the verdict will change the behavior of those that live in urban areas, generally speaking. I'd say people will be more cautious if anything. I wouldn't be surprized to see a spike in gun sales and an overall increase in suburban paranoia. This SYG business is knucking futz if you ask me.

[-] 0 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

There have been several news reports concerned about riots. Almost every police department has geared up for them. People have visions of the 92 LA riots. I'd say half the population was expecting riots. not just me.

SYG had nothing to do with this case. Zimmerman passed on having a hearing on it.

[Deleted]

[-] -1 points by Veracity777 (-9) 1 year ago

You " thinking" he was guilty of manslaughter is inflammatory and racist. 6 jurors sat in judgement, 6 people trying to find justice, and decided true justice was an acquittal.

It would be best for you to accept that those jurors were trying their best to find justice for both the accused and the dead. That's what good people do.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Hmmmm, there's a govt agenda to provide protection to a chemical corporation, for poisoning our food supply. How the fuck could that get through Congress, without shit like this going on in the background? '

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

I'm still undecided about all this. I'll say this; people who think it's socially acceptable to interrogate strangers on the street should not move to North Milwaukee. We don't do that here. They do that in National City California. I don't miss the place.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1183) 1 year ago

I think there are other charges that need to be raised. Impersonating a security officer and not properly identifying himself to Martin.

[-] 0 points by gameon (-51) 1 year ago

zim wasnt impersonating anyone. he was the nighborhood watch captain.

[-] 3 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

A grown up Hall Monitor with a gun and OFF DUTY!

Murder, plain and simple!

[-] -1 points by gameon (-51) 1 year ago

self defense.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Murder in Cold (racist) Blood.

Attempted ~ botched Sanford PD coverup.

Show (CYA) Trial, with post- and pre- SYG double standards.

Evil Prevails.

[-] -1 points by gameon (-51) 1 year ago

The prosecution said at the start of the trial it was not about racism. The FBI investigated it for over a year and could not find any grounds for racism. The Sanford PD covered up nothing.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Cretinous racist murder.

Botched coverup.

Trial Fraud.

Another notch for ALEC's SYG divide and conquer law!

[-] -1 points by gameon (-51) 1 year ago

please give facts to support your assesment.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

The GOP and their 1% employers are working on democracy (with MSM/Fox Lies/RW Hate-Lie Radio) Propaganda and Citizen United, but long ago the 1% made our legal system the best MONEY CAN BUY!

Like our Health Care System!

Why It Was Too Easy for George Zimmerman to Get Off for Self-Defense The problem isn’t Stand Your Ground. It’s who has to prove what.

By Joseph Kennedy|Posted Tuesday, July 16, 2013, at 4:35 PM

Much debate about the jury’s decision Saturday to find George Zimmerman not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin has focused on Florida’s Stand your Ground law, which allows a person to use deadly force in self-defense even if they can safely retreat. One juror even cited Stand Your Ground as the basis for his decision.

Having (ALEC) Stand Your Ground laws is a bad idea because the law can too easily turn into a license to kill when bad blood, not fear, motivates the killing. But the big problem for the prosecution in the Zimmerman case wasn’t really Stand Your Ground. It was about a broader problem with the law of self-defense—showcasing an aspect of the law that this case urgently shows should change.

The evidence suggested that Martin was straddling Zimmerman at the moment Zimmerman drew his gun, so Zimmerman could not retreat. That’s why the central aspect of Stand Your Ground didn’t come into play. Instead, what really mattered was who started the fight. Zimmerman only gets to stand his ground, under the jury instruction the judge gave, if he was behaving lawfully in the first place—if he did not attack Martin. And this is a general principle of self-defense. All things being equal, people who start fights don’t get to end them with deadly force unless the victim clearly escalates things to that lethal level. Advertisement

In Florida, as in most states—even the ones that don’t have Stand Your Ground—the prosecution in a criminal case has the burden to disprove self-defense, beyond a reasonable doubt, once the defendant produces some evidence of self-defense. If the other person is dead, and there are no witnesses, as long as you tell the police, “He started it and I thought he was reaching for a gun” you have created some evidence that you acted in self-defense. And at that point, prosecutors have the burden of proof to show otherwise. Zimmerman was acquitted because the state couldn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started the fight.

The allocation of the burden of proof exacerbated the racial tensions in this case. What enrages many people about the verdict is the implicit assumption Martin, not Zimmerman, started the fight. That assumption, however, was essentially required by the jury instructions. The judge told the jurors that the prosecution had to prove that the killing was not self-defense. This meant that the prosecution had to prove that Martin was not the attacker—very hard to do, since Martin was dead and no one besides Zimmerman saw the fight begin.

Requiring prosecutors to disprove self-defense is also a particularly bad idea in states that allow people to carry guns in public places. The more people carry guns, the more reasonable the fear that the guy you’re fighting with might be reaching for his. Or, if you are carrying a gun and rolling around on the ground with another person, like Martin and Zimmerman, you could fear that your opponent might be about to grab your gun—as Zimmerman claimed in his statements to police. Since your fear needs only be reasonable, not correct, a mistaken but reasonable fear that the other person is reaching for a gun legally justifies killing an unarmed person. The other person could have been reaching for a cellphone, but in a state that lets people carry concealed weapons, it would be harder for the prosecutor to prove that your fear of a gun was not reasonable. The more guns, the more grounds for self-defense—and the more licenses for violence.

All of this shows why the burden of proof for self-defense should shift. If you are the first person to draw a gun in a fight in a public place, you should at least have to prove that you did not start the fight, and perhaps you should also have to prove that your fear of deadly force was reasonable. Would the verdict have been different if Zimmerman had this burden? Maybe not. But it would have meant that Zimmerman would have had to tell his story before the jury. Shoot first, and you should have to answer questions later.

Now the Department of Justice is weighing whether to bring federal civil rights charges against Zimmerman. That’s unlikely to happen, or to succeed if it does, because federal prosecutors would have to prove even more than the state prosecutors did. They’d have to show essentially that Zimmerman killed Martin because of his race.

There is a better way of getting at the truth. Martin’s family could sue Zimmerman in civil court for Martin’s wrongful death. That’s expensive and risky for the Martins, because another bad part of Florida’s Stand your Ground makes the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs if the plaintiff loses. But if the Martins go ahead, they would finally get to ask Zimmerman, under oath, exactly how the fight started. Zimmerman could no longer claim a right against self-incrimination. He would have to testify and face cross-examination. And since the burden of proof on self-defense rests with the defendant in a civil case, Zimmerman would have to prove that he did not start the fight that resulted in Martin’s death, and that his own fear of deadly force was reasonable. It remains to be seen whether he could do that.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/07/george_zimmerman_and_self_defense_why_it_was_too_easy_for_him_to_get_off.html

http://www.randirhodes.com/pages/homework.html?feed=364336&article=11491090

[-] -1 points by gameon (-51) 1 year ago

randi rhodes ,slate and jospeh kennedy,...................lol. still no proof of racism coverup or fraud.

[-] 2 points by OccupyNews (1183) 1 year ago

He was impersonating a police officer. Otherwise, he simply would observed this person, possibly called someone further down the "street" to monitor him from their window if he thought they were up to no good. Running after him like a clown posse not only produced a bad result, he had no reason to do so.

The idea that stand your ground allows people to pretend to be law enforcement without any of the responsibilities is RIDICULOUS.

[-] 0 points by gameon (-51) 1 year ago

No, he wasnt. he was a a neighborhood watch captain.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1183) 1 year ago

It appears that Zimmerman was an Unidentified gun carrying neighborhood watch captain who pursued someone who hadn't broken any laws.

[-] 0 points by Theninthpiecesuv8 (-26) 1 year ago

This is quite true; we should have open carry in this state. And then the gun toting individual would not be "unidentified."

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1183) 1 year ago

For those who don't like being pursued by a police officer, imagine how much worse it is to be pursued by someone who carries a concealed weapon and acts autonomously while believing themselves to be a higher authority representing the law.

[-] -1 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

Now you just want blood by any means. He was found innocent. Let it go.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Murder, plain and simple.

[-] -1 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

An unbiased jury found Zimmerman innocent. The listened to the facts and reviewed the evidence and decided he wasn't guilty. That's good enough for most people. Justice served.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Murder in Cold (racist) Blood.

Attempted ~ botched Sanford PD coverup.

Show (CYA) Trial, with post- and pre- SYG double standards.

Evil Prevails over justice.

[-] 0 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

I take it you don't believe in the jury system. Sorry, lynch mobs are worse than the court system.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Not phony and distorted show trials meant to cover their racist and murderous asses.

Justice was mocked in this "trial."

[-] -1 points by Theninthpiecesuv8 (-26) 1 year ago

Hispanics are white and women are not capable of judgement concerning black males; we get it, we truly do. As a liberal Democrat I happen to agree.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Best legal system MONEY BUYS!

Why It Was Too Easy for George Zimmerman to Get Off for Self-Defense The problem isn’t Stand Your Ground. It’s who has to prove what.

By Joseph Kennedy|Posted Tuesday, July 16, 2013, at 4:35 PM

Much debate about the jury’s decision Saturday to find George Zimmerman not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin has focused on Florida’s Stand your Ground law, which allows a person to use deadly force in self-defense even if they can safely retreat. One juror even cited Stand Your Ground as the basis for his decision.

Having (ALEC) Stand Your Ground laws is a bad idea because the law can too easily turn into a license to kill when bad blood, not fear, motivates the killing. But the big problem for the prosecution in the Zimmerman case wasn’t really Stand Your Ground. It was about a broader problem with the law of self-defense—showcasing an aspect of the law that this case urgently shows should change.

The evidence suggested that Martin was straddling Zimmerman at the moment Zimmerman drew his gun, so Zimmerman could not retreat. That’s why the central aspect of Stand Your Ground didn’t come into play. Instead, what really mattered was who started the fight. Zimmerman only gets to stand his ground, under the jury instruction the judge gave, if he was behaving lawfully in the first place—if he did not attack Martin. And this is a general principle of self-defense. All things being equal, people who start fights don’t get to end them with deadly force unless the victim clearly escalates things to that lethal level. Advertisement

In Florida, as in most states—even the ones that don’t have Stand Your Ground—the prosecution in a criminal case has the burden to disprove self-defense, beyond a reasonable doubt, once the defendant produces some evidence of self-defense. If the other person is dead, and there are no witnesses, as long as you tell the police, “He started it and I thought he was reaching for a gun” you have created some evidence that you acted in self-defense. And at that point, prosecutors have the burden of proof to show otherwise. Zimmerman was acquitted because the state couldn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started the fight.

The allocation of the burden of proof exacerbated the racial tensions in this case. What enrages many people about the verdict is the implicit assumption Martin, not Zimmerman, started the fight. That assumption, however, was essentially required by the jury instructions. The judge told the jurors that the prosecution had to prove that the killing was not self-defense. This meant that the prosecution had to prove that Martin was not the attacker—very hard to do, since Martin was dead and no one besides Zimmerman saw the fight begin.

Requiring prosecutors to disprove self-defense is also a particularly bad idea in states that allow people to carry guns in public places. The more people carry guns, the more reasonable the fear that the guy you’re fighting with might be reaching for his. Or, if you are carrying a gun and rolling around on the ground with another person, like Martin and Zimmerman, you could fear that your opponent might be about to grab your gun—as Zimmerman claimed in his statements to police. Since your fear needs only be reasonable, not correct, a mistaken but reasonable fear that the other person is reaching for a gun legally justifies killing an unarmed person. The other person could have been reaching for a cellphone, but in a state that lets people carry concealed weapons, it would be harder for the prosecutor to prove that your fear of a gun was not reasonable. The more guns, the more grounds for self-defense—and the more licenses for violence.

All of this shows why the burden of proof for self-defense should shift. If you are the first person to draw a gun in a fight in a public place, you should at least have to prove that you did not start the fight, and perhaps you should also have to prove that your fear of deadly force was reasonable. Would the verdict have been different if Zimmerman had this burden? Maybe not. But it would have meant that Zimmerman would have had to tell his story before the jury. Shoot first, and you should have to answer questions later.

Now the Department of Justice is weighing whether to bring federal civil rights charges against Zimmerman. That’s unlikely to happen, or to succeed if it does, because federal prosecutors would have to prove even more than the state prosecutors did. They’d have to show essentially that Zimmerman killed Martin because of his race.

There is a better way of getting at the truth. Martin’s family could sue Zimmerman in civil court for Martin’s wrongful death. That’s expensive and risky for the Martins, because another bad part of Florida’s Stand your Ground makes the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs if the plaintiff loses. But if the Martins go ahead, they would finally get to ask Zimmerman, under oath, exactly how the fight started. Zimmerman could no longer claim a right against self-incrimination. He would have to testify and face cross-examination. And since the burden of proof on self-defense rests with the defendant in a civil case, Zimmerman would have to prove that he did not start the fight that resulted in Martin’s death, and that his own fear of deadly force was reasonable. It remains to be seen whether he could do that.

[-] 1 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

"The problem isn’t Stand Your Ground. It’s who has to prove what."

Exactly. Focusing on SYG is only taking away from the bigger discussion that this case, and EVERY CASE -I've been there- is about how much money do you have?

Got cash? Get off. Dont and get a public def? Hhaha, good freakin luck.

This type of scenario happens every day in this country, this case was not unique in any way. Who has the money determines what.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

We can change that if we all demand it, instead of bitching about it.

First we need to Vote.

Then we make demands!

Unite and win!

[-] -2 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

So, If they drag Zimmerman to the town square and publicly lynch him. Would you be happy then? Sorry you didn't like the trial or verdict. But we can't try Zim again. It's done. he was found innocent. That's just the way it is.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

You live in RW Opposite World: Machiavellian Expediency and Denial, the desired end justifies/purifies any rotten means.

Trayvon was hunted and murdered by the cretinous pathological racist with a gun! And you know it!

Trial Fraud to protect ALEC's SYG divide and conquer law!

Evil incarnate.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6885) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

I see a wrongful death case in the near future.

[-] -1 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

I think you're right. But the odds are he will beat it. Same with the DOJ investigation, it'll be DOA. Of course this is just my opinion.

I also think this is turning into a witch hunt. Some people want Zimmerman to suffer, Doesn't seem matter that's he was found innocent. Some people are out for blood. My previous comment about a public lynching may not be as outrageous as we think.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6885) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

I agree it's turning into a witch hunt. Whether or not I agree with the verdict (I have no opinion either way, for the record) it's a done deal and we should all move on.

But hey, at least we didn't have a repeat of the LA riots, so we have that to be grateful for, I think. The way the media's been fanning the flames, I kind of got the impression that's what TPTB wanted.

[-] 0 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

The LA riots were spontaneous. Everyone thought the cops would be convicted. When they were found innocent people just went crazy. There was no talk of riots before the verdict, the cops weren’t prepared. The 92 LA riots took everyone by surprise.

It’s a different story this time. The cops were (are) ready this time. Also the calls for peaceful protest has some effect. I still think there may be some violence and looting on a small scale may occur, but then cops are ready..

For the record, I think the MSM does more harm than good these days. They.re untrustworthy.

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6885) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Oh yeah, I absolutely agree about the media. Definitely more harm than good these days. I've been meaning to do a post about that. But if it turns out anything like my Monsanto post, expect it sometime before Christmas, heheh.

[-] -1 points by Theninthpiecesuv8 (-26) 1 year ago

Well as Reid said, this is not over. I fully believe this case will be decided in the streets rather than in the halls. Sharpton has plans to go nationwide, enriching himself, to encourage and keep anger alive. Bring it.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Injustice for one is injustice for all!

[-] -1 points by Theninthpiecesuv8 (-26) 1 year ago

The word itself is an oxymoron so I agree. How may of my comments are you going to remove you low life scuzball? You know, really, it doesn't matter how many times you change your clothes people can smell you a mile away and they're getting tired of you puking on their shoes.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

WTF do you think you're talking about?

Never mind, you righties can't think, just obey, which is useless on a forum.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1183) 1 year ago

Impersonating a police officer, unlawful pursuit, not properly identifying himself....those are three legitimate charges that should have been brought forward. This trial is just another example of how everything is reported in either a neo con or progressive manner.

Nobody is interested in mundane charges like impersonatiing a police office, unlawful pursuit, or failure to identify, yet all three were directly related to the end result.

[-] 0 points by Theninthpiecesuv8 (-26) 1 year ago

None of the above are contained within the penal code. It would seem so many are ignorant of law that they find self defense a crime worthy of death; this it seems would include our Fed government.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1183) 1 year ago

Impersonating a security officer is in the code. Failure to inform one is a police officer is also a violation, especially if that same person than acts with authority.

Zimmerman was either a security officer who illegally pursued a "suspect" without cause and also failed to identify himself, or he was a common person impersonating law enforcement.

He's one or the other, he can't be both.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

A jury of six reportedly unbiased jurors found Zimmerman not guilty. You know, when this case first became public last year, people were screaming for justice. Now a reasoned and just verdict has been delivered. Don't act like a spoiled kid. You're just mad because you wanted Zim to be guilty, whether he was or not.

[-] 2 points by OccupyNews (1183) 1 year ago

I never thought it was murder, either. I think the charges should reflect what happened. All the fuss over the murder charges resulted in the nuts and bolts of the situation being ignored.

Talk about spoiled kid, now we have stand your ground pretend cops able to shoot to kill because they screwed up on what is considered proper police protocol, but, now apparently they don't have to follow police protocol either!

Unlawful pursuit, police cannot pursue someone unless there is an accusation against that person. Not identifying oneself as a police officer is also considered a violation of the law. The belief that one is performing a law or safety enforcement action but can simply kill away a mistake is unacceptable.

Additional charges, smaller charges, separate charges to what were already charged, MUST be charged.

Otherwise, us moderates of the world might as well take cover from the progressives and neo cons since they have become addicted to the adrenaline rush of their all or nothing battles.

[-] 0 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

Good for you. I'm also a moderate. I think both the extreme left and right are wrong. What we need is people who work together. The hate between the left and right is tearing this country apart. We need moderates now more than ever. But I digress.

Obviously we see the Zimmerman case quite differently. I see a neighborhood watch captain (which he was) following someone he considered suspicious, He was talking to the police telling them where the suspicious person was located. He lost sight of the person and was walking back to his car when Trayvon attacked him, pinned him to the ground and started beating him. In defense of his life he pulled his legal gun and shot Trayvon. Everything I stated here was brought up in court.

I'm sorry for Trayvon's family, but I think the jury got it right.

Also, about stand-your-ground.All SYG means is you aren't required to retreat when threatened. In States without SYG you are legally required to retreat or in some way extract yourself from the threat if you can. If you can't safely retreat then you can use deadly force to protect yourself. SYG just removes the requirement of retreat.

[-] 2 points by OccupyNews (1183) 1 year ago

quote..."He lost sight of the person and was walking back to this car when he was attacked." end quote

On the surface that sounds like one version of what happened. Although it could also be that Martin, feeling threatened at being followed by a stranger, was able to sneak up on his pursuer. Not necessarily the wrong action to take if someone was following for no apparent reason.

I saw a picture of where the attack occured, and it looks pretty open, not sure how one could lose sight of the other.

But most importantly of all in my opinion, I don't think Zimmerman had the right to pursue Martin as a law enforcement entity unless he actually witnessed Martin do something dangerous or illegal, first.

I think what has happened is people who support Zimmerman are cross pollinating the role of a private citizen with that of a security officer. A private citizen CAN follow another person WITHOUT a gun, but if the private citizen HAS a gun, then they CANNOT pursue another person without first witnessing a clear infraction of significant importance. Otherwise every gun toting criminal out there has a new defense strategy.

And vice a versa, a security officer with a gun CAN pursue someone as long as a third party called in the trouble and it was then communicated to the officer by a second party dispatch.

In this instance, I believe that Zimmerman has been allowed to cherry pick and combine parts of being a security officer and parts of being a gun carrying private citizen.

[-] -1 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

This case has been hashed and rehashed so much I’m weary of it. The coulda, woulda shoulda has gone on for over a year. Even with all the analysis and 24/7 news coverage I doubt anyone has changed their mind. So, I not trying to be rude when I say I’m not interested anymore. Further debate accomplishes nothing. However, since you went to the trouble to post, I’ll respond to some of the points.

  1. It’s not illegal to follow someone. This did not fit the legal definition of stalking. While Zimmerman probably shouldn’t have gotten out of his truck, but it wasn’t illegal.

  2. Attacking someone for following you is illegal. I think most people being followed would try to get away from the person, not attack them. I think it’s instinctive to flee a threat. If anything, Martin should have called the police. That’s what most people would do.

  3. Neighborhood crime watch’s are fairly common. Most times the crime watch teams receive some advise and training from the police. These crime watch folks aren’t cops, but they are intended to “watch” and report any suspicious activity, which is what Zimmerman did. What he did isn’t out of line with thousands of neighborhood watch groups.

Sigh, It seems this will not be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. The debate will continue. But for me, I’m done with it. I think it was a just verdict. This is starting to look much like a lynch mob.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1183) 1 year ago

Actually, following someone WHO HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG while the pursuer is POSSESSING A HIDDEN GUN is either ILLEGAL or would be looked at unfavorably by a jury.

Charges based on that scenario should be filed.

[-] -1 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

Not sure that's true. Just because you legally carry a gun doesn't mean you can't follow someone. I'm not 100% sure about it, but I don't think it's illegal.

I try to keep up with gun laws and gun cases because I sometime legally carry a gun, depending on where I'm going. It's important to clearly understand the gun laws and how they are handled in the court. My only interest in the Zimmerman case is the self defense aspect. My though was if Zimmerman was convicted, then the message is no one can protect themselves anymore.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1183) 1 year ago

Ironically, I feel the same way, but from the Martin point of view. What if Martin went back so that he could keep an on eye Zimmerman while Martin called the police. Without visual contact or the possibility of a license plate number if a car is involved, Martin can't really call in anything since he was the lead person and it would be much harder to track from the front than the back. So if Martin wants to find out what is going on, calling the police won't accomplish much from his point of view unless he can keep Zimmerman in his sight.

Zimmerman sees him backtracking and thinks his own life is in danger and pulls his gun. Martin, seeing the same guy who had already followed him once now pointing a gun at him, can't safely get away so he is forced into a confrontation.

This scenario is avoidable if Zimmerman follows police officer protocol.

[-] -1 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

It's my understanding that Martin backtracked and attacked Zimmerman, It was during the attack, after he was beaten, that he upholstered and fired his weapon. If that's true then it was a clear case of self defense. It seems that's the conclusion the came up with.

Generally, whoever is the aggressor (meaning initiates the physical response) will be at fault. You can curse me all day, but the second you attack me physically the game changes.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1183) 1 year ago

The entire focus of the trial was on the scenario you are describing. My point is everything that happened before the backtracking occurred does not meet any standard of how security works.

Security only responds to a suspicious activity OR if a complaint by another party has been called in. Neither of those really apply in this situation. That is why I think Zimmerman is getting away, not with murder, but with several other law enforcement procedures he did not correctly follow.

Zimmerman acted like law enforcement, but used his private citizen status to walk away with no non murder charges even being filed.

[-] 0 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

I may have given the wrong impression. I don’t patrol our neighborhood. I just walk the hike/bike trail for exercise. We pay a security company to patrols our neighborhood. But the security patrol is for show, just to give residents a sense of security. Our neighborhood is virtually crime free. It’s one of the safest neighborhoods in a low crime mid size city.

On the guy I called the cops on. My primary suspicion was he appeared to be hiding. I mean sitting among shrubs where you were virtually invisible when there are benches and other places to enjoy the outdoors was suspicious to me. I confess him being a young black man also set off an alarm in my mind. There are very few blacks in our area so I thought it odd.

So, maybe I was profiling. This person didn’t fit our norm for our area. He looked out of place. Maybe in a more mixed race area I might not have thought it strange. But in this specific instance his presence was out of the norm.

As for profiling, I have mixed feelings. On one hand no one should be targeted because of skin color alone. On the other hand, the police tell us to be aware of our surroundings, watch for people and things that could be a danger to you. Our HOA had the police community service officer come to our neighborhood a few years back and give us an talk on how to keep yourself and the neighborhood safe. One of the things she discussed was to watch for things that don’t look right to you. Could be a slow driving car that seems to be circling the neighborhood numerous times. Another would be people who look out of place. So, yes. In some situations occur where profiling occurs. Not as much about race, but more about watching for things that might hurt you,

[-] 0 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

Zimmerman did some dumb things But I don't think any of his actions were illegal. He should have stayed in his truck. He shouldn't have followed Martin after the dispatcher told him he didn't need to. Also, Zim following Martin didn't reach the legal level of stalking. He was just following Martin to let the cops know where to find Martin.

Part of the reason I took interest in this case was because I'm the VP on our HOA Board where I live. I'm also licensed to carry a concealed gun. We don't have a neighborhood watch group. I used to walk our hike & bike trail every day while carrying a weapon. When this case came to attention I stopped carrying a weapon around the neighborhood. I still walk every day, but now I just carry pepper spray. My neighborhood is very low crime so I don't feel that I need to carry a gun. But if he area was like where Zim and Martin lived I might want to carry a weapon.

My point is, If I saw someone suspicious I probably would watch them, maybe even follow them and call the police. That's normal and rational. In fact one day last year I did see someone suspicious on our hiking trail; and it was a young black man. he looked suspicious because he was partially hidden between some shrubs. We only have one black family in our neighborhood and this person wasn't from that family. So him appearing to be hiding coupled with me not knowing him made me suspicious. I didn't confront him. I just called the cops. The police came and questioned him. Turned out he was from an apartment complex about five miles away and was just exploring the greenbelt along the river (so he said). So,. Was it racist of me to call the cops on this guy? I don’t think so.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1183) 1 year ago

Your scenarios are slightly different. You were patroling, not pursuing while carrying a concealed weapon. However, I do think you should be properly identified, since that is how most security officers do it. (although we probably have more and more plain clothes nowadays as well).

The situation in the hiking trail is complicated. Technically it was profiling because of the person's skin color. If they had been white, it might have been to complicated to figure out if they were local, but because there was only one african american family in your region, your task became simplified. Simplifying a task based on color can be considered profiling.

However, if you had done nothing, than why are you patrolling? Possibly the course of action to take would be to walk by the individual in clothing that identifies one as being some type of enforcement, and do it in a neutral manner.

If the person was up to no good, they probably leave. If the person was not up to no good, you probably made them feel a bit safer.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (22351) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You are so full of SHIT ( franken-shit ? ) - you could be spread on a field and be toxic to the local water supply for 5 years of run-off. You R not a moderate - U R A far right conservative prejudiced SOB. But likely considered a moderate in U'r neighborhood?

[-] 0 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

Funny. Actually, In my neighborhood I'm considered a looney left Obama supporter. Some talk of taking my guns away. But the truth is I'm a moderate.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (22351) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Like I said - considered 2 B in U'r neighborhood - because they are the really fucked-up extreme of the extreme righties in Ur neighborhood?

[-] 0 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

I don't deny my neighborhood is extreme right. But I'm not one of them. Just like I'm not extreme left either. Us moderates are the only hope.

[-] -1 points by Theninthpiecesuv8 (-26) 1 year ago

This was a mixed neighborhood. You should eat shit and die.

[-] -1 points by cruisecontrol (-49) 1 year ago

If FL did not have SYG the result is still the same. Zim could NOT retreat with Trayvon doin the ground and pound. I never understood why the media kept hyping SYG laws when talking about this case.

[-] 1 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

I agree. Stand-your-ground never was an factor in this case. Zims lawyers even declined the SYG hearing before the trial. All the SYG talk is bogus in this case.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

only more shooting of kids

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

GZ is going to go to law school. They deserve eachother.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 1 year ago

Weren't they both talking on cellphones? I don't have a cell so that explains a lot to me.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by GoodDayToday (-2) 1 year ago

Should make "George Zimmerman" a National holiday, He is only guilty of getting another useless loser off the street

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

Is Trayvon Martin's skin colour a factor in your comment ? What is your evidence for saying such a terrible thing ? Would you like for there to be more incidences of this nature ? Does such hate corrode the soul ? That boy's fate was sealed when Zimmerman left his car with a loaded gun to apply the same sort of prejudice that you seem to display here, wasn't it ? + Consider :

multum in parvo ...

[-] 0 points by GoodDayToday (-2) 1 year ago

Trayvons skin color is not a factor but his drug use is

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 1 year ago

The only factor is what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Any drug use is irrelevant. From the beginning the defense had enough reasonable doubt on it's side to avoid being convicted of murder.

[-] 0 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

Race shouldn't have been a factor. But was made the prime issue by the black community leaders such as Al, Jessee, the NAACP and even Obama. If it weren't for the racial aspect the case wouldn't have received much attention.

[-] 1 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

Creepy Ass Cracker was probably a phrase that will down in history. Especially since the guy wasnt even white.

In Obama's defense, he got hounded by the media on that subject for weeks before he gave his 10 sentences on it. It wasnt exactly like he was jumping at the opportunity to get involved on it.

The fact that the prosecution went after murder 2 instead of manslaughter, to me, shows they were more interested in making this a media spectacle than doing things that seemed to be the most logical.

You could see it in that ladies eyes after the trial was over. She wasnt dissapointed at all over it, no feeling of anger at losing. It was only emotions of pride for having been the person involved in it.

I thought that was very telling of the whole thing.

Toss in the pictures used for Trayvon and Zimmerman at the beginning, ABC editing the tape how they did, the process at the beginning of the trial, the MSM promotion of it all like its the god damn Super Bowl, and we pretty much have another example of the media running the entire country.

Perhaps the most telling aspect of this entire thing was all the comments on facebook, news sites and youtube.

This country is horribly racist, on all sides, against all types.

All over a skin color. How very pathetic of us.

PS- Divided race is not real. The race is humans.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

What drug use are you referring to ?

Requiescat In Pace, Trayvon Martin.

[-] -1 points by GoodDayToday (-2) 1 year ago

weed and he was on dope when he attacked George

[-] -1 points by shadz66 (19985) 1 year ago

Really ?! You know this - how ?!! What bearing does this have on being murdered ?!!!

fiat pax ...

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

Agreed. We can not allow any group to intimidate the court system. Our system isn't perfect, but is better than most other systems.

[-] -2 points by Theninthpiecesuv8 (-26) 1 year ago

The real question is how many more white and "hispanic" are carrying today that weren't carrying yesterday, due to racial tension?

[-] -2 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

Best post of the day. I think probably a lot of people have bought guns for self defense due to this case. Probably the riot talk has a lot to do with it. I actually know a couple of people who stocked up on ammo because of the riot talk.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by highlander28 (-5) 1 year ago

Now that the Zimmerman Trial is over, how about Benghazi and IRS voter suppression?

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago
[-] -1 points by highlander28 (-5) 1 year ago

Honestly, Trevon Martin's death would not have even registered a blip in Chicago.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

That being said will you be joining us in support?

http://occupywallst.org/forum/today-hoodiesup-justice-trayvon-actions-40-cities/

PS, It didn't happen in Chicago, because there are NO bullshit castle laws there..

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

They were skirting without invoking Stand Your Ground. They (that scumbag defense) avoided SYG because it applied to Trayvon more than that human turd (Zimmerman).

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Murder in Cold (racist) Blood.

Attempted ~ botched Sanford PD coverup.

Show (CYA) Trial, with post- and pre- SYG double standards.

Evil Prevails over justice.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Welcome to the Unites States of ALEC.

Where "justice" is bought and sold to the highest bidder.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

ONLY when we allow it by not participating in our democracy.

People, WTFU, Unite and Win!

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Good stuff, really bad injustice.

Sorry about Detroit. But well before Michael Moore's "Roger and Me" warning, Detroit was targeted by the Predators and Bagmen of the RW.

[-] 0 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

The prosecutor had no intention of winning that case, to not go with manslaugher was moronic and against any legal sense.

Just look at her. I watched the presser afterwards. This lady was more about her than her job.

http://now.msn.com/angela-corey-special-prosecutor-criticized-for-smiling-during-post-trial-speech-about-trayvon-martin

The entire thing was used for political reasons on a variety of levels.

There's over 14k other murders in this country, many much closer to most who had an opinion on this one, that no one gives a damn about.

This lady running the prosecution was a joke.

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

It was a show trial, after the bungled coverup, to cover their asses.

Cops don't testify against the Prosecution.

Perhaps people will see the gross travesty of justice and get mad!

[-] -1 points by Thetenthpiecesuv8 (-6) 1 year ago

They do when that prosecution fires their boss.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Slime and Crime addled RepubliCon Rick Scott employed and appointed the prosecution of GZ murder of Trayvon Martin. Oh, what a surprise the "Prosecution" bungled and failed!

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6885) from St Louis, MO 1 year ago

Yeah, that was a little bizarre. What a rambling bunch of b.s. She deserves to get some heat for that. The smiling was entirely inappropriate.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

What the hell is wrong with castle laws? It certainly didn't have anything with the Zimmerman case.

[-] 0 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

Entertaing video. However, it has nothing to do with the castle doctrine. The castle laws mean you have the right to use deadly force in your home when attacked at home. Example, A thug broke out a window in your home at 3:AM and crawling through the window with a knife. You can legally shoot him. With the castle laws, the word castle literally means home; and some States it's extended to your car.

So, the castle laws had nothing to do with the Zimmerman case. Got it now?

[-] 0 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

Not interested in your links. The jury has ruled. Give it a rest.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22351) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

TWEET

DKAtoday ‏@DKAtoday

http://myemail.constantcontact.com/NBA-Issues-Statement-After-Jury-Acquits-George-Zimmerman.html?soid=1103956636517&aid=cShmmia_6mM

The National Bar Association - if anyone was wondering.

Pls Share/Circulate.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (22351) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Ahhh Geeze. The old coot does not have a leg to stand on. Castle laws don't even enter the picture here. The old man went after the kid in the kids yard - the kid was putting away a trashcan. There was absolutely no defense involved.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I'm not so sure about that.

They seem to be empowering gun nuttery, even in places that don't yet have them.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

then how the not guilty verdict ?

[-] -1 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

Do you not believe in the jury system? Works quite well most of the time.

[-] 0 points by gameon (-51) 1 year ago

is that because you dont like the verdict?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

The bar association has no idea, one way or the other.

They made a comment on the inequality of Justice in Florida.

Is that because you like the verdict?

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Narley (295) 1 year ago

Man, you're hung up on posting links. Jeez, think for yourself for once. Don't allow some biased internet link tell you how to think. And no, I didn't read the links. Thanks, anyway

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Afraid of the truth??

So you don't read?

Yes, of course.

Here's some more for you to "not read".

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17607-travesty-in-post-racial-america-the-zimmerman-verdict

http://wattree.blogspot.com/2013/07/racists-convicted-trayvon-martin-of-not.html

Because going beyond jerking your knee is difficult, you should try it..

PS, Had you actually been reading, instead of jerking your knee, you would already know how I feel about States that are wholly owned subsidiaries of entities like ALEC.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

got half way down each

i had not payed attention to the trial

i see the reasons this is considered a color issue

my concern is what transpired should not be legal

against any human cosmetic difference


[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Indeed, but it didn't go that way..

[-] 0 points by TANSTAAFL (0) 1 year ago

Lack of a castle law? Chicago averages a shooting every 6 hours and most of the victims are young black males. What are you talking about?

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Except for the fact that New Orleans is much worse.

You should tune out theblaze. It's all bullshit.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/01/gun-violence-us-cities-compared-deadliest-nations-world/4412/

[-] -1 points by WyomingKnott (-1) 1 year ago

And that's just because of castle laws? Well thank god Chicago has sense or it might be a violent place. You are really a confused individual.

72 Shot in Chicago in Wave of Holiday Weekend Violence

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/15-Shot-As-Holiday-Weekend-Begins-214275491.html

Truth is black youth are shot and killed everyday and we just accept it and ignore it. But looking at that chart of of yours I see that while New Orleans and Detroit are complete and total hellholes, NY's doing something right. Stop and frisk maybe?

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

What you mean to say is........YOU ignore it, everywhere but Chicago, Detroit and New Orleans. But you only post about Chicago.....Just like Glenn Beck..

Please don't paste your shit on me.

[-] -1 points by AdamSelene (-3) 1 year ago

You mentioned Chicago before I did, but thanks again for that map. It was enlightening.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Sorry, but no. I mentioned it in response to another posters mention of Chicago.

Do you always react to partial information?

It seems to be so.

How enlightened are you, now that you've seen the map?

[-] -1 points by valsmith (-5) 1 year ago

I see now that whatever Detroit and New Orleans are doing, the rest of the nation needs to do the TOTAL OPPOSITE or risk turning into hell on earth. I'm also thinking Detroit and NO are full of racists who like the fact that young black men are getting shot a lot, which is why they've let things get that bad.

Take a lesson from NYC boys. There's a reason we are the greatest city on the planet.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

We can't all host WallStreet and it's incipient banks.

Are you the user formerly know as Adam?

[-] -1 points by valsmith (-5) 1 year ago

"Spawned" maybe, but your show needs to open on Broadway or nobody gives a shit.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Sounds like an opportunity.

Have you written the play yet?

[-] -2 points by valsmith (-5) 1 year ago

We also spawned OWS. Ever hear of it?

And yes, I got banned after every post yesterday. Somebody was in a mood.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Then you shouldn't post so much bullshit.

OWS was actually "spawned" in Canada.

[-] 0 points by SimonJester (0) 1 year ago

Horrible stuff, I agree. I'd also say that they "get much worse outcomes" from crime in general, such as the shooting stats in New Orleans and Detroit. I wish that would get half the attention this case has received.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I get picked on and voted down for posting stuff about Detroit, so don't give me that crap.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20071205/METRO/712050396

You can't ban assholes, so you might as well ban guns, or at least impose strict limits on who can own them and what they can own.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by highlander28 (-5) 1 year ago

I wish you well. I am having a hard time seeing what effect this will have other that widening the fictional race gap. If George Zimmerman was indeed acting out of malice, then the civil court will be the last resort

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

I'll take that for a no.

Sad indeed.

[-] -2 points by bostongary (-7) 1 year ago

Real change comes from politics. Join the Occupy Political Party. http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-occupy-political-party/

You cannot accomplish change by posting in a forum.

[-] -2 points by beppe (-87) 1 year ago

I guess the glove didn't fit. /shrug/

[-] -2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

use a gun to keep those kids in line ?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

lol

It's still OK to shot people

[-] 2 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Stand Your (locked and loaded) Ground for liberty!

[-] -3 points by Thetenthpiecesuv8 (-6) 1 year ago

Yea. And get your Skittles boxer shorts while you still can.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Black boys denied the right to be young

By Eugene Robinson, Published: July 15

Justice failed Trayvon Martin the night he was killed. We should be appalled and outraged, but perhaps not surprised, that it failed him again Saturday night, with a verdict setting his killer free.

Our society considers young black men to be dangerous, interchangeable, expendable, guilty until proven innocent. This is the conversation about race that we desperately need to have — but probably, as in the past, will try our best to avoid.

George Zimmerman’s acquittal was set in motion on Feb. 26, 2012, before Martin’s body was cold. When Sanford, Fla., police arrived on the scene, they encountered a grown man who acknowledged killing an unarmed 17-year-old boy. They did not arrest the man or test him for drug or alcohol use. They conducted a less-than-energetic search for forensic evidence. They hardly bothered to look for witnesses.

Only a national outcry forced authorities to investigate the killing seriously. Even after six weeks, evidence was found to justify arresting Zimmerman, charging him with second-degree murder and putting him on trial. But the chance of dispassionately and definitively establishing what happened that night was probably lost. The only complete narrative of what transpired was Zimmerman’s.

Jurors knew that Zimmerman was an overeager would-be cop, a self-appointed guardian of the neighborhood who carried a loaded gun. They were told that he profiled Martin — young, black, hooded sweatshirt — as a criminal. They heard that he stalked Martin despite the advice of a 911 operator; that the stalking led to a confrontation; and that, in the confrontation, Zimmerman fatally shot Martin in the chest.

The jurors also knew that Martin was carrying only a bag of candy and a soft drink. They knew that Martin was walking from a 7-Eleven to the home of his father’s girlfriend when he noticed a strange man in an SUV following him.

To me, and to many who watched the trial, the fact that Zimmerman recklessly initiated the tragic encounter was enough to establish, at a minimum, guilt of manslaughter. The six women on the jury disagreed.

Those jurors also knew that Martin, at the time of his death, was just three weeks past his 17th birthday. But black boys in this country are not allowed to be children. They are assumed to be men, and to be full of menace.

I don’t know if the jury, which included no African Americans, consciously or unconsciously bought into this racist way of thinking — there’s really no other word. But it hardly matters, because police and prosecutors initially did.

The assumption underlying their ho-hum approach to the case was that Zimmerman had the right to self-defense but Martin — young, male, black — did not. The assumption was that Zimmerman would fear for his life in a hand-to-hand struggle but Martin — young, male, black — would not.

If anyone wonders why African Americans feel so passionately about this case, it’s because we know that our 17-year-old sons are boys, not men. It’s because we know their adolescent bravura is just that — an imitation of manhood, not the real thing.

We know how frightened our sons would be, walking home alone on a rainy night and realizing they were being followed. We know how torn they would be between a child’s fear and a child’s immature idea of manly behavior. We know how they would struggle to decide the right course of action, flight or fight.

And we know that a skinny boy armed only with candy, no matter how big and bad he tries to seem, does not pose a mortal threat to a healthy adult man who outweighs him by 50 pounds and has had martial arts training (even if the lessons were mostly a waste of money). We know that the boy may well have threatened the man’s pride but likely not his life. How many murders-by-sidewalk have you heard of recently? Or ever?

The conversation we need to have is about how black men, even black boys, are denied the right to be young, to be vulnerable, to make mistakes. We need to talk about why, for example, black men are no more likely than white men to smoke marijuana but nearly four times as likely to be arrested for it — and condemned to a dead-end cycle of incarceration and unemployment. I call this racism. What do you call it?

Trayvon Martin was fighting more than George Zimmerman that night. He was up against prejudices as old as American history, and he never had a chance.

Read more from Eugene Robinson’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook. You can also join him Tuesdays at 1 p.m. for a live Q&A.

[-] 1 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

This is the thing. If you want manslaughter, you go with manslaughter. You dont put doubt in the humans minds, and then expect a lesser charge.

Its either all or nothing. Gray areas are horrendous in court, because it all has to be "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt".. The idiot prosecution created that doubt in their own search for glory.

http://now.msn.com/angela-corey-special-prosecutor-criticized-for-smiling-during-post-trial-speech-about-trayvon-martin

If you want to talk about- and I agree it needs to be discussed- "The conversation we need to have is about how black men, even black boys, are denied the right to be young, to be vulnerable, to make mistakes. We need to talk about why, for example, black men are no more likely than white men to smoke marijuana but nearly four times as likely to be arrested for it — and condemned to a dead-end cycle of incarceration and unemployment. I call this racism. What do you call it?"

Get ready for some very harsh comments, some from the very people it affects.

For instance, I dont drive around a city and see a whole lot of white guys offering me pot and coke on the corners when I stop. Now why is that? Why is it a sector of the population that makes up 10% of the nation is killing people at such an alarming rate.

These are tough, tough questions that simply cannot be discussed without offending someone, somewhere. And our media is simply not into digging into things that will be offensive. Their goal is to sell advertising, not get deep.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

We all have to put our big girl/boy pants on an face a lot of contrived shit!!!

We can do it!

If we mere people just Unite and Win!!

[-] 0 points by TikiJ (-38) 1 year ago

I agree we can do it. It's getting those messages into the mainstream that is the tough part. Because without out that, we are simply not receptive to it.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (1402) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

It seems an easily divulged secret that when The People wake up they get what they want.

OWS worked for a couple weeks.

Events capture us all the time.

We just have to incite thought!

Because:

United we can get anything ANYTHING we want!!!

Unite and Win!

[Removed]