i agree with the verdict
i disagree with the verdict
either i am split or i dont feel i know what really happened
i dont care
To be honest, no matter how true the statements were, Obama shouldn't have said what he did. It adds to the whole race tension thing.
the liberal left wing communists would be satisfied with this news article
"middle aged man beaten to death or lives rest of life in coma as young black male crushes his skull against the concrete"
"middle aged man defends himself as he is being beaten to death with gun"
because a gun is demonized whereas beating someones skull against the concrete is perfectly socially acceptable because the mass media has not brainwashed these poor souls to beleive such a thing is wrong
Well, overall it would seem people favoring martin don't really believe martin did go that far. It was in the report however that was only zimmerman's account. Of course there is no valid reason to question zimmerman's account in the end, no evidence suggests his version is not the truth given the lack of the other party. The issue here is the inherent assumption that a hate crime was committed even though such a thing can never be reasonably proven with the evidence the case had. Of course, if martin did try to smash zimmerman's head to the ground then his response would have been legitimate self defense, there is no way around that. Far less than that can kill someone after all. That is considering zimmerman never did pose a threat to martin and never would have been at any risk if martin had not approach him. Overall I would argue both were wrong here and the result was the worst case scenario (except for both dying).
-There is no scenario in which zimmerman was right in following martin. The guy played batman and the result was horrible. He put himself in danger, he put others in danger and a kid died. Worst case scenario his suspicions were correct and martin turned out to be a dangerous criminal (of course he wasn't but as far as zimmerman was concerned it was a possibility when he followed him) and the thing turned into a shootout or the guy pulled a knife before he could pull his gun....
-There is no scenario in which martin was right in approaching zimmerman let alone attack him. As far as martin should have been concerned the guy following him could have been a criminal or something.... Instead he played batman and went ahead to enact justice via beating the everloving crap out of him. If he wasn't physically threatened I don't really see a reason for him to respond physically at least.
Zimmerman should have left the "suspicious" individual to the police. Martin should have also left the matter to the police and if he really did feel threatened run and ask for help. Both reacted in the stupidest possible way to the stupidest possible scenarios. And he result was a disaster (it reminds me of a certain episode of that TV series "the boondocks".... In all honesty, if either one of them had at some point thought "Maybe this whole vigilante justice thing is not as cool as in comic books" then this would have been avoided altogether. But then again, batman...
Two, I've decided that the American public deserves every bit of inaction and gridlock they get because we desire a president who won't say what's on his mind. If we have constantly calls for our president to not offend everyone, we will get a president who won't offend everyone - which is usually by doing nothing.
This doesn't mean offensive speech shouldn't damage reputation or that public figures should be given less scrutiny, but Obama was not offensive. He was eloquent about his statements, and I support that. This case hit home for Obama, and I can see why. He grew up in the much more racist culture of 30 years ago. He also indulged in drugs. He identifies with the situation of possibly being stalked by another just because of his skin color, and then being called a thug for doing pot.
Becoming a public official or popular figure should not ever restrict your speech more than an ordinary person. But for some reason, we expect that because we elect someone or follow someone as a fan, that they should be completely representative of us and never speak when they might disagree.
Ultimately we can achieve this by doing a pluralistic democracy where the majority really does make policy, but that is not today.
Of course there is also a certain glamor to the whole racism claims here. If the whole thing was motivated by racism then martin was a victim of the evils of society, a martir.... hell, he was a hero (or something). On the other hand if race was never a thing here.... zimmerman was just some dipshit who did stupid things he shouldn't have been doing and martin was some dipshit who responded to stupidity with a matching amount of stupidity. I guess the race claims make the difference between martin being a victim of the evils of society (and racist latinos) and him being some unfortunate guy whose untimely death had no meaning whatsoever.
Ahhh, I see. That being the case then technically martin would have indeed been permitted by law to shoot first here. That is extremely disturbing. I mean, You basically get to a point where both of them were fighting for their lives and both of them were allowed to just end the other. Of course that does not really turn the situation IMO. Zimmerman should not have followed martin, martin should not have engaged some stranger. Martin having the right to shoot first only makes the case more disturbing, it does not make martin right.
The whole thing ultimately shouldn't be about race, it should be about people having that much freedom to interpret a situation and just take justice into their hands. Adding race to the mix just muddles up the issue which should be discussed. The case could be used to make the point that it is more reasonable to retreat from this sort of situations than to engage. Perhaps there are situations where you should stand your ground, where for self defense there is no middle ground between being killed or killed but the situation between zimmerman and martin was not one of them. But then again, na na na na na na na batman!
The problem is, Obama's statements could cause more racial tensions. I mean, saying "I could have been the black kid shot by a white person" isn't going to help matters. I don't give a shit about whether he offends people or not, people are uptight bunch of assholes that takes anything that disagrees with them as offense, so screw that. What I'm concerned with is that Obama could make things worse by making blacks think or realize how racist America is or make them want to take more action.Quote:
Not sure if I'm making sense, but what I'm trying to say is that Obama could make things worse by increasing tensions between the race. Plus, how do we know it's really a racial thing? Isn't Zimmerman Hispanic? I've read reports that say he's Hispanic, anyways. But yeah, it's like saying "blacks have been and continue to be oppressed by whites!" or something.
To me it felt like the comment was also a bit wasted. As a result of making the comments be about race it kinda excludes anyone who isn't of the particular race he was talking about. Had he said the bit about how he could have been martin without adding the race comments then the whole thing wouldn't have been about a particular race, it would have been about EVERYONE's kids, it would have been everyone's kids that could be allowed to be shot by law if someone felt threatened by them. Its a small difference but the impact could have been a tad greater IMO and he could have made a stronger case against SYG laws.
---------- Post added at 01:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 AM ----------
I never really heard about zimmerman saying such things.... If anything it was the opposite. This is from wikipedia:
None of that screams racist IMO.Quote:
There is a lot of speculation in that. I haven't really read all the transcripts but from the ones I picked up he did not mention race once...
Well, that is my original point, neither of them was right in anything they did. It was unfortunate stupidity clashing directly with unfortunate stupidity..... Wouldn't zimmerman having to prove he was in imminent danger be against presumption of innocence? His account of the events was investigated and at least no witness account could reasonably discredit his version. After an investigation, a reenactment of the events and processing witness accounts his account stood in court. I don't think more could be done without actually violating some of zimmerman's own rights (which even in the worst case scenario he still has). Its just to easy to put it all on zimmerman.... He did make the first stupid move, he was the one with the gun, it was a kid that died.... but the exact opposite scenario was also possible. Based on the account given it was a perfectly possible scenario that zimmerman's head was smashed against concrete and died on the spot. In which case you have a kid making the point that he was threatened and defended himself and killed a grown man with his bare hands.
Unless you were confronted with immediate danger, you don't have a right to initiate a confrontation by following someone. Martin did not pose a threat to Zimmerman's person. Martin did not approach Zimmerman. Zimmerman approached Martin. Someone died. There must be some sort of punishment, because we have just sanctioned the action of a citizen following another citizen without their consent, AKA stalking (which I find distressing as someone who has been stalked) and then killing the person they stalked.
Think about it: if Zimmerman followed a woman, would we sympathize with him? Would we believe him if he claimed the woman attacked him and then he shot her? Even if the woman dwarfed him in size, we'd be suspicious of him.
But if a man follows another man, we don't sympathize with the stalked? We suddenly believe that the man could attack him, but that man shouldn't have done it (while we would've cheered for the woman). The stalked man has to fit a profile of the victim: he has to be smaller, weaker, have a heart problem, etc.
The racism brought up in this case is endemic to certain areas of the south and might have had relevance in Zimmerman's choice.
But I think society's reaction, or at least the younger citizens, displays a different problem - that people who do not look like victims couldn't be stalked.
If I posted a picture of a white male or black male looking angry and then say that he was stalked, I don't think people would believe me. If I posted a picture of a child or woman and then say he/she was stalked, I think people would. Heck, we saw that when Martin's picture was first posted. When the picture changed, the reaction shifted from rage at Zimmerman to rage at Martin. Part of it was out of betrayal, but another part was because of believability.
---------- Post added at 04:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:07 PM ----------
I don't see what's wrong with trusting Wikipedia as long as you check out the source and make sure it's legitimate. It's no different from trusting news, they get their sources by asking, researching, and etc.
I thought a lot of "minorities" did listen to Obama. Even if they don't, they'll listen to stuff like this, considering it agrees with their whites oppressing blacks mindset. I'm sure Obama has the potential to amplify tension between races, regardless of his popularity. But I'm sure Zimmerman did not do what he did out of racism. I mean, wouldn't you judge a kid to be bad, whether black, white, or Asian, if he was wearing a hoodie and looking shady?
The media is full of shit. Some pander to blacks/minorities by showing pictures of Trayvon looking innocent and all, completely disregarding pics of him showing his middle fingers or looking "gangster," and some pander to whites/racists by making Zimmerman look good. It's so hard to get unbiased reports because the news share their opinions more than they do facts.
(B) No matter how they looked, Zimmerman had no authority to stalk him for "looking shady".
(C) Define "shady". If you saw someone walking along in the night looking angry or smug, would you call them "shady"? What if the person was angry because he was yelled at? What if that person was smug because he was right about a plot twist in a TV series? You can't judge a person based on how they look! You can only judge based on what they do!
It's not just the media. They prey on biases that exist in the public, in you. Try running that thought experiment in your head - what if this had happened with a woman or anyone else who fits society's view of the victim?
Yes, I understood that the first time. But, what I'm saying is that a lot of people wouldn't care as long as it agrees with what they think. At the least, people will agree or sympathize with Obama more and use his statements to show how blacks are treated.Quote:
True, we don't. He wore a hoodie though, and being black, Zimmerman likely profiled him to possibly be up to no good. Before I get accused, I want to make it clear that I don't agree with racial profiling, whether or not Zimmerman did do it.Quote:
I agree, he had no authority to stalk Martin, and especially when he was ordered not to. That was his main mistake.
"Shady" is suspicious. Something like me putting on a hoodie and looking withdrawn or something. And sadly, many people will judge on appearances before action, first impression and all. You could be a huge gangster bitch for all anyone knows, but if you wear good or professional clothes and look good, people will think you're a professional until they talk to you. A good person would likely be seen as a bad person or a dangerous person if he wears a street or thug clothes.
Appearances count. My opinion is that people tend to judge based on appearances based on experience or what they know in order to know whether they should avoid or ignore the person to avoid danger. Not sure if this makes sense, but I don't wanna proofread and end up confusing myself even more.
I know, I agree. But the media doesn't give a shit, they only care about profits and manipulating people. Those pictures are one of the many ways for people to buy newspapers or watch the news and think they're getting unbiased information when the media is trying to make Martin or Zimmerman look guilty. Sadly, providing unbiased FACTS is a lost art, if it ever existed, and now it's all about being sensational or invoking the public's feelings or sympathies.Quote:
if it happened to a woman, unless she had bad past or something, Zimmerman would likely be in deep shit because he shot a woman after stalking her. Same if it was a kid, but wasn't Martin a teenager? Either way though, Stand Your Ground is probably what got Zimmerman off scotfree. Might work against a woman too, for all we know. :\
Its entirely possible zimmerman could have been charged with stalking and be found guilty but that is not what happened. He can't be accused of second degree murder but still be treated as if he was charged with something else.
Could zimmerman be charged with stalking? How is it defined by law? I was under the impression that stalking required repetition and intent to harm or something of the sort. Zimmerman did not even know martin, this was a one time thing which was done based on a stupid decision of his. Had things been slightly different its unlikely the two would have ever met again. Then again whether he could be charged with stalking or not depends on how competent the prosecution was and whether the circumstances of the case would allow for zimmerman to have been charged with that. We can't really saw stalking is being sanction if to begin with zimmerman was not charged with it. Its entirely possible the law could be in the wrong regarding what is stalking however that is a different issue. Even if what zimmerman did was stalking he can't really be prosecuted for it if for whatever reason what he did does not quality as stalking according to the law.
i have more taste than to follow show trials, which is what this was because of the silly media circus.
Nonetheless I couldn't help but notice Zimmerman was described as 'white' when he is mixed race like Obama and of Afro-Peruvian descent.
---------- Post added at 02:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:23 PM ----------
The correct term for how the media handled Zimmerman was 'implicit whiteness'. Even though Zimmerman wasn't white, either anthropologically or by the 'social identity' sense of the word (he was visibly mixed race), he was purposefully presented as such so that white people were implicitly manipulated - not explicitly goaded - to take Zimmerman's side... "let's you and him fight!".
Whilst support for Trayvon Martin was drummed up in a far cruder fashion by showing him as a 12 year old brat or something instead of a 20 year old gang member - though its maybe not so much difference if you think how old American blacks often are when they first join gangs. Someone looking like 12uo Trayvon might've owned his first gun the week after those innocent-looking photos were taken, because that's about the age lads get initiated into gangs - and yea lads that age in that kind of culture really do kill. Pictures of Trayvon looking innocent might sway affluent white people who believe in preserving children from anything nasty or harmful, but on their own doorstep exist cultures with different values than their own. Way more innocent-looking black kids that age (let alone Trayvon's actual age) are killed by other blacks with firearms than are by white gun owners, but big media can't turn those stories into a race relations headline.
Trayvon died the way his gang culture sees as honourable and authentic and real, I don't think he wanted to be remembered as some little kid given those other photos of 'No Limit Nigga'. Just compare the following photos to see how Trayvon saw himself in contrast to how the telly makes him look.