George Zimmerman found Not Guilty.

[wegs]

Just looked up for clarification again...involuntary manslaughter in Florida and it states:

''A negligent act is not enough for an involuntary manslaughter conviction in Florida.''


Is it me, or does it seem like the law itself handcuffed the jury?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Here's a neighborhood watch guide.
Apparently Zimmerman would have been given this.
It tells people what to do.
Unfortunately it does not spell out, for hotheads like Zimmerman, what not to do.

http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/watchpart1_rotated.pdf


Here's another case. Boy goes after down deaf shoplifter and shoots him. No charge.

Location details: On or near the dock connected to the defendant's property in Miami Shores, Miami-Dade County, on May 02, 2011
What happened: Reynaldo Muñoz, a 20-year-old deaf man, was trying to steal a WaveRunner from a Miami Shores dock when the owners saw him and called 911. Dispatchers recorded Yasmin Davis telling her 14-year-old son to "get the gun." Moments later the boy fired, the shot recorded on the 911 tape. Police found Muñoz's body floating in the bay. A lawyer for the victim's family has argued that the shooting was unnecessary and that Muñoz was not on the shooter's property when the gun was fired. Originally, the family told police that Muñoz threatened them, according to Miami Herald reports. But one of Muñoz's former teachers said that would be impossible because he was nearly deaf and could not be understood when he spoke.
The outcome: June 19, 2013, prosecutors announced they would not to charge Jack Davis in the death of Ryenaldo Muñoz.
Investigating agency: Miami-Dade Police
Case decision made by: Prosecutor

http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_54

 

[birch]

Well yes; and Zimmerman admitted to the killing, so there was nothing to prove about it. So self defense was the entire question of the trial. That's how self defense works. So I'm not sure what you are complaining for: the process is all you could hope for, you just didn't get your preferred outcome.

you pretend a jury can't think, this one obviously couldn't but that doesn't justify a verdict just because it's a verdict. that simpleton explanation works for you because you are satisfied with the verdict not because it was correct.

you misunderstand, maybe it is too complicated to you. there was no question he killed, he was not on trial to prove whether he was the actual individual/culprit that killed trayvon martin. lol

he was on trial as to whether that killing was justified and a thinking jury would see that he held the majority of the responsibility in this case per the outcome.

 

[birch]

NW program handbook from sanford fl pd. interestingly, they took the link down on their gov site.

You will add your “eyes and ears” to those of the Police Department which cannot be everywhere, all the time, by keeping a watchful eye and open ear to what is happening in your neighborhood. You will extend their ability to provide security by reporting anything unusual or suspicious, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, so they can follow up on your leads.What you will
not do is get physically involved with any activity you report or apprehension of any suspicious persons. This is the job of the law enforcement agency.

he got physically involved when he got out of the car and pursued martin, he was also further in violation with a loaded firearm. why did the jury ignore this? why did the jury even ignore zimmerman's own account of trying to apprehend and detain martin? because they wanted to, didn't care or didn't question it. they only honed in on zimmerman's heated moment narrative as the juror interview either implies this was the easiest route to a verdict.

 

[wegs]

Here's a neighborhood watch guide.
Apparently Zimmerman would have been given this.
It tells people what to do.
Unfortunately it does not spell out, for hotheads like Zimmerman, what not to do.

http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/watchpart1_rotated.pdf

wow! thanks!
it does actually spell it out...it explicitly states...'is not to act like the vigilante police'

neighborhood watch is not someone taking the law in his/her own hands.
SYG supersedes everything?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

NW program handbook from sanford fl pd. interestingly, they took the link down on their gov site.

.

Maybe re-writing it, to make it an idiot's guide.
So that other idiots don't do the same as Zimmerman.
Police telephone operators will hopefully be told to say
"Thank you for your information. Keep watching, but don't follow him"

 

[Trippy]

It is the job of the defense lawyers to caste reasonable doubt on the prosecutions case. In this instance they had to do this by painting the circumstances in a light that makes Zimmermans actions seem like the reasonable actions of a man genuinely in fear for his life.

It is the job of the prosecution to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

A verdict of not guilty does not equate to a veridct of innocence. It simply means that, for what ever reason, the Jury did not consider that the prosecution had met their burden of proof.

According to the available evidence, a period of what, two minutes? More? Elapsed between Zimmerman loosing Martin and Zimmerman shooting Martin. Martin was shot very close to his destination - what was it, three houses? Zimmerman, according to the video posted by KWHilborn lived in the opposite direction. Why didn't Zimmerman simply go home?

I think the answer iis in the 911 call: "These assholes, they always get away." Zimmerman was every bit looking to pick a fight as it has been suggested Martin was.

Zimmerman pursued Martin.
Zimmerman confronted Martin in some way (remember, he's stopped crimes in progress before).
Zimmerman got more than he bargained for when he (ultimately) picked a fight with someone who was physically his superior and was seemingly better prepared for a fight.
Zimmerman got his ass handed to him in the fight that he picked and shot his assailant.

 

[wegs]

NW program handbook from sanford fl pd. interestingly, they took the link down on their gov site.



he got physically involved when he got out of the car and pursued martin, he was also further in violation with a loaded firearm. why did the jury ignore this? why did the jury even ignore zimmerman's own account of trying to apprehend and detain martin? because they wanted to, didn't care or didn't question it. they only honed in on zimmerman's heated moment narrative as the juror interview either implies this was the easiest route to a verdict.

VERY interesting that the link has been removed.

 

[birch]

It is the job of the defense lawyers to caste reasonable doubt on the prosecutions case. In this instance they had to do this by painting the circumstances in a light that makes Zimmermans actions seem like the reasonable actions of a man genuinely in fear for his life.

It is the job of the prosecution to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

A verdict of not guilty does not equate to a veridct of innocence. It simply means that, for what ever reason, the Jury did not consider that the prosecution had met their burden of proof.

According to the available evidence, a period of what, two minutes? More? Elapsed between Zimmerman loosing Martin and Zimmerman shooting Martin. Martin was shot very close to his destination - what was it, three houses? Zimmerman, according to the video posted by KWHilborn lived in the opposite direction. Why didn't Zimmerman simply go home?

I think the answer iis in the 911 call: "These assholes, they always get away." Zimmerman was every bit looking to pick a fight as it has been suggested Martin was.

Zimmerman pursued Martin.
Zimmerman confronted Martin in some way (remember, he's stopped crimes in progress before).
Zimmerman got more than he bargained for when he (ultimately) picked a fight with someone who was physically his superior and was seemingly better prepared for a fight.
Zimmerman got his ass handed to him in the fight that he picked and shot his assailant.

unfortunately, the prosecution could have met their burden of proof but it still can be ignored by the jury. juror b37's interview is telling in that regard in many ways as to her hypocritical, contradictory and especially her emotive thinking towards zimmerman and her biased/dissonant reasoning towards martin. she even blatantly insinuated that somehow 'frustration' on zimmerman's part is somehow excusable considering the past break-ins of neighborhood etc and martin was totally responsible for his death and zimmerman's violations and actions she dismissed. you can have the facts as clear as day but as to whether a jury considers or how it is processed is still up to them.

 

[Tiassa]

Where To Start? Well, Technically, Don't. Y'know?

Shit man, where do I start?

You don't. This whole thing is just trollbait. I mean, remember, this whole KWH ego trip started with the proposition that President Obama should be president for everyone except black people. And then it moved onto a demonstration of ignorance, and then this Trayvon-on-Trial thing.

He's just trying to get attention. If you watch closely enough—i.e., read through his latest posts until you get sick of him all over again—you'll notice that there really is no consistency. He's working from the premise that George Zimmerman is some kind of victim, and throwing whatever he can get his hands on at the wall in hopes that it sticks.

My favorite part so far has been his attempt to limit the relevant data:

"Your description does not match any given by witnesses. The ONLY description given of Trayvons actions were by GZ when he described them to police."​

He is so accidentally adept at making the point for us with the ignorance and despicability of his grapeshot arguments that the most likely explanation is that he's simply begging for attention.

Even if we strip away the apparent cultural blockage that somehow separates Seattle and Toronto by exponentially more than a sum of miles, his argument still doesn't make any sense. That is to say, after we account for his ignorance of American history°, the logic still isn't there.

After all, we still come back to the idea of a black male on a phone.

And I'm trying to think of when I would find that kind of behavior suspicious.

• There's a "Mexican" standing in the parking lot outside my apartment, just sort of looking around, acting suspicious. (Actually, if you don't omit the fact that he's also speaking, it becomes apparent that he's on the phone to family somewhere else int he world.)

• There's an "Arab" standing around near the store where I buy my cigarettes, just sort of looking around, acting suspicious. He has his hand near his waist. (Actually, he's Persian, and happens to run the store he's standing outside of while he talks on the phone to family overseas.)

• There's a scruffy-looking white guy just sort of standing around on the docks, just ... well, okay, let's be honest. Nobody is ever going to mistake the white guy on the docks talking on the phone to his client about what needs to happen next on the yacht for something "suspicious".​

But a black dude, talking on a phone—and it turns out he was talking to that particular individual?—is apparently suspicious. That is to say, a posture I am accustomed to seeing all sorts of people strike when on the phone is, apparently, inherently suspicious?

I still don't get how that works, but then again, resolving such questions is not an outcome our Canadian neighbor intends. This is about SYG and the spirit of Lester Cowens.
____________________

Notes:

° ignorance of American history — It is worth acknowledging, at this point, that many Americans are ignorant of American history in ways that really screw up the public discourse. My father, who is not an idiot, spent nearly sixty years of his life as an anti-communist in part because he had no idea why the Soviets should be angry with us. And then one day when he was about fifty-nine, I was lamenting the lack of history in our public discourse, and how that got us into a dumb war in Iraq, and I mentioned my favorite irony of the Iraqi Bush War—the Schwarzkopf Cycle—and the time we invaded the Soviets in an effort to overthrow the revolution and restore imperial sympathizers. I mean, it's not like he suddenly became a commie sympathizer or anything, but the idea of sending twenty-thousand troops to invade the new Soviet Union certainly changed his outlook on how those rascally Reds hated us for no good reason.

To the other, these things are obscure. Sort of. I mean, in order of bloc size, the CIA's recent acknowledgement of the 1953 overthrow of Mossadegh, starting with the smallest: Those who were holding out on the fact that this open secret had never been officially acknowledged; those who knew the open secret and accepted it as true, since all the evidence was there; and those who never knew there was a question. No, really, it's one of those things:

"Oh, alright. It happened."

"Well, they finally admitted it."

—Wait, what are you talking about?​

To the other, though, no American under thirty-five—and I suspect that age runs younger, too, it's just that I can't verify it specifically—who has gone through an accredited school system should be unfamiliar with any number of terms from American history: Three-Fifths Rule, Missouri Compromise, Fugitive Slave Act, One-Drop Rule, Dred Scott Decision (Scott v. Sandford), Plessy v. Ferguson, separate but equal, Brown v. Board of Education, desegregation. There are literally thousands of events that we might include in the historical education of American youth about racial and ethnic relations; but the weird thing is that if you explain concepts like encomienda and prayer villages to the modern American, they don't believe it. We have an annual microdebate about Cristobal Colon; apparently, there isn't really any question of whether a mass murderer is a hero or not, because the underlying assertion that Colon took part in this terrible process is unreliable, especially as it is written in his own hand.

Interestingly, although predictably, it seems the ongoing discussion in this country about racial and ethnic relations focuses more on the here and now while pretending the past didn't exist. All you need to know about this passage from the fiction of Steven Brust is that "Easterner" is the underclass:

Walking through the filth in the streets made me want to retch, but I hid it. Anyway, we all know Easterners are filthy, right? Look at how they live. Never mind that they can’t use sorcery to keep their neighborhoods clean the way Dragaerans do. If they want to use sorcery, they can become citizens of the Empire by moving into the country and becoming Teckla, or buying titles in the Jhereg. Don’t want to be serfs? They’re stubborn, too, aren’t they? Don’t have the money to buy titles? Of course not! Who’d give them a good job, seeing how filthy they are?​

There's a reason why he wrote that line, and not, say, the late Russell Kirk. That is, there is a reason that line comes from fiction written by a Trotskyist sympathizer, and not fiction written by a conservative scholar who believed in divine "natural" law establishing a transcendent order.

But that line from Brust? For Americans, that's where the racial and ethnic discussion is now; one side wants to erase history.

 

[iceaura]

He only started following TM after he vanished from view. The part of the tape you hear him leave his truck and slam door. Then The officer asked if he was following. GZ said yes, but TM was already out of sight.

So you have settled on yes, Zimmerman did follow Martin, even after being told not to - so your earlier assertions that he "stopped where he was" are no longer operational, as they say.

Please change your quotes to reflect what you said so the stupidity does not reflect on me.

Everything I put in a quote box labeled you is a direct copy from your posting, honestly edited and in proper context . I can't edit your posts - you'll have to do the changing yourself. I agree that trying to argue that Zimmerman did not follow Martin reflects poorly on your general ability to deal with even simple aspects of this situation, which some might take as stupidity, but it's you posting that shit, not me. How am I supposed to quote you if not by what you post?

Putting things I did not post in quote boxes labeled me, meanwhile, is of course par for your course - you have lied about everything else you have dealt with on this thread, why not my posts - but if you are worried about your stupidity reflecting on you, you needn't bother: compared with the reflection from that kind of posting, stupidity is no big deal.

If Zimmerman attacked Martin, then Martin could legally have stood his ground and killed him.

Zimmerman did attack Martin - that's what getting out of your truck and chasing after someone for no reason is: an attack. The fact that he brought his gun with him, loaded and apparently off safety, just ices it.

Zimmerman's case depended on a jury not understanding the situation, and the prosecutor not doing their job. Both turned out to have been easily arranged.

1. Zimmerman didn't "chase" Martin. And at the time Martin attacked him, Zimmerman wasn't even following him.

Of course he did, and yes he was - he'd lost sight of him when he ran away, but not for lack of effort. And Martin was the one under attack - anything he did was self defense.

 

[birch]

Look, I was being really generous here: the fact of the matter is that the evidence available contradicts your speculation. It isn't just that it was thin or unsupported. There was no dumbness by the jury here: the facts they had available painted a pretty clear picture of what happened and even if they had chosen not to believe Zimmerman, they still could not have arrived at the story you are speculating about. The evidence simply doesn't support it.

oh, it did? there was no 'dumbness' by the jury? ok. they had no 'evidence' to convict zimmerman of manslaughter? ok. what 'story' am i speculating about?

yeah, juror b37 came to her verdict with intelligence and looking only at the facts which to her it was martin's fault for getting killed as he should have gone home which he was on his way though he didn't necessarily have to either, not that it was zimmerman's fault for violating neighborhood watch, stalking someone with no grounds except vague suspicion and locked and loaded (again, acting as neighborhood watch). somehow abusing his authority flagrantly, disregarding neighborhood watch safety rules as well as disregarding dispatchers is also okay. somehow poor georgie's responsibility wasn't to report as neighborhood watch (which he had nothing to report) and go home himself. all that mattered is he stated he was in 'fear for his life' despite the physical evidence and his actions immediately after said life/death struggle were contradictory were also conveniently dismissed or ignored. all this is considered perfectly fine and sane to the likes of you and that jury of 'peers'. lmao

Florida manslaughter crime defined
MANSLAUGHTER
To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Trayvon Martin is dead.
2. George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin.
George Zimmerman cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide:
Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence.
The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon George Zimmerman, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which George Zimmerman was at the time of the killing.
The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:
1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or
2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or
3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that George Zimmerman had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death.
If you find George Zimmerman committed Manslaughter, and you also find beyond a reasonable doubt that during the commission of the Manslaughter, George Zimmerman carried, displayed, used, threatened to use, or attempted to use a firearm, you should check the appropriate box on the verdict form which I will discuss with you later in these instructions.

zimmerman could have been convicted of manslaughter by that jury. zimmerman committed willful acts that were unjustified such as stalking without cause and in direct violation of neighborhood watch with a weapon, meaning he was ready for a confrontation. that shows a clear degree of intent. he did not act reasonably, he was not acting lawfully under his authority when he ignores neighborhood watch safety and there is no evidence that he was provoked but the provoker.

the jury was doing all it could to get him off, period.

 

[kwhilborn]

@ Tiassa,

KWH ego trip started with the proposition that President Obama should be president for everyone except black people.

No. I said he made a racist remark which was true. Obama has no experience of shopping or approaching strange women as a white man. It is common sense.

I admit my ego is such that I believe I am smarter than you, but that is based on your comments and actions and not based on race.

the apparent cultural blockage that somehow separates Seattle and Toronto

Huh? Now we are discussing Seattle. I thought Obama lived in the White House, and Trayvon had lived in Florida? Are you back in your fantasy world?

My father, who is not an idiot, spent nearly sixty years of his life as an anti-communist.

Glad to see at least he was not an idiot, but that is only your claim.

I can see how your fathers anger towards that culture has rubbed off on you. You have labelled a lot of uncalled for racist remarks towards me, and even compared me to a murdering Klu Klux Klan member to lash out. That was pretty lame, although I expect you are proud you thought of it. Small things amuse small minds.

[kwhilborn is] working from the premise that George Zimmerman is some kind of victim.

No. You keep mentioning history. Try looking up "Presumption of Innocence", often rephrased as "Innocent until Proven Guilty". It is you and your cronies here stomping on this cornerstone of Justice that dates back to even Roman times (although called something different).

GZ has been found not guilty and you are still trying to hang him, and most of the facts you are using are fantasies in your head because nobody knows what happened that night.

IF YOU rephrase your above quote to state

[kwhilborn is] working from the premise that George Zimmerman is [innocent until proven guilty].

then it is accurate.

Your judgement of guilt is presumptuous and seemingly based on self serving motives to chastise/berate white people.

• There's a "Mexican" standing in the parking lot outside my apartment, just sort of looking around, acting suspicious. (Actually, if you don't omit the fact that he's also speaking, it becomes apparent that he's on the phone to family somewhere else int he world.)

• There's an "Arab" standing around near the store where I buy my cigarettes, just sort of looking around, acting suspicious. He has his hand near his waist. (Actually, he's Persian, and happens to run the store he's standing outside of while he talks on the phone to family overseas.)

• There's a scruffy-looking white guy just sort of standing around on the docks, just ... well, okay, let's be honest. Nobody is ever going to mistake the white guy on the docks talking on the phone to his client about what needs to happen next on the yacht for something "suspicious".

What people find suspicious is subjective. I once called police because I saw some people sneaking around the neighborhood and then in a house with flashlights. It turned out to be kids (NOTE: I NEVER SAW THEIR COLOUR AS THIS WILL BE WHAT YOU GRASP AT HERE). It honestly does not matter.

Also: Since when is following someone a crime? If you or I (or both of us) came into a neighborhood and somebody followed us because of our skin colour should we attack them? What if the person was yelling racist comments at us? Then can we attack them? What if I slowly followed you in my car for 10 miles while you walked for gas and I had racist redneck jokes playing full blast on my stereo so you and whoever you are with can hear them, Can you attack me then?

We do not Know who attacked who. I think Trayvons history seems to show he was a tall fit teen who liked to fight, and this makes the story and injuries sustained by GZ a bit more believable. Add "Presumption of Innocence" into that, and the act he was found "not guilty" by a JURY picked by both parties, and I think he deserves someone to say his side.

Racism is all about pre-judging people. You are pissing on Presumption of Innocence here, yet you want the whites of the world to look at blacks as innocent when they first meet them. This does not apply to how Blacks view whites though, as you yourself have claimed you are giving your kids "THE TALK" about how not to trust "Whiteys" ("Whiteys" was your term for us remember.).

terms from American history: Three-Fifths Rule, Missouri Compromise, Fugitive Slave Act, One-Drop Rule, Dred Scott Decision (Scott v. Sandford), Plessy v. Ferguson, separate but equal, Brown v. Board of Education, desegregation.

Shut the hell up with your ancient history. You make it seem like you were a bloody slave.

Kunta Kinte you are not. Heck I saw roots as well, but even the movie that showed the injustices of that history was made more than 35 years ago. Get over it.

YOU ARE QUOTING THE BLOODY "FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT" IN AN EFFORT TO CONVICT ZIMMERMAN. This is the Zimmerman thread, correct?

We live in a culture where travel is a lot easier than it was back in those days. I see more people on a subway ride than many people would see in a lifetime back then. Propaganda and hate speak is curbed by information highways. The largest racist segments of the planet are where reading and internet access is disturbed by governments and religions. In another 100 years we will all look Hawaiian (original melting pot culture), and it won't even matter.

Fugitive slave act. Um how does that go again (LIKE I CARE)? I get it. Us "Whitey's had slaves". NOT IN CANADA BTW (READ ABOUT UNDERGROUND RAILROAD IN YOUR HISTORY), you might learn not all "Whitey's" were out to get you (and you do treat this like it is you now, and not history). Did someone white turn you down for a job once? I've been turned down for jobs in my life from every culture.

So keep on keeping on about the Fugitive Slave Act. Keep on encouraging "Presumption of Guilt" (like a communist). Keep on acting ridiculous. You are so obvious.

 

[wegs]

The grander picture is that this acquittal has set the stage for something similar to happen, and shooters to be acquitted. It will breed racial murders. It will create more vigilante type scenarios. These situations don't happen in vacuums. You will start to see ...a trickle-effect...of more crimes such as the Zimmerman/Martin one. More acquittals.

So, you can hang onto whatever it is you think happened that night, but the truth is...GZ was way out of bounds as it relates to his role as 'neighborhood watch guy.' WAY OUT OF BOUNDS. I don't care what the law says...a prudent person would have called the cops, and asked them to come out and check out the situation. He acted in place of the police. How some people cannot see this, I don't know.

And this will happen again. You'll see.

 

[Tiassa]

What Makes Trayvon Any Scarier Than Me?

Of course he did, and yes he was - he'd lost sight of him when he ran away, but not for lack of effort. And Martin was the one under attack - anything he did was self defense.

I think you're aware that I'm a subscriber to the notion of "background racism", much like "background radiation" in the cosmos.

I mention this because if we look at what a black person did or didn't do in one of these cases that makes him suspicious or dangerous or whatever, and compare that to what a white person can do that isn't suspicious or dangerous or whatever, the disparity really ought to be apparent.

Or, as Robin D. G. Kelley noted after the verdict:

The NRA and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the conservative lobbying group responsible for drafting and pushing "Stand Your Ground" laws across the country, insist that an armed citizenry is the only effective defense against imminent threats, assailants, and predators.

But when George Zimmerman fatally shot Trayvon Martin, an unarmed, teenage pedestrian returning home one rainy February evening from a neighborhood convenience store, the NRA went mute. Neither NRA officials nor the pro-gun wing of the Republican Party argued that had Trayvon Martin been armed, he would be alive today. The basic facts are indisputable: Martin was on his way home when Zimmerman began to follow him—first in his SUV, and then on foot. Zimmerman told the police he had been following this "suspicious-looking" young man. Martin knew he was being followed and told his friend, Rachel Jeantel, that the man might be some kind of sexual predator. At some point, Martin and Zimmerman confronted each other, a fight ensued, and in the struggle Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.

Zimmerman pursued Martin. This is a fact. Martin could have run, I suppose, but every black man knows that unless you're on a field, a track, or a basketball court, running is suspicious and could get you a bullet in the back. The other option was to ask this stranger what he was doing, but confrontations can also be dangerous—especially without witnesses and without a weapon besides a cell phone and his fists. Florida law did not require Martin to retreat, though it is not clear if he had tried to retreat. He did know he was in imminent danger.

Where was the NRA on Trayvon Martin's right to stand his ground? What happened to their principled position? Let's be clear: the Trayvon Martins of the world never had that right because the "ground" was never considered theirs to stand on. Unless black people could magically produce some official documentation proving that they are not burglars, rapists, drug dealers, pimps or prostitutes, intruders, they are assumed to be "up to no good." (In the antebellum period, such documentation was called "freedom papers.") As Wayne LaPierre, NRA's executive vice president, succinctly explained their position, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Trayvon Martin was a bad guy or at least looked and acted like one. In our allegedly postracial moment, where simply talking about racism openly is considered an impolitic, if not racist, thing to do, we constantly learn and re-learn racial codes. The world knows black men are criminal, that they populate our jails and prisons, that they kill each other over trinkets, that even the celebrities among us are up to no good. Zimmerman's racial profiling was therefore justified, and the defense consistently employed racial stereotypes and played on racial knowledge to turn the victim into the predator and the predator into the victim. In short, it was Trayvon Martin, not George Zimmerman, who was put on trial. He was tried for the crimes he may have committed and the ones he would have committed had he lived past 17. He was tried for using lethal force against Zimmerman in the form of a sidewalk and his natural athleticism.​

This is one of the most important aspects of this tragic tale. It's what our neighbor from Toronto, and others in the Cult of GeeZee seem unable to assimilate or accommodate in their outlooks. The law, and the environment in which it occurs, were never intended to be equal.

This is what it's for, and the erasure of everything anyone else does that is suspicious or threatening or otherwise scary, is the reason why.

A black dude talking on the phone is scary and dangerous.

A vigilante with a gun, hunting a black dude for talking on the phone, is a hero.

And they don't want to admit that it really does come down to such basic things as skin color. Yet watch the appeals to Trayvon da Thug. The cornerstone fear factor depends on the fact of dark skin.

I know damn well the things I discussed with my friends. I know damn well how ugly it would sound. The things we would say about women? Our tough-guy talk? And this was a Jesuit school, for heaven's sake. My reputation as a Satanist? And we adored that kind of attention. To see real, actual fear in someone's eyes simply because that person imagined something. Wow.

What makes Trayvon scarier than me at that age?

No, really?

Not enough blood in a fight? Ooohhh, scary! Pfft! I mean, Jesus fuck, what is wrong with these people? There are people in this world who never for a moment doubted my general goodness, or whatever you want to call it, when I was a teenager even as they sat there listening to me explain how I wanted to literally cut out a specific person's heart. In reality, I simply shook his hand. And, yes, to this day I regret even offering him that human courtesy. But at that age, there couldn't have been enough blood; he didn't have enough in his body. He didn't have enough bones to break. He didn't have enough souls to devour. He could only die once. I can't imagine what the SMS record would have looked like if we had it at the time.

What makes Trayvon scarier than me at that age?

Somewhere in this world, I'm on videotape throwing a Molotov cocktail. Flashing a weapon? I used it.

What makes Trayvon scarier than me at that age?

I smoked pot the first time when I was seventeen, though it was my birthday weekend, so ... yeah, split the hair if we need, right? And, of course, I probably could have told anyone then that I was in for the rest of my life. I actually finally said it out loud a year and a half later. I lived throught the nineties, especially the latter half, in a permanent haze. I am a pacifist insofar as I hew to a vaguely expressed bit of wisdom allegedly from a Japanese tradition asserting that violence is an inefficient means of accomplishing anything.

What makes Trayvon scarier than me?

I outgrew a number of stupid, youthful attitudes. Of course, I also had the chance to outgrow them. Because I'm not scary. Well, except to certain Christian teenagers who would have been more likely to assault me with holy water balloons at worst than believe I was a genuinely mortal threat.

And no, they never did the holy water balloons. Although they did try to frame me for arson, once upon a time. I still don't know what the fuck was up with that. And there were the locker thefts; nobody ever said who fingered us for that one, either, but the thing is that in both cases, well .... No, really, I don't know. The locker theft thing was on, over, and done with before we knew what it was about. Literally, like flash, bam, five seconds later the football coach understands that we have no idea what we're being questioned about. But the arson one? See, the thing is that after they realized that we were under observation elsewhere at the time of the crime (the parking lot was always under watch), the whole thing went away, and I don't think we ever heard who actually set the fire in the trash can. I don't think they ever bothered to try to find out. But it should be noted that the fire alarm never went off, either. Damnedest thing, to find out the school was set on fire while you were out hitting on the upperclass stoner chicks in the parking lot. You would think we would have been accounted for in a fire evacuation? But ... there ... er ... right.

I ramble on because, really, this whole trip through nostalgia, that doesn't include the time I actually did set other buildings on fire (albeit accidentally), or any of the other really, really, really stupid things I did that would make me ask the same question over and over again: What makes Trayvon any scarier than me?

And that's the question the GeeZee Guard cannot answer.

And we all know it's not just me. I'm not the only one who can ask that question. Not nearly. Hell, this is one of those occasions when I'm probably part of a majority in our society. What makes Trayvon any scarier than me?
____________________

Notes:

Kelley, Robin D. G. "The U.S. v. Trayvon Martin: How the System Worked ". The Huffington Post. July 15, 2013. HuffingtonPost.com. August 20, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-d-g-kelley/nra-stand-your-ground-trayvon-martin_b_3599843.html

 

[Trippy]

I think you're aware that I'm a subscriber to the notion of "background racism", much like "background radiation" in the cosmos.

Maybe I'm missing something, but how is what you decribe different from institutional racism - the tendency, for example to aska black man whether they were the first one in their family to do so when he tells us he graduated college.

 

[Trippy]

unfortunately, the prosecution could have met their burden of proof but it still can be ignored by the jury. juror b37's interview is telling in that regard in many ways as to her hypocritical, contradictory and especially her emotive thinking towards zimmerman and her biased/dissonant reasoning towards martin. she even blatantly insinuated that somehow 'frustration' on zimmerman's part is somehow excusable considering the past break-ins of neighborhood etc and martin was totally responsible for his death and zimmerman's violations and actions she dismissed. you can have the facts as clear as day but as to whether a jury considers or how it is processed is still up to them.

Of course, and nothing I said was intended to suggest otherwise. Indeed the statement "For whatever reason the jur did not consider the burden of proof to be met" was fully intended to convey that it is only in the opinion of the jury, and that the reasons run the gamut from "the prosecution genuinely failed" to "the jurors reached the wrong conclusion because they were biased or failed to understand the evidence."

 

[kwhilborn]

@ tiassa,

George Zimmerman could be dressed as tinkerbell and running circles around TM the entire way saying racist things and it should not matter, and the same could be said of Trayvon. There are lots of crazy people out there including the odd person who might do stuff like I just described to any race. Does that give TM or anybody the right to hit them. I could see if this was in he middle of a dark forest, but there were over 50 homes within 500 feet of where this happened. When yelling did start, it brought out several neighbors and 911 calls.

You keep babbling about "Stand Your Ground" law. Zimmerman’s lawyers opted not to request a Stand Your Ground hearing, and Zimmerman was tried in front of a Jury.

What is so bad about standing your ground. We live in a society where assault is illegal, nobody should be able to intimidate anybody into retreating. Don't you watch all those anti-bullying after school specials? Oh yeah. You are still living in the slave days.

You don't comment on the "Presumption of Innocence" that you ignore that is the basis of our justice system. If your child was arrested would you want them presumed innocent?

You can GUESS. You can Guess. You can Guess. You can guess what happened that night, but it will always be a guess. So you want people to hate or kill Zimmerman because you Guess Trayvon was behaving himself. That's ridiculous and ironic considering racism is prejudging without facts and you claim to be against that.

Tiassa - I lived throught the nineties, especially the latter half, in a permanent haze.

"Throught" is not a word, but at least you explain where some of your brain cells went.

I regret even offering him that human courtesy. But at that age, there couldn't have been enough blood; he didn't have enough in his body. He didn't have enough bones to break. He didn't have enough souls to devour. He could only die once.

Trayvon atacked the guy for being a snitch. This means he reported Trayvon for doing something wrong according to someone.

Was the guy you wanted to break all the bones of and kill a snitch? I do not think being a snitch is enough of a reason to hurt people. That is a criminal attitude.

You can guess. You can Guess. You can Guess what happened, but you will only be convicting GZ from your imagination.

TIASSA - What makes Trayvon any scarier than me?

Is completely NOT RELEVANT. WHO CARES. If TRAYVON HIT GZ IT WAS A VALID KILL. IF GZ HIT TM THEN THAT IS AN UNWITNESSED GUESS. OWN THAT.

You are ignorant of "Preseumption of Innocene", or "innocent util proven guilty", and want to see GZ hang without knowing what happened (Unless you GUESS).

This "Presumption of Innocence" is meant to prevent assholes from assuming guilt (no mentioning names - cough* TIASSA)

 

[iceaura]

George Zimmerman could be dressed as tinkerbell and running circles around TM the entire way saying racist things and it should not matter, and the same could be said of Trayvon.

Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon with a loaded firearm handy. Martin was not doing anything to Zimmerman.

There are lots of crazy people out there including the odd person who might do stuff like I just described to any race. Does that give TM or anybody the right to hit them.

What Zimmerman was doing to Martin gave Martin every right to beat his teeth out his asshole, if he could. If Martin had known Zimmerman was carrying a gun, he could have shot him from ambush without violating any particular code of right and wrong - simply in self defense. Apparently Martin actually gave Zimmerman the chance to explain himself, which was a courtesy he had not earned, and it cost Martin his life.

So you want people to hate or kill Zimmerman because you Guess Trayvon was behaving himself.

Now you are projecting again. Nobody except you here cares whether Martin was a bad kid or not - it's not relevant. Nobody here is interested in hating or killing Zimmerman, or slandering his character the way you slander Martin's, or any of this garbage you find so fascinating.

I want people who do what Zimmerman did to go to jail for manslaughter, is all. That is because I don't want to have people running around acting like that with impunity - that's a crazy world, and I want to live in a decent and civilized community of reasonable folk.

What is so bad about standing your ground.

In principle nothing. In practice it can get you killed, and your killer walks free, and the internet is full of slander of you - if you're black.

 

[Russ_Watters]

But you can acquit them based on it [speculation], I guess.
Hmmm

Well yes, of course! Our legal system places a high burden of proof on the prosecution and even midly far-fetched but possible speculation (there was none of that here, of course) is enough for "reasonable doubt". You don't seriously want the prosecution's burden of proof lowered, do you?

He put himself in a precarious situation to begin with then when things went awry, he shot TM.

Yes.

Which leads me to a question about neighborhood watch. What are the limits of it?

My understanding is that typically they do not condone carrying guns, but I don't think Zimmerman was actually a member of a neighborhood watch, nor would such rules carry legal weight.

And frankly, I think in some locales, that is too restrictive. At the very least, the restriction goes against their Constitutional rights. And in this case, if Zimmerman hadn't been carrying a gun, Martin would certainly be alive, but Zimmerman realistically could be dead. I'm not inclined to purposely and unnecessarily give criminals* the upper hand in such situations.

*Yes, Martin was a criminal, and not based on his history. We know Martin was a criminal because of Zimmerman's injuries; he just wasn't alive to face charges in the attack.

Also, just to make sure we're clear: everyone is aware that jury nullification only works in one direction, right? It is used for granting acquittals only.

Just looked up for clarification again...involuntary manslaughter in Florida and it states:

''A negligent act is not enough for an involuntary manslaughter conviction in Florida.''

Is it me, or does it seem like the law itself handcuffed the jury?

Only if you don't like the logic. If you do, it provides the jury with a reasonable logic for what manslaughter is.