Zimmerman V. Florida


Recommended Posts

What's the difference between a person of color and a white Irish person? One of them eventually assimilates into the majority culture and society and does not carry a mark that quickly identifies them for discrimination.

I don't believe in the victim culture. I believe in people making the most of themselves in spite of whatever challenges life throws at them and succeeding in spite of those challenges.

Ed Zachary. Yet our society loves to continue to nurture the "victims", placing blame on everything but the people themselves. And because of this, there will always be an excuse for behaviour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alain,it seems that you're trying to apply logic to what is more of an emotional issue;

Darnell, you need to do better research:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/28/zimmerman-s-twin-lakes-community-was-on-edge-before-trayvon-shooting.html

Read about the description of the perpetrators of a number of the burglaries in Twin Lakes leading up to the night Zimmerman and Martin had their conflict. This was a community on edge.

I'll agree that the community was on edge... however, it sounds like this place was in the hood. (didn't they ever hear of White Flight) Anyway, this was the main point that I got from the link that you provided; "On Feb. 26, the odds were stacked against Martin: he was a young black man in a neighborhood that was feeling besieged by crime and blaming it—fairly or not—on people who looked like him." If this is truly a mixed community, then where was Zimmerman's black friends? He was chief of the neighborhood watch for goodness sake. you would think that someone as involved in the community as he was would have at least one black neighbor that he was on friendly terms with. And if so, why didn't they testify on Zimmerman's behalf that he wasn't a racist?

And the coded language? It's only coded if you go looking for it with racism in mind. The words used can just as easily be describing the burglars who were getting away with it. No race indicated. And consider that Zimmerman didn't characterize race until the dispatcher asked him the race of the suspect. Also consider that he did say to the dispatcher, "this guy looks like he's up to no good."

Ok, so what does one look like when they are "up to no good"? and how does that look differ from the "How do I get back to dad's house?" look or the always popular "Hmmm, I wonder which of these houses is the one that the cute girl I saw on the way to the store lives in? I'really want to get her number the next time that I see her." My point is , Zimmerman didn't say that "up to no good" he said that Martin LOOKED like he was up to no good.

Finally, nowhere do we find that Zimmerman deliberately stopped Martin to interrogate him. He encountered him on his way back from looking for an address to tell the dispatcher where he was. Martin asked the first question. Zimmerman responded by asking what he was doing there. Ok. I'll concede that point to you too... as long as you acknowledge that nowhere on record do we have Trayvon Martin's recollection of what happened. But... you're asking me to believe that Trayvon Martin started the fight unprovoked? In a strange, unfamiliar neighborhood? With a "white" guy? Unconcerned with whether or not this "white" guy was a police officer? That's a stretch for me.

Not everything is about race. If you want to change it from being about race then you have to be willing to be the change we are waiting for.

LOL. To many references to "change" int hat sentence - sounds like an Obama campaign

I covered my ass when I said "almost" everything.

People rush to judgment and draw conclusions without the full story. With unanswered questions assumptions are made to fill in the gaps. It's funny how the story changes when you find out, as Henry Fonda demonstrates, that the facts aren't what you think they are when that unique switchblade turns out to be very common.

Remember over the past year when guys would make negative comments to you regarding the Mormon Faith? Over time, you became so sensitive to it that you were able to tell from the tone of posts when another rift was coming.

I even remember an occasion where you posted (I'm paraphrasing) "I see where this conversation is going, and I'm not going to allow this to become a Mormon bash again." The onus was on you to inform us that you were offended. Likewise, you can't determine if someone behaved in a racist manner... the onus is on the person who felt that they experienced racist behavior towards them to speak up. For example, when OJ was acquitted there were ALOT of white people who felt the sting of racism that day

Also, consider that you can teach your kids to avoid religious persecution just by having them NOT identify with their faith. People in the LGBT community can avoid persecution just by denying their identities if they so choose, but people of color can never escape their identifying marker. (Michael Jackson tried hard though, didn't he?)

Another thought... we don't need to prove Zimmerman a racist in order for this case to be drenched in racism.

Finally, I'm cosigning on the last two lines of Scumcity14's post.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"

Alain, I'm playing devil's advocate here... Why shouldn't it be about race? Especially when race = power in America...

From the 17th and 18th century people of color were stripped of their heritage and history, subjected to slavery, and/or having their land(s) taken from them or being raped, beaten and murdered for having the audacity to questioning authority. In the 19th century people of color were denied the right to vote and to fight for their country, placed in internment camps, red-lined, raped, beaten and murdered for having the audacity to question authority..

In the 20th century,people are still subjected to being red-lined, having their land taken from them (foreclosure crisis), placed in internment camps (Gitmo), and raped, beaten or murdered for questioning authority (I think that we all agree in this thread that (if nothing else) Trayvon Martin questioned Zimmerman's authority, which ultimately lead to his murder)."

Remember, class, the only slaves that matter are the black ones.

Guess what! I'm an Irish-Italian American. My people were discriminated against, enslaved, sold as goods, refused jobs. My grandfather had a sign hanging in his house that he stole when he was younger. "Help wanted, Irish need not apply." But no one truly cares about them. Oh, they're white. They were priviliged from the start. They didn't have to endure the struggles that the black man endures.

I find it incredibly amusing that the people who are the most up-in-arms against racism don't really care about all racism and discrimination. They just care about the "popular" outcry.

Rmorse, I intentionally used the term "People of Color" in my post to avoid the possibility that I was speaking only about the "black man"

I find it incredibly amusing that you seem to assumed I am only arguing on behalf of the "black man"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just going to call bullshit Darnell.

Two people interact. One is white and one is black. Your claim is that no matter what they do, no matter what their intentions, if an argument or conflict erupts between them it must be racially motivated. I may treat someone poorly and it has nothing to do with the color of their skin but instead because I'm simply having a bad day. Or because they said something that pissed me off. Or because they backed into my car. Or because...

As for my faith, the only cases where I raised a concern was where it was obvious someone was deliberately disparaging it. I was actually never offended except for the one occasion where Pat decided to bash me and Mormons in a deliberate effort to get a reaction. I have a very thick skin when it comes to my faith and actually what I teach my children is that it's ok to be different and to stand up to persecution where they encounter it but to realize that some people are just too ignorant to know better so often offering insight is a more valuable approach than to pick a fight.

The onus is not on me to inform others that I am offended. The onus is on me to help people recognize their own ignorance and help them change that. If they refuse to do so then I realize they're not worth my time.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the difference between a person of color and a white Irish person? One of them eventually assimilates into the majority culture and society and does not carry a mark that quickly identifies them for discrimination.

I don't believe in the victim culture. I believe in people making the most of themselves in spite of whatever challenges life throws at them and succeeding in spite of those challenges.

Lucas - what exactly is a VNR?

Video News Release

Van Nostrand Reinhold (publishing company)

Video Noise Reduction

Veranstaltungsnummer

VFR Flight Not Recommended

Very Nice Roll

Video News Reel

Variable Navigation Ratio

Vehicular Network Radio

Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC

Volvo Not Running :lol:

I'm just going to call bullshit Darnell.

Two people interact. One is white and one is black. Your claim is that no matter what they do, no matter what their intentions, if an argument or conflict erupts between them it must be racially motivated.

As for my faith, the only cases where I raised a concern was where it was obvious someone was deliberately disparaging it. I was actually never offended except for the one occasion where Pat decided to bash me and Mormons and in a deliberate effort to get a reaction. I have a very thick skin where my faith comes from and actually what I teach my children is that it's ok to be different and to stand up to persecution where they encounter it but to realize that some people are just too ignorant to know better so often offering insight is a more valuable approach than to pick a fight.

Bullshit on which of my statements?

I said "almost", didn't I ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rmorse, I intentionally used the term "People of Color" in my post to avoid the possibility that I was speaking only about the "black man"

I find it incredibly amusing that you seem to assumed I am only arguing on behalf of the "black man"

Oh please.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=people+of+color

Your words. Don't try and make up a different definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh please.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=people+of+color

Your words. Don't try and make up a different definition.

person of color, person of colour - (formal) any non-European non-white person

copied and pasted directly from the link that you provided. (That includes Asians, Indians, Native-Americans, so on and so forth)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and Darnell, maybe a little more reading for you about Zimmerman's interactions with other black people?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/24/justice/florida-teen-shooting

http://www.independentsentinel.com/zimmermans-racism-that-wasnt-study-the-facts/

- Stood up for a homeless black man who was attacked by the son of a white police officer in 2010 - and went so far as to lobby for the city to respond.

- Mentored a couple of black kids

- Took a black girl to prom

Why didn't any of them stand up for him? That's a great question.

My only point is that THIS CASE does not appear to warrant the accusations of a civil rights violation perpetuated by a bigot.



Alain,it seems that you're trying to apply logic to what is more of an emotional issue;

Yes, and isn't that the whole point of justice? It's supposed to be blind and rational and logical and impartial. All kinds of problems crawl out of the woodwork when you allow emotions to enter the legal process.

ladyjustice.jpg

The oath required of a US Judge when they take on the robe:

“I, XXX XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

person of color, person of colour - (formal) any non-European non-white person

copied and pasted directly from the link that you provided. (That includes Asians, Indians, Native-Americans, so on and so forth)

Oh, you're one of those people. All good, anyone can click on the link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

person of color, person of colour - (formal) any non-European non-white person

copied and pasted directly from the link that you provided. (That includes Asians, Indians, Native-Americans, so on and so forth)

Screw it. I was going to leave it alone, but I think I'll call you out on it anyway.

What you posted is NOT the definition, and is an attempt to twist the truth to support your view. It's exactly what the lying media does (and did). They went into the situation assuming it was racist, and put out "facts" to support their view. Instead of actually finding out the truth.

The definition of the word YOU USED, is "people of color - a race with skin pigmentation different from the white race (especially Blacks).

Now, you didn't copy and paste that, because it didn't support YOUR view of what the definition should be. Instead, you copied and pasted your above quote, saying that THAT is the definition of the word YOU USED. That's cool, except when you look at the blue bar next to the definition. You know, that thing that said "related words." So, instead of posting the actual definition, you posted the definition of a related word, in an attempt to have another "gotcha."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow Alain, I can't believe that you've done this much research into Zimmerman's background.

Were you preparing for the possibility on being called as an alternative juror or what?

So, first of all, did you see that remarks that I made in the comment of yours that I quoted? (My remarks were originally in red, but they somehow changed to black when I posted my reply)

Secondly, what are you calling BS on? Everything that I said, or some specific point?

Finally, I agree that this case doesn't appear to warrant further examination for possible civil rights violations.

Let me remind you of this question that you asked: "So question for the overinformed, please explain to me why the man on the street views this as an unjust verdict?"

My comments have been primarily towards furthering that discussion (although I will admit to asking questions - some rhetorical, some not - regarding the possibility of Zimmerman being a bigot)

As I said, we don't need to establish that Zimmerman is a racist in order to acknowledge this case is drenched in racism.

Why is it drenched in racism? Because, as we've agreed upon, various stakeholders want it to be in order to further their agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Screw it. I was going to leave it alone, but I think I'll call you out on it anyway.

What you posted is NOT the definition, and is an attempt to twist the truth to support your view. It's exactly what the lying media does (and did). They went into the situation assuming it was racist, and put out "facts" to support their view. Instead of actually finding out the truth.

The definition of the word YOU USED, is "people of color - a race with skin pigmentation different from the white race (especially Blacks).

Now, you didn't copy and paste that, because it didn't support YOUR view of what the definition should be. Instead, you copied and pasted your above quote, saying that THAT is the definition of the word YOU USED. That's cool, except when you look at the blue bar next to the definition. You know, that thing that said "related words." So, instead of posting the actual definition, you posted the definition of a related word, in an attempt to have another "gotcha."

:lol::lol::lol:

I never SAID that it was the full definition...

I said that I copied that part of the definition directly from the link that you provided.

You're right. I made that statement because that was, in fact, the context in which I used the term "people of color".

I don't give a fuck about what the blue bar said were synonyms to that term.

How you arrived at the conclusion that I was trying to "twist" anything is beyond me - especially since I said that I wasn't only referring to blacks.

You do realize that my 17th and 18th century comment could have applied to people of Native-Americans decent, don't you?

You do realize that my 19th century comment could have applied to people of Japanese decent don't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share