George Zimmerman, race and the NAACP

[Mad Max RW]

And he'll carry it with him for the rest of his fucking life. Even though he did nothing wrong.

Except for gunning down a teen in a situation he deliberately led to? A lot of people forget that someone was killed.

maybe its just my "european way" of thinking, but I am the only who is believing that this "stand your ground" law is kinda silly? As this case here shows, that if you ask me, was somewhat abused.

The "stand your ground" law wasn't used in this trial, genius.

Here's one that actually did, and failed: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...rs-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/

 

[SuAside]

SuAside, you keep conflating lawful/"he had a right to" and what I would describe as moral responsibility. I never argued that what he did was unlawful, and that's not the point. I argued that what he did was careless and irresponsible.

What he did was irresponsible and careless, by the way, regardless of Martin's character and regardless of whether or not he was actually attacked.

Well, no. I don't think he was irresponsible. He seems to have put the welfare and safety of his community over his own personal welfare, when the police failed to do something about the burglaries in the neighborhood. Knowing the potential risk, he armed himself appropriately and legally.

I find nothing irresponsible about trying to keep your community safe by keeping an eye out. If more people bothered with that instead of turning a blind eye to crime, we might live in a far safer community.
Of course, if he had been stalking Trayvon night after night, that would've been a different story. However, this is as far as we know not the case.

Also, Trayvon's friend that was on the phone just prior to the incident, has now clarified (on tv) that in their slang "crazy ass cracka" (what Trayvon said on the phone when describing Zimmerman) actually refers to a plain clothes cop or a rent-a-cop (though she didn't say it, it might also have meant neigborhood watchman). Which makes it even more retarded for Trayvon to turn around and confront him (possibly with violent intent)?

Ah, so that's what your argument is about. You don't give a damn about people being killed, all that matters is the precious fact that he was a gun owner and this is a high profile case that includes guns.

I highly doubt you'd be this outraged at the media treatment of Zimmerman if he stabbed Martin to death in self-defence.

Tagaziel, you couldn't be more wrong. This is about justice, rights, and morals for me. I don't care if Trayvon had been stabbed, electrocuted or burnt alive, as long as it had been done in a lawful way and in proportional self-defense.

Whatever view you might have of me as a gun owner, it's most likely wrong. Hell, I wouldn't even carry a concealed weapon even if I was allowed to.

What you are correct about though, is that I won't shed a single tear for the death of someone that was assaulting another person with potentially deadly force. He made his bed, he can lie in it.

 

[BonusWaffle]

And yet neither of you can give me a reason why these imaginary other people cant take advantage of the government while i can. Saying im just "naive" is not an argument. My mother couldnt find a job with her degree, so she went and got a different degree payed for mostly by the government. By no means am i saying its easy to do, but to say its not possible based on one study you read sometime about how MANY americans tend to stay in their classes (which is not something i disagree with even though that you keep bringing it up as if its relevant) is ridiculous.

You wont be able to afford the new iphone or expensive cars, or maybe even decent living quarters but it IS possible. What, exactly, is keeping people from taking advantage of the system? Sure there are always outliers that get screwed by the technicalities but thats unavoidable, not a reason to criticize the system as a whole.

MANY black people tend to identify themselves with a certain "black" culture and segregate themselves into areas with other people following this culture. By no means am I saying that everyone with black skin is lazy, just that MANY of them have joined this culture that does not value higher education and is comprised of people that (like the rest of america) tend stick to what they know and not risk everything for the unknown of trying to move up to a higher salary.

 

[Tagaziel]

Tagaziel, you couldn't be more wrong. This is about justice, rights, and morals for me. I don't care if Trayvon had been stabbed, electrocuted or burnt alive, as long as it had been done in a lawful way and in proportional self-defense.

Whatever view you might have of me as a gun owner, it's most likely wrong. Hell, I wouldn't even carry a concealed weapon even if I was allowed to.

The salient point is that nobody even brought up concealed carry in the discussion, yet you suddenly launch into a rant about it, unprovoked. It's hard not to take that as your primary point.

What you are correct about though, is that I won't shed a single tear for the death of someone that was assaulting another person with potentially deadly force. He made his bed, he can lie in it.

It's interesting that you pin so much weight on Zimmerman's own account of events and ignore everything to the contrary.

Fact is, Zimmerman could have easily avoided the confrontation if he didn't follow Martin. You're essentially defending baiting people.

 

[Sander]

Well, no. I don't think he was irresponsible. He seems to have put the welfare and safety of his community over his own personal welfare, when the police failed to do something about the burglaries in the neighborhood. Knowing the potential risk, he armed himself appropriately and legally.

I find nothing irresponsible about trying to keep your community safe by keeping an eye out. If more people bothered with that instead of turning a blind eye to crime, we might live in a far safer community.

There's a difference between keeping an eye out as a neighborhood watchman, and chasing after a potential burglar with a weapon.

Again: Zimmerman put himself in a position where he could be forced to kill another human being. As someone with a concealed carry permit and while carrying a gun, he had the moral duty to be very careful about putting himself in situations where he could be forced to use that gun. The use of a gun should be an extreme measure, with no other options, and carrying that should not be taken lightly.

He had multiple points where he could have made smarter decisions. He could have stayed put in his car. He could have driven his car forward. He could have decided that maybe it wasn't a very good idea to go chasing after people who he thought could be dangerous and whom he couldn't handle in a fight. He could have waited for police and taken the risk that Martin would get away.

You consistently belittle that and describe the situation as positively as possible, taking into account only evidence that completely justifies what Zimmerman did in every way. But the evidence isn't that one-sided, the witness accounts aren't that one-sided, and this entire situation isn't that simple. You make it seem as if he did a great duty to his community. But there were just 8 burglaries over the entire year preceding Trayvon Martin's death. The risk he would be taking by letting someone in a hoodie walk around the neighborhood wasn't exactly grave. At worst, he was letting one burglar run away.


But he didn't. He chose the most dangerous options, the ones most likely to lead to a course where he would be forced to use his gun. That is irresponsible. It is careless. It wasn't illegal -- but that doesn't put him in the clear morally.



Also, maybe you should go back and read the portion Tagaziel quoted. Completely out of the blue, you went on a rant defending concealed carry permit holders as if they were being attacked as a group. As if someone here was saying that everyone with concealed carry permits wanted to go out and kill people.

No one ever even remotely came close to saying something similar to that, and yet you felt the need to knock down a bunch of hyperbolic positions no one took up.

The only conclusion that can be drawn out of that reaction, is that somewhere, for you, this is about defending the right to concealed carry or those who do carry concealed weapons. But that's not what it's about for anyone in this thread.

And yet neither of you can give me a reason why these imaginary other people cant take advantage of the government while i can. Saying im just "naive" is not an argument. My mother couldnt find a job with her degree, so she went and got a different degree payed for mostly by the government. By no means am i saying its easy to do, but to say its not possible based on one study you read sometime about how MANY americans tend to stay in their classes (which is not something i disagree with even though that you keep bringing it up as if its relevant) is ridiculous.

Because the education you receive when you're poor is worse than the education you receive when you're poor and live in a poor neighborhood. That creates a snowball effect: a worse education leads to worse performance in school, leads to a failure to receive a better education down the line because you can't get the scholarships, or can't get into the right college.

Because while there are scholarships available, the scholarships that are big enough to actually subsidize a good college education are available to a small percentage of poor people -- the funds are not infinite.

Because employers do discriminate, whether consciously or subconsciously, both in the hiring process and during the rest of the process in the form of promotions.

There's a corollary to that finding on class mobility, which is that rich people tend to stay rich. Is that because they have the right culture, or is it because the system helps them stay rich? Society places a large value on good, expensive colleges -- but it's a lot easier to get into them if you have the right family, know the right people and, of course, have money. It's a lot easier to become a hedge fund manager if you have the right connections. It's impossible to make your money work for you when you don't actually have any money.

Does any of this make it literally impossible for anyone to move up in class? No. But it sure creates a lot of obstacles, and makes it much harder for them to do so. And that matters.

MANY black people tend to identify themselves with a certain "black" culture and segregate themselves into areas with other people following this culture. By no means am I saying that everyone with black skin is lazy, just that MANY of them have joined this culture that does not value higher education and is comprised of people that (like the rest of america) tend stick to what they know and not risk everything for the unknown of trying to move up to a higher salary.

Look at that word you used there: risk. Taking risks does not lead to success unequivocally. Taking risks means that some who take that risk will fail. Exactly because it is a risk. And for those that fail, they stay put. And that's for the people who do take those risks.

Now, yet again, I am not saying that the culture that has likely grown is not a factor. It is, however, very unlikely to be the main factor.

Why? Because poor black people aren't the only ones who are more or less stuck. They're just the biggest group. But poor rural white people are another prominent group who struggle to move up. In fact, poor people as a whole regardless of skin color struggle to move up.

 

[Syphon]

He had multiple points where he could have made smarter decisions.

...Which is why I think he should of been handed some sort of charge. Protecting the neighbor is all good and well, especially after a string of thefts and burglaries, but pursuing face-to-face is a stupid choice. He could of atleast just trailed him on foot, jumping fences , ect. to make sure police didn't let him get away.. But what exactly did he do prior to the fight? Martin wasn't doing anything illegal at the time.

 

[Crni Vuk]

and thats why I feel its not really the best thing to arm your population, I don't want to turn this in to another "gun topic", but it is in my opinion, if not outright bad, somewhat questionable.

I know its a bit naive to think like that, but I would rather have people, with a uniform performing the tasks that Zimmerman and his watchmen do, protecting the neighborhood and all that stuff. It simply feels for me more official, and in the ideal case those people should receive some training, and they would not pursue a suspect alone.

The ideal world of course ...

And yet neither of you can give me a reason why these imaginary other people cant take advantage of the government while i can

I provided you a video about detroit, you can go and type in google "USA rust belt". If those are "imaginary" for you while the problem is very real what Sander also explains as class mobility, then I am not sure what good it does to discuss this further with you as you made up your mind and you see your family/your self as the "prime example" how everything works. Yes, because individuals give us a clear example of how things work in the large scale right?. Thats why you're called naive by us. At least some of us. Without any offense meant.

 

[Syphon]

Having a uniform neighborhood watch, with regulations, rules, ect. should be enacted with standards of operating procedure!

+1

 

[Crni Vuk]

well there should be some basic rules. For example, to never pursue a criminal/suspect alone for example, and extensive training, not just in the use of the weapon, because I am sure that some of those gun owners are maybe even better shooters then most police officers, but also trained to make decisions, to better recognize a dangerous situation.

 

[Mad Max RW]

He had multiple points where he could have made smarter decisions.

...Which is why I think he should of been handed some sort of charge. Protecting the neighbor is all good and well, especially after a string of thefts and burglaries, but pursuing face-to-face is a stupid choice. He could of atleast just trailed him on foot, jumping fences , ect. to make sure police didn't let him get away.. But what exactly did he do prior to the fight? Martin wasn't doing anything illegal at the time.

That's almost exactly what Zimmerman did. All of the evidence in the trial proved he lost him, Martin reached his father's home then went back to fight Zimmerman. He made the first attack after Zimmerman had already given up following several minutes before.

There's a whole lot of people in this thread, in the media, and in the world who did not follow the trial or the facts and instead use it to push their own agenda. Then I keep watching the same handful of knuckleheads steering every discussion into crying about "American injustices" and class mobility and "white privilege" and whatever nonsense you repeat over and over. Maybe you should try taking a long look at yourselves. Sacrifice a fraction of your energy used to rant on a video game forum to help some people in the real world who need it. Do you ever get bored lecturing? Because I am really bored reading it.

 

[Syphon]

Martin reached his father's home then went back to fight Zimmerman

I never heard that.

 

[Sander]

That's almost exactly what Zimmerman did. All of the evidence in the trial proved he lost him, Martin reached his father's home then went back to fight Zimmerman. He made the first attack after Zimmerman had already given up following several minutes before.

I think you're using the word "proved" a bit loosely here. There are still quite a few questions about what exactly happened including the exact timing of events -- and the fact that there are questions is what got him acquitted. But being acquitted is not the same as having your version of events proved right.

And, specifically, it has never been proven that he reached his father's house. In fact, that seems unlikely. It's a minor detail, though.

There's a whole lot of people in this thread, in the media, and in the world who did not follow the trial or the facts and instead use it to push their own agenda. Then I keep watching the same handful of knuckleheads steering every discussion into crying about "American injustices" and class mobility and "white privilege" and whatever nonsense you repeat over and over. Maybe you should try taking a long look at yourselves. Sacrifice a fraction of your energy used to rant on a video game forum to help some people in the real world who need it. Do you ever get bored lecturing? Because I am really bored reading it.

Let's not turn to personal insults, okay? That doesn't help anyone, either.

 

[Mad Max RW]

According to the prosecution's star witness, Rachel Jeantel, he got right outside his father's home then changed his mind. Just another one of those things called facts the media likes to skip over.

 

[Tagaziel]

According to the prosecution's star witness, Rachel Jeantel, he got right outside his father's home then changed his mind. Just another one of those things called facts the media likes to skip over.

Wikipedia is pretty good for controversial cases. I don't see this mentioned anywhere in this section. What's your source?

 

[Mad Max RW]

Did you watch the trial and listen to all of Rachel Jeantel's testimony? Unless Martin lied to her before hanging up the phone for several minutes, he reached his home and turned around to confront Zimmerman. She called back then she overheard part of their exchange before the phone finally disconnected. It wasn't one continuous phone conversation. Wikipedia is missing these facts. That's why you shouldn't rely on wikipedia articles for 100% of your information. Lesson learned.

The facts also remain that Martin started the fight. Debating how or why Zimmerman was following him is irrelevant. The trial was a waste of time and the family should have gone for a wrongful death lawsuit. Instead they played right into the race baiting hands of the NAACP, Al Sharpton and NBC, and ultimately Obama and Erica Holder's gun control agenda.
Do you wonder why you're not hearing anything about real cases of "stand your ground" being used? Because the majority of them (over 50%) are used by blacks in their defense. Here's a real story: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...rs-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/
But it doesn't fit the agenda so why cover it?

 

[SuAside]

The salient point is that nobody even brought up concealed carry in the discussion, yet you suddenly launch into a rant about it, unprovoked. It's hard not to take that as your primary point.

Oh, you mean it's totally not relevant to Zimmerman's character and not relevant to Sander's comments about how carrying a gun means carrying an extra burden and responsibilities?

It's interesting that you pin so much weight on Zimmerman's own account of events and ignore everything to the contrary.

Have you even followed the damn trial? At all? Have you watched the stream? The experts? The testimonies?
What exactly am I ignoring here? Please enlighten me by quoting the information and the source from the court case.

Fact is, Zimmerman could have easily avoided the confrontation if he didn't follow Martin. You're essentially defending baiting people.

I'm defending people exercising their constitutional rights. I don't know about you, but I think that's pretty important.

There's a difference between keeping an eye out as a neighborhood watchman, and chasing after a potential burglar with a weapon.

Chasing? He walked after him? And then turned back when he lost him?
Chasing implies at least some speed and the will to overtake someone. Which was not the case here. He was just tailing him.
Which while creepy, is fine unless it turns into stalking. And even if it was stalking, the violence that followed was not proportional to the threat.

Again: Zimmerman put himself in a position where he could be forced to kill another human being. As someone with a concealed carry permit and while carrying a gun, he had the moral duty to be very careful about putting himself in situations where he could be forced to use that gun. The use of a gun should be an extreme measure, with no other options, and carrying that should not be taken lightly.

So you're saying that if he wasn't armed, it would've somehow been "less bad" for him to tail Trayvon?

He had multiple points where he could have made smarter decisions. He could have stayed put in his car. He could have driven his car forward. He could have decided that maybe it wasn't a very good idea to go chasing after people who he thought could be dangerous and whom he couldn't handle in a fight. He could have waited for police and taken the risk that Martin would get away.

Euhm, staying put in his car would've meant losing sight of him. And driving after him would've been an even greater creeper factor.
Hindsight is 20/20, Sander. I don't think anyone imagined it would escalate this far, not Zimmerman, not Trayvon.
And again, chasing is using the wrong word. Check the dictionary.

You consistently belittle that and describe the situation as positively as possible, taking into account only evidence that completely justifies what Zimmerman did in every way. But the evidence isn't that one-sided, the witness accounts aren't that one-sided, and this entire situation isn't that simple. You make it seem as if he did a great duty to his community. But there were just 8 burglaries over the entire year preceding Trayvon Martin's death. The risk he would be taking by letting someone in a hoodie walk around the neighborhood wasn't exactly grave. At worst, he was letting one burglar run away.

Also, only 8 burglaries in a neighborhood in that time span? Sorry, but 2-3 burglaries in my neighborhood would be enough to worry me...
As for the situation described? Again, I've described what the jurors have found correct. If you have specific evidence to counter is, please do bring it up and provide the source from the trial.

The point is that there's nothing to truly doubt what the jurors have found correct. You can't prove anything else, certainly not beyond reasonable doubt.

Also, maybe you should go back and read the portion Tagaziel quoted. Completely out of the blue, you went on a rant defending concealed carry permit holders as if they were being attacked as a group. As if someone here was saying that everyone with concealed carry permits wanted to go out and kill people.

Ugh, first you say it's open season on Zimmerman's character, then I describe part of his character by quoting actual research on CCW permit holders (which he was) and you say there's no reason for me to quote it?
I don't know Zimmerman personally, so I can only tell you that statistically speaking, there's a far greater chance for him to be a stand up guy than not.

He had multiple points where he could have made smarter decisions.

...Which is why I think he should of been handed some sort of charge. Protecting the neighbor is all good and well, especially after a string of thefts and burglaries, but pursuing face-to-face is a stupid choice. He could of atleast just trailed him on foot, jumping fences , ect. to make sure police didn't let him get away.. But what exactly did he do prior to the fight? Martin wasn't doing anything illegal at the time.

Zimmerman tailed Trayvon on foot. Not face-to-face, but at a significant distance, until Trayvon decided to go face him (eventhough Trayvon by his own admitance on the phone had reached his father's house).

and thats why I feel its not really the best thing to arm your population, I don't want to turn this in to another "gun topic", but it is in my opinion, if not outright bad, somewhat questionable.

I know its a bit naive to think like that, but I would rather have people, with a uniform performing the tasks that Zimmerman and his watchmen do, protecting the neighborhood and all that stuff. It simply feels for me more official, and in the ideal case those people should receive some training, and they would not pursue a suspect alone.

The ideal world of course ...

It's called "the police". But sadly they can't be everywhere all at once.

If you'd ask Zimmerman why he carries a concealed weapon, chances are good he'd reply "because I can't carry a cop in my pocket all the time".

 

[Sander]

So you're saying that if he wasn't armed, it would've somehow been "less bad" for him to tail Trayvon?

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying.

Euhm, staying put in his car would've meant losing sight of him. And driving after him would've been an even greater creeper factor.
Hindsight is 20/20, Sander. I don't think anyone imagined it would escalate this far, not Zimmerman, not Trayvon.

Losing sight of him would be disastrous enough for him to put himself in danger, with the possibility of him using a gun becoming real?

Whether or not he could have imagined it, the burden you have when you carry a gun is to go out of your way to avoid the unlikely but possible dangerous situations.

As for the situation described? Again, I've described what the jurors have found correct.

That is a mischaracterization of what actually happened. The jurors found that there was reasonable doubt that prevented them from finding him guilty of manslaughter or murder.

That is far from the same as saying that they found Zimmerman's side of the story to be completely correct. All they found was reasonable doubt as to the prosecution's account. They effectively made no judgments at all as to Zimmerman's account, only that it provided reasonable doubt.

Ugh, first you say it's open season on Zimmerman's character, then I describe part of his character by quoting actual research on CCW permit holders (which he was) and you say there's no reason for me to quote it?

No one was attacking concealed carry permit holders in general. In fact, in this thread, few people were even attacking Zimmerman's character.

Again, we're making the observation that for you this appears to be about concealed carry rights. That's not really relevant as to the correctness of what you're saying, but it does mean that a lot of what you're arguing is kind of sideways to the debate everyone else is having.



Mad Max RW: Please cut the insulting out of your posts. You do this consistently in debates on this site, and it is really offensive. It also does not help you to convince people when all you do is belittle them.

 

[Mad Max RW]

Prior to that whole event Zimmerman was a pretty good guy, apparently. http://www.inquisitr.com/847663/george-zimmerman-racism-he-helped-black-people/

George Zimmerman comes from a deeply Catholic background, served as an altar boy, and was “taught in his early years to do right by those less fortunate.” George Zimmerman himself is mixed race, although he’s often reported as being Hispanic. George Zimmerman has black roots through an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather.

George Zimmerman was raised in a racially integrated household, with reports saying, “It wasn’t only white or only Hispanic or only black – it was mixed.” For several years, George Zimmerman shared meals with two African American girls who were considered part of the household.

Before the Trayvon Martin shooting even took place, George Zimmerman was one of the few non-black people that helped protest the beating of a black homeless man by the son of a Sanford police officer that was left unpunished. The twist to this story is that George Zimmerman asked the NAACP in Sanford for help, but he was shot down, claiming they didn’t have the resources to help the homeless black man.

So without the help of the NAACP George Zimmerman printed his own fliers and distributed them at black churches in the area. Only after the guilty party turned himself in did the NAACP become involved in negotiating an “undisclosed financial reward” for the black man George Zimmeran had helped.

In the same time frame George Zimmerman was helping blacks, he was video taped saying, “I would just like to state that the law is written in black and white. It should not and cannot be enforced in the gray for those that are in the thin blue line.” Ironically, the same police department George Zimmerman protested for racial violence and cover-ups is the police department that investigated Zimmerman after Trayvon Martin. In the end, even the FBI said George Zimmerman is not racist.

But nope the media couldn't talk about those things.

 

[Syphon]

This is where I get confused.

There's a difference between keeping an eye out as a neighborhood watchman, and chasing after a potential burglar with a weapon.

Chasing? He walked after him? And then turned back when he lost him?

If Zimmerman lost him, and retracted from the "chase/trail", Martin is now not being followed correct? Martin is almost home... then decides to go back ?? Where was Zimmerman? This doesn't add up to me...

Also 6-8 home invasions/ robberies is a call for concern. Any good-willed neighbor/man would be called to action after seeing your neighborhood steadily become bulgarized/vandalized. Home Values go down the second neighborhoods are labeled as "going down the drain" and "bums hanging up to no good". ^The article does support that Zimmerman was looking out for everyones interests.

 

[Sander]

But nope the media couldn't talk about those things.

Actually, they could and did. As evidenced by the fact that every time you talk about "the media" not covering something you link to a media account of something.

The media is not a monolithic entity with one agenda. There are lots of different outlets, and many of the things you complain about have been covered on a lot of them. Reports about Zimmerman not being a racist (as irrelevant as they were) were frequent when the event happened. Reports about him being a racist, though, were effectively non-existent.

It seems to me that you tend to conflate left-wing opinion making with the media in general, mentally excluding those outlets, articles and reports that don't fit that narrative. The conspiracy theory approach to media criticism is much too simplistic.

Also 6-8 home invasions/ robberies is a call for concern. Any good-willed neighbor/man would be called to action after seeing your neighborhood steadily become bulgarized/vandalized. Home Values go down the second neighborhoods are labeled as "going down the drain" and "bums hanging up to no good". ^The article does support that Zimmerman was looking out for everyones interests.

Yes. The point wasn't that those things aren't problems for the neighborhood. The point is that letting a possible burglar maybe get away once isn't a disaster.