Did you watch the trial? I did. I work at home and had the trial going on as I worked. I’m sure I saw at least 3/4 of the trial live and heard playbacks of anything important that I missed. If I had been in the jury, I would have voted to acquit him as well.

Do I think George Zimmerman is a racist? Well, yes and no. He’s not your classic Ku Klux Klanner. The state never turned up any blatantly racial statements he had ever made. He did lament to a police operator once that “The assholes always get away.” Some people are reading those words as implicitly racial, but there is no supporting evidence for that assumption.

He had even volunteered in programs that mainly benefited black youth!

At the same time, I think there is little doubt that he profiled the victim, Trayvon Martin. I’m not sure he profiled him because he was black. I think perhaps he would have profiled any male teen walking along in Zimmerman’s neighborhood who had the hood of his hoodie up.

I think the initial mistake was in charging Zimmerman in the first place. The local police decided there was no case and decided not to prosecute. It was only after a clamor orchestrated by Trayvon’s family attorney that the state Attorney General stepped in and forced a prosecution that Zimmerman was charged.

The problem the prosecution faced was that the only eye-witness to the fight between Martin and Zimmerman supported Zimmerman’s story that Trayvon was on top, pounding Zimmerman’s head on the concrete sidewalk. And Zimmerman did have a broken nose. All Martin had was a bullet through the heart, which is allowed in Florida (and in most states, even ones without specific Stand Your Ground laws) if Zimmerman had reason to feel his life was in danger.

In final summations, where generally it is the prosecution explaining the letter of the law and how to apply it, while the defense often appeals to the jury’s feelings rather than their intellect, it was reversed. It was the defense explaining in detail how to apply the law while it was the prosecutors shouting and foaming at the mouth about the injustice of Trayvon Martin’s death. That alone signaled that the prosecution really didn’t trust their own case.

In retrospect, it appears that the local police were right. And, in fact, during cross examination, the lead local investigator admitted that he personally believed Zimmerman’s story based on the facts he discovered. While the judge ordered the jury not to consider that opinion (because it’s an opinion and not a fact), “You can’t un-ring a bell.”

This case should have all of us thinking about assumptions we make regarding young people and especially young black males. Perhaps Florida will reconsider it’s “Stand Your Ground” law which makes it easier to defend oneself with lethal force based merely on a belief that one is in danger of death or severe bodily harm.

I don’t know what actually happened leading up to the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. Only George Zimmerman knows that. Did he profile Trayvon? I think he did. Did he profile him racially? The evidence doesn’t support that. Trayvon was probably profiled more as a young male than as a black male. Under his hoodie, his race may not have been evident.

Profiling may be a bad thing but it isn’t an illegal thing. And Zimmerman wasn’t on trial for profiling, but for murder. The state had to prove that Zimmerman had hate in his heart, and that they didn’t do.

The verdict, as dissatisfying as it may be, was the right one based on the facts.

Views: 3063

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Actually, I think Zimmerman was heavier at the time of the confrontation. He weighed about 185 and Martin around 160. (source)

The question I haven't seen asked is, "why would a young man who feels threatened decide his best option is to ambush someone rather than escape?" No one from the time of the shooting to now has been willing to address that young black men are more likely to be the victim of violence and are more likely to die by being shot. This problem desperately needs to be understood and become part of a public discussion.

"Young males (14 to 24 years-old), particularly young black males, were disproportionately involved in homicide compared to their proportion of the population

While young black males have accounted for about 1% of the population from 1980 to 2008, they have made up an increasing proportion of homicide victims, going from 9% of all homicide victims in 1980 to 18% in 1994. Aft er 1994, their proportion of homicide victims has remained relatively stable at about 16%.
Th e percentage of young black male homicide offenders also increased rapidly from the mid-1980s  to the early 1990s, going from 17% in 1985 to 35% by 1993 before declining. By 2008, young black males made up about a quarter of all homicide offenders (27%)

A large proportion of the black male fatalities are black-on-black crime.

In answer to your first line, there is this thing called "black rage syndrome" sometimes used to explain black overreaction to what they perceive to be race-based slights.

"A large proportion of the black male fatalities are black-on-black crime."

But why is that? And why is it so disproportionate?

I can attest, as many times that I've been "raged upon" by any black person, the origin of the offense was taken to an extreme. I shave my head, and have for the last 17 years. I can't tell you how often I'm confronted out of the blue by black folks, (always more than one) who insist that everything I say and do is racist. Then they usually begin the rituals comparable to an Ali style butterfly routine, bouncing around and pumping themselves up for a fight. Aggression come naturally to some, and seems to be the end all be all solution for a lot of black folks. I'm not racist, only extremely observant.

My ex is black, for the sake of fuck. I notice while solo, the black guys here are fairly docile. But once they are around more black people, they become exponentially more aggressive, introducing the "black rage syndrome". Maybe it has something to do with inherent traits that have had use in tribal living before modernization. I can understand how it could be a valuable asset when everything in your life can kill you. Which goes back to my "people are like dogs" theory. Different breeds, different traits.

I like how you edited my words to fit a certain persona. You should work for FOX news. I chose my words carefully. Don't skim through it and pay attention to the context.

Some backround:

I work late at night, in shitty neighborhoods, with cash. I live in Texas. Fort Hood area specifically. Check crime stats for Killeen, Tx. I have reason to carry a weapon, and reason to be paranoid. Last week, I saw a hooker shooting up right behind a 7-11 full of cops. I live in a shitty place. There are white folks, black folks, hispanic folks, asian folks and they all have their own shitbags that roam around. Don't ask me then what ethnicity I catch the most shit from, see the most fucked up shit done by, and am confronted by not only the most, but entirely, without question, because you sure as hell won't like my answer. When it comes to violent confrontation, guess who's got the market cornered?

As for the rest of my comments, do some field testing. Go to dark, shitty neighborhoods driving a really nice car, carrying a lot of cash. For the effect, you have to be a scrawny pathetic looking white guy who looks no more than 18. Do that for six years. Then come back to me and tell me what you've noticed about the people that confronted you in groups, with weapons, and with intention to start shit. Only about 40% of our tenants are black, but every single confrontation I've had, well you figure it out.  For perspective, it's only abot 10% or so of those black families that start shit. It's usually not even the tenants. It's almost always their shithead friends.

I have my own observations. Go make your own, and for cryin' out loud, don't twist words. It makes you look really bad when someone points it out.

Even worse, I don't even believe he is in a better place. We have to learn to live together.


I don't think anyone knows all the facts, as Martin isn't around anymore to tell his side. Here are some thoughts of my own:

1. Martin should have kept walking, as I do, when confronted on the street. Bad move to become violent when someone suspects you of doing something wrong.

2. Zimmerman was walking back to his car, when Martin approached and began physical confrontation.

3. Being confronted in a neighborhood in which he doesn't live, Martin became violent. That in my honest opinion, speaks volumes to his character.

4. Zimmerman "lost" the fight that Martin initiated. At this point it's still all hearsay, but it's all we have to go on.

5. Zimmerman approached a stranger to question his presence. That stranger became violent, and still with no explanation of his presence is said location. That same stranger beat the shit out of Zimmerman, and Zimmerman acted.

It's cut and dry. I think the ruling is just, based on what we have been shown/told. Martin should have continued walking. Martin should have dropped the verbal confrontation, rather than escalating it to a physical one. True, Zimmerman should have listened to what he was told. However, if I see a stranger walking around my neighborhood who I think looks suspicious, I will approach and question. It's a matter of protection my family, and my neighbors. Now, suspicious to one, may not be so much to another. And what is suspicious in one place, will not always be suspicious in another. But I think Trayvon handled the situation in the worst way possible, only proving that Zimmerman's suspicion was warranted.

I have a question I would really like to know the answer to. Did the robberies stop after Martin was killed?

"Did the robberies stop after Martin was killed?"

That's an excellent question that I've not heard the answer to either. You'd think it would have if someone got shot in the neighborhood.

I don't think that anyone, even Zimmerman, asserted that Trayvon was a robber. He asked Trayvon a question, there were words, and then Martin, Marginthan going on his way, followed Zimmerman and, according to available facts, seems to have initiated a violent confrontation.

You seem to be mistaking that as equating Martin with the robberies. To think that he was responsible for the break-ins would be ridiculous. I'm just curious to know whether there were any further problems in the the area. It's like in a movie where there are important plot points, but then they just disappear in the midst of the drama, and you are left wondering about all those other lives that were so pertinent to begin with. Did they ever find out who it was? Was anyone ever arrested for it? Do the neighbors feel any safer now? It's just a loose end I'm left wondering about.

Well apparently the break ins were the whole premise behind Zimmerman's initial confrontation, that's really the only reason I brought it up. I'm not saying that Martin was responsible as much as I was saying that if the break-ins stopped, it would exist as a possibility in my mind. There would also be the fact that the neighborhood would be under scrutiny by residents, the public and the police. To commit a felony in an area under that much heat would be plain stupid. The amount of eyes on that neighborhood alone at this point should be enough to discourage any would be thief.

Either way, there is a term that I'm looking for, and can't remember for the life of me. It refers to serial killers, and how they stop killing when there is a suspect in custody to reinforce the thought that the police do indeed have the guilty party. It's gonna drive me nuts. Either way, the reason I brought it up was misinterpreted, I'm sorry.


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service