Usually I've got 'extra' squares to add to these things, but right now I've got nothing...Perfectly brilliant...

I could fill this board from conversations this past week.

Not sure why, but I expected less of that on DU.

I'm on a moms board and there are SO many who are celebrating the death of this young man and the acquittal of his killer.

They keep saying, "of course there is racism, but not in this situation"....except they say that for EVERY situation.

DU is better, much better.

...but in this life, we take what we can get, I suppose.
Your bigger point is very well made.
If "there's racism, but not *this* time" *every* time, then what you're really saying is, "there's no racism, period." I have marginally more respect for the people that have the stones to come out and claim that outright. They're blatantly wrong, but at least have the courage of that conviction.

I have been surprised at how many here are 100% supportive of GZ, but it is still a much smaller percentage of the whole than at that other site I mentioned.

But, the racism thing is something that frustrates me to no end, the idea that it exists in some mythical somewhere, but never in the case at hand.

But, you're right, less horrific is not equal to much better, it just seems like it sometimes!

...”Obvious negro cement weapon is obvious” for the win!

TYY

The President pretty much said the same thing in his statement on the verdict.

Also, the case was not about whether or not he killed him. That wasn't in dispute. It was about whether or not the shooting was in self defense.

They all got acquitted by juries of their peers.

Trayvon wasn't killed by the Klan 60 years ago. He was killed by George Zimmerman in 2012.

People walk all the time in our system. It's one of the trade offs of placing the burden of proof on the prosecution and not on the defense.

That was the point.

It was never there in the first place

white people killing black people.

The idea that a jury has spoken is quite beside the point in terms of justice.

Because of the races involved? How do you know that? Have you spoken to them? Were you there?

Right now I don't see any evidence to indicate that. If and when jurors speak publicly, then we will know more about why they reached their decision.

after shooting someone someone 28 years younger and much heavier after that person tackled him and tried to strangle him.

And, yes, that was in Florida, and yes Dooley was black and the person he shot was white.

SYG/self-defense in Florida is implemented in a systematically racist way due to the racist legal system and racist jurors.

If black people mouth off to white people, they can't defend themselves. If white people want to shoot a black person because they feel a bit threatened by them, open season.

That's Florida's racist SYG/self-defense law as practiced.

Only they can shed light on their thoughts. And they aren't talking yet.

If you want to say that these were racist jurors, you have to show their racism. It's not enough just to mention the Klan and a different case that happened under different circumstances. While I certainly think that COULD be why at least some of them voted not guilty, we don't know that as of yet. Perhaps they just didn't believe the state proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. That does happen sometimes.

Could it have been race? Sure. Do you actually know that? No way.

Clearly a tribunal system is the answer. Guantanamo or go home!

to vote their race.

Juries in Florida typically vote to convict if a white person gets the worst of it, and to acquit if a black person gets the worst of it.

Either way, Florida juries do not provide justice.

How do you propose altering the jury system to achieve these goals?

the jury's determination.

In cases of self-defense, require a showing that the defendant tried to escape or withdraw or otherwise cease participating in the fight. The law as currently written in Florida essentially means juries have the option of convicting someone who's in a fist fight and pulls a gun to escalate, depending solely on their sympathies for the defendant. If they sympathize with the defendant, not guilty. If they sympathize, guilty.

Not sure what they are told now, but I assume it includes something about considering only the evidence presented and not personal biases/opinions etc. I don't see how inserting more language about race would change anything.

I'd say changing the law would be a much better way to go than fiddling with the jury system.

Certain factual determinations, require more specific factual findings.

That poster got bingo down the middle line if you include the middle as free space.

Me thinks he doth protest too much.

He sure did.

Thanks to 'stand your ground'.

The historic trend is of racially based jury decisions is very long and exceedingly ugly. There is every reason to believe that this decision was tainted by racial biases.

...making all presentations by lawyers (prosecutors and defense) blind-screened, the way they now do with musicians' auditions at the better orchestras.
Instead of names (I never met a white "Trayvon," nor a black "Zimmerman&quot , have labels or numbers or both ("accused #1," "corpse B," etc). If they testify, play their voices thru the voice-disguiser circuitry beloved of tabloid teevee.
And I wish I were kidding.
Anyone who claims they don't recognise the undeniable racial disparities, not just in convictions and sentencing, but in who does and doesn't get arrested, is either deliberately, willfully ignorant -- the data are all readily searchable -- or self-deluding, or just plain lying.
And you know to whom I'm talking.
No racism identifiable? Tell that to the black.woman who.was just sentenced to 20 years for discharging a handgun *in the air* to scare off an attacker, and warn others in the area of the threat.
None so.blind as they that will not see.

I watched nearly the whole trial. I'm white and if I were on that jury, I would have voted for manslaughter at the very least. But, I'm not a raciest. There's no way anyone could have listened to the prosecution and believed Zimmys story because it was impossible for it to happen that way.

Therefore, I would have to conclude that was was racism involved.

For years, black on white murder has been many times greater than that of white on black murder, yet there is hardly ever any mention of racism for those crimes.
Why cant zimmerman just be an idiot who shot someone? The FBI said he didnt show any signs of being a racist. Hes half Hispanic so he's probably felt racism at some point. Its ridiculous to focus on race instead of how he did what he did.

The evidence in the Trevor Dooley case said that James didnt grab Dooley until after Dooley had pulled the gun. If I was Dooley, I probably would've done the same thing he did. Although I probably wouldnt have gotten into an argument over such a silly thing in the first place.

My own opinion of the zimmerman case, Martin asked him why he was following him, Z acted like a tough guy and mouthed off, Martin bowed up at that and swung at him, Z realized he'd screwed up as he was getting his ass beat and he shot him. He shouldve been convicted of something. But not racism.

Systematic double standard.

A white kid. Well he has a lenghty record with contacting the police wheres the proof.

All just my opinion.
But my original point still remains: where are all the marches and protests about all the whites that are killed by blacks? Look up the stats on it, the numbers are pretty high. Not to mention black-on-black crime, which is through the roof. 90% of blacks killed are killed by other blacks, not whites. We should be protesting to have the law changed in fl so this type of thing isnt allowed to happen so easy, not focusing on a racial aspect that I just dont believe is there. Now, those guys who dragged the man behind the truck in texas years ago; THAT was definitely racial. I just saw a woman on MSNBC say "we all know "punk" is code for black teen". Really? When did that change occur? "Punk" has been used for ALL types of "angry" teens for years.

...that I know of, and I would bet every other major.city.in the country.
If you're unaware of the *many* that have taken place consistently over the years...
Not to mention all the various community and government programs -- some highly effective -- aimed at reducing gang violence and other inner-city crime...
...then you're just not paying attention.
You don't get to blame reality for your abysmal -- and obviously willful -- ignorance of it.
And that you're clueless about this suggests you may not be overly aware on the rest of what you're pontificating on either.

The fact is, the numbers remain terribly high. Look at Chicago, New orleans, etc. Boston is not a great example; they are only about 1/4 black. Sure, there are gatherings from time to time, but nothing sizable that approaches what we've seen over the past 2 days.
Sorry if you think I'm "clueless", but the numbers bear me out.

Last edited Tue Jul 16, 2013, 11:05 AM - Edit history (1)

With limits at 400% and negative 100% is that some kind of joke?

You may have a very valid point but that chart is not helping you one bit.

'splain it to me.

400 percent turns on people's BS detectors. Percentage likelyhood gets read as percent and people like percents to max out at 100 (even if they don't).

"The result was drawn from a study using FBI data conducted by John Roman, a senior analyst at Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2363939/White-people-kill-black-people-Stand-Your-Ground-states-354-likely-cleared-murder-Fresh-questions-self-defence-law-wake-Zimmerman-verdict.html

carry on, and maybe next time you will think about what you are posting before you post.

nt

n/t

Yet zimmerman wasn't scared enough to stay in his vehicle. This case is the opposite of OJ. trayvon was convicted on a lack of evidence, and yes i said trayvon was convicted because that is exactly what happened. He was convicted of being a scary black monster that any reasonable white person with a gun would get out of their car to go and track down then confront while being in fear for their lives. See how that makes sense. Yet there was no evidence that he did anything to george zimmerman, no finger prints on Zimmerman's gun (but Zimmerman's), no dna on Zimmerman's gun (but Zimmerman's) and the camel that broke the camels back. No dna under trayvons nails from zimmerman, just how in the hell do you manage to grab someones big ass head and slam it repeatedly into the ground and not have any freakin dna on your person. Trayvon had to be wearing gloves and ditched them just before he got shot or something like that (again a lack of evidence that trayvon did any of the things he was convicted of)

What it boils down to for me is you have to go out of your way to find zimmerman not guilty. Its just unbelievable that hes a free man today.

Well said.

and surely you are no so naive as to suggest that racism played no role in zimmerman's thinking or behavior...are you? and surely you are not suggesting that racism played no role in the jury's decision-making, are you? i hope that idiot juror keeps opening her stupid, racist mouth.

Its a little subtler, its a little quieter .... but it is just as destructive (and its intention is to be so)

"The jury decided and the trial is over so nobody dare talk about this case again or question just how and why they came to the verdict they did..."

It would be tough to fit all of that on one panel.

If I had been on that jury there would never had been a verdict of Not Guilty based on what I saw in the trial. The only excuse the jury might use are the terrible laws in Florida on self defense and stand your ground.

we wants to be enraged!! Grrrrr!!!!!!!!!

It's always presented as "a jury decided, so shut the fuck up," or "a jury decided, you're the one being a problem!" or any number of approaches. It's indicative of a rote adherence to legalism and with that a straight-up dismissal of the concept of ethics or justified emotion. It's a dismissive, flippant response to a situation that deserves much better, and it demonstrates that the person utilizing this response is someone who really, truly just does not give a fuck. Everyone would be happier, including that person, if they simply kept their no-fucks-given attitude to themselves, rather than acting like the voice of enlightenment coming to a cannibal tribe or something.

When he said that 'we are a nation of laws and a jury has decided?'

I doubt it.

And are not bound to the same measured political mummery as he is when giving a political address. Do you imagine that Barack Obama speaks with the same voice at the breakfast table with his family, that he uses when speaking to the nation over a podium? I can't say for certain but I'm willing to wager Barack Obama the man, the husband, the father has sharper words to say on this than Barack Obama the holder of the highest office in the nation.

Since I don't know what he says at the breakfast table. Neither do you, so what he may or may not think privately about the case is neither here nor there. Neither of us knows.

All I have to go on is his public statements.

Of course he's going to stand behind a podium and give nods about the jury. When he's standing up there, he is the highest representative of law in the United States. He's not going to say "Yeah, fuck that jury." And I already said I have no idea if that's what's running through his head. Just that I'm willing to bet he has a more candid opinion in private, whatever that opinion might be.

Justifying your own bland admonishments of "the jury decided!" by pointing to a guy who for glaringly obvious reasons has to stick by that line just shows that your own argument is weak and ill-considered. We know the jury decided. We don't need you to tell us, thanks. Constantly making the point doesn't educate anyone. It just exposes that person as a smug ass-hat, especially when it is used as admonition towards people who are bothered by the verdict or its ramifications. That a jury decided does not guarantee that the decision was the correct one. It doesn't even guarantee that the jury gave it any thought, for all we know they spent sixteen hours seeing who could stuff the most marshmallows into their mouths at one time. All it means is they reached a decision, and there is no ethical value to that either way.

yes INDEED

yup

Cheap shots that aren't even delivered directly.

Lame and cowardly.

Cenk NAILS you folk

You haven't the slightest clue what you're babbling about, do you?

you folk = Zimmerman apologists

Just another apologist for Zimmerman, a murdering scumbag with big gun and a little dick.

RL

see themselves as the absolute voice of reason with their declarations of "case closed," and "get over it." The truth is that the case is NOT closed, and I predict that Zimmerman will have his clock cleaned in a civil trial because it is apparent that he did indeed profile, stalk, and murder Trayvon Martin because he is a wanna be cop.

The majority of DUers are perfectly entitled to come to that conclusion despite the failings of a biased judicial system and a poor performance from the "people's advocates."

Zimmerman will be made to pay for his crime, and his Florida-style racism (but one of my best friends is a negro). Another spin off of this whole affair will be the negative backlash against obscene SYG and CCW laws which allow and encourage blatant "good ole boy" KKK-style vigilantism.

Zimmerman will be dead within ten years, and probably within five.
No, I don't think any vigilante is going to take him out -- though there'd clearly be ironic justice in that.
What's going to happen is simply character being destiny.
A$$holes are a$$holes, and will continue to be a$$holes -- with predictable results.
Or, to put it in more exalted terms -- specifically, Matthew 26:52 -- "all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."
The Word of the Lord, people.

there is zero doubt that the reckless actions of Zimmerman resulted in the death of an innocent teenager - ZERO DOUBT. It is also REASONABLE to assume the one being stalked by a gun-toting vigilante was the one in fear for his life.

'Peers' = normal people. Normal people are fallible. And a court case usually means an approximation of events and not the absolute truth anyway. Lots of room for error and disagreement already built into the system.

And they treated a dead black teen like it was a dead cat.

The body lay in the morgue as a "John Doe" despite having ID and a missing persons report on file.

We are talking MAJOR lawsuit so it's no wonder the "trial" was going to be a coverup.

Do you have any idea how many people would lose their jobs if they really cleaned house?

the jury were idiots.

And you might have noticed that Zimmerman was the PREDATOR.

I found this on slashdot and it seems like winger talking points. A cursory web search only finds these same keywords in comments on news sites.

I watched the coverage gavel to gavel of the Zimmerman trial. What was on Trayvon Martin's phone is maybe the most damaging information of all to the State's case. It is incredibly damaging to Trayvon Martin and his family and introduces criminal findings against them.

The State withheld evidence that Trayvon Martin was dealing and using drugs, dealing illegal firearms, and was in possession of an illegal firearm. And that Trayvon Martin was into fighting and beating people up and had punched someone in the nose earlier that month. And that he had assaulted a public bus driver and the police showed up but the driver was told to continue his route and not press charges.

There is also significantly strong evidence that Trayvon Martin's father was working with his son to acquire illegal weapons and that his father's nickname 'Fruit' was used amongst organized gang circles. There are texts that mention buying and selling pistols. And even a photo of Trayvon holding an illegal pistol. The photo is all over the internet and is not hard to find. The State withheld all of this and forced the defending attorneys to run around in circles to obtain the phone data.

The judge also ruled that none of the phone data on Trayvon Martin's phone was admissible. Why? Because there was no hard proof that Trayvon was actually the one operating the phone when those messages were sent and received. And that "anyone could have been operating Trayvon's phone at any time". The phone was DOUBLE password protected and took the State an entire year to crack. But the State said in court that even a "seven-year-old child could have cracked the phone and sent those messages". The judge agreed.

This case is disgusting. It is clear from top to bottom that it was rigged. When you have even the President of the United States deliberately poisoning the jury pool by commenting on the situation without knowing any discovery evidence years before a trial begins it is unreal. The State of Florida is out of control. This entire affair was a political theater event designed to win some elections.

credible proof. If they don't provide it then you will have your debunking. They wrote it, they own it and they should be the ones having to prove it, imo.

It's from slashdot. Big thread, likely the OP isn't going to back it up. But this looks like the kind of shit I'll be hearing more from so I'd like to know where the origin is. Usually this oddball stuff is coming from fringe winger sites.

it took the state a year to crack cellphone passwords

Though the thing I found the funniest was the street name, Fruit. Like I said, I couldn't find backup anywhere. I think this is Kenyan Socialist Muslim territory.

Seriously I had that said....Oh, just move on...get over it. Like Trayvon was just a disposable kid.

all these sick defenders would be outraged - they are HYPOCRITES, all of them

Ever to strike human kind.

You act as if there is an organized group of racist, white privileged gun humpers trolling this board, none of whom have ever experienced tragedy in this life.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous this appears?

Because just in the past 28 hours I've put 70 of them on ignore, and I'm the type who never uses it...

one of the most stupid, lame ass arguments ever.

"<i>Were you there?</i>" is the clever comeback they teach their kids to say about evolution and the Big Bang at creationist "Christian Academies"!
Funny how they never notice that the very same challenge applies identically to their most deeply-held presumptions and beliefs....
...well, except for the bits about "facts" and "evidence" that can be adduced for evolution and the Big Bang, and against the "Christian Nation" and "sacred free market" fantasies.
Not real big on consistency, these wingers.

I saw that on another forum - stated by the same guy who is pissed off that Trayvon's defenders are making it about race.

If you expect consistent, fact- and logic-based argumentation from wingers, I hope you have considerable patience...
...and a high tolerance (heh) for disappointment.

"Following someone after dark isn't provocation!" which leaves unspoken the "As long as the person being followed isn't white" part that the person claiming it always believes.

That reducing this to a finger pointing game is the express lane to ending racism.

I have no qualms calling out the Zim cheerleaders on their hypocritical bullshit and I've had to take a lot from them nonstop for the past 15 months...

It's how they roll.

...they'd have nothing at all.
The occasional inconsistencies, or outright contradictions, don't matter.
The wingers are nothing if not Good Soldiers.

getting repeated ad nauseum by paid RW trolls calling into liberal talk shows over the last 2 days.

Right.
And how is it that the [many] people who post this one never seem to notice all the marches, the vigils, the church and community outreach, the school programs, the "at-risk" kids intervention programs, the activists working against gang violence...
Pick as many as apply:
It's the "liberal" media's fault
Wastes of taxpayer money
They don't show up on Fox
Just another "racial set-aside"
Too busy watching ESPN
Handouts to "race-hustlers"
Not.attuned to news about anyone of different ethnicities
Soft-on-crime judges
Haven't read a newspaper in 10+ years
What's a "newspaper"?
All of the above

Good call!

I first heard it with the James Byrd case