This whole Trayvon Martin thing has me perplexed...

beth

Administrator
Staff member
As to profiling, EVERYBODY does it.
If I say there is a serial killer on the loose, what comes to mind?
If I say there was a terrorist plot, what comes to mind?
If I say someone got caught molesting children, what comes to mind?
If I say that this gender collects more shoes then they can use in a lifetime , who comes to mind? lol
If I say this person is a computer hacker, what profile comes to mind?
Every race, ethnicity has a profile attached to them, good or bad.
Sagging pants and dark hoodies cloaking face conjures up wariness--even if the race is unknown.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
When History is Not Helpful
Mark Davis | Jul 26, 2013
History can be a tricky thing.
As a nation, we are growing historically illiterate. It’s easy to blame schools, but we are also running out of parents who care that their sons and daughters know what the thirteen original colonies were or where the first shots of the Civil War were fired.
History is precious. It is our legacy, and it contains lessons that can help us plot a brighter future.
But in the days since the Zimmerman verdict, objectors are pointing to “history” in a way that hampers clarity and actually hurts race relations.
Surely you have heard voices protesting the jury’s findings with logic that loosely follows this path: Trayvon Martin simply must be an innocent victim and Zimmerman must be a hostile racist because of years of past white racism against blacks.
So, slavery and Jim Crow laws and separate restrooms and various random acts of residual racism today are all cobbled together to support a conclusion that George Zimmerman is a murderer.
There, in a nutshell, is the biggest obstacle to this “conversation” about race that we are all supposed to be having. Some people are walking around with a willful impediment to informed participation in such dialogue. Their sense of logic is impaired by politics or personal struggle or any of a number of other factors distracting them from the actual evidence in the case.
People can be all over the map on general issues of race in our politics, our justice system and our daily lives. But there is simply no avoiding the complete absence of evidence that Zimmerman is a racist who was motivated by animus toward blacks the night he shot Martin, or any other night.
While I can see certain pockets of public reaction blinded by such biases, I cannot condone a President of the United States buying into this poisonous distraction and leading the excuse-making for it.
In his divisive remarks last week, Barack Obama relived the times when he was followed in department stores or regarded suspiciously by people locking cars or clutching their handbags as he walked by.
I have eternal empathy for anyone with that story to tell. I cannot imagine the sadness and anger it can instill.
But here’s the problem: “Those sets of experiences inform how the African-American community interprets what happened one night in Florida,” the President explained. “And it’s inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear.”
If that’s true, we are doomed.
It is precisely the responsibility of thoughtful people to avoid letting past events “inform” them about what is in front of their faces today.
History tells us what has happened in the past. It can guide us through the broad issues of today and teach us how to plot a better tomorrow.
But it does not, it cannot, be of use in telling us who was the aggressor in Sanford, Florida, in February 2012. The false premise of judging current events by past grievances is a nightmare we must escape as a society and as individuals.
The most useful tool I can offer is a turning of the tables in a fashion that might be appreciated by people “honoring” Trayvon and condemning Zimmerman because of a collection of unrelated issues from the past.
Consider a white police officer who has worked an inner-city beat for 10 years. Chances are he has witnessed a long succession of arrests of black men for a variety of crimes.
Today, he sees a young black man driving a Mercedes SUV in a high-crime part of town. Concluding this must be the result of an auto theft, he stops the man and questions him without one shred of probable cause.
This would be recognized as blatant prejudice today, filed under the contrived offense of “driving while black.” People of all colors would realize that this cop should not project guilt onto this driver just because he’s busted hundreds of guys like him in past years.
Nor should anyone lunge toward innocence for Trayvon and guilt for Zimmerman because of past (or even current) examples of blacks hurt by white racism.
It is an assault on logic, clarity and objectivity and worse, it sets us back in our quest for further racial progress.
It cannot be a good thing for the black community to harbor suspicions of white folks today because of things done by others through history. And it has not been helpful for whites to see troublemakers like Al Sharpton trying to lure black America to his baseless, hateful cause of stoking this verdict for his own narcissist satisfaction.
I replayed multiple times the YouTube video of NBA veteran and analyst Charles Barkley accepting the verdict and decrying how clumsy things get when the media prod us into racial discord. I revisited it not because it was so great to have a famous black man agree with me; it gave me hope that we may be able to gently dissuade those who would drag “history” into places where it does not apply.
At some point someday, a truly bad white person will shoot a truly innocent black kid. When that happens, I will join the lament of such a horrible act. I will not be restrained in my proper reaction because of high Afircan-American crime rates or because my Uncle Frank was mugged by a black guy in 1972.
If we can all get a grip on what history does and does not tell us, we might actually be able to make some progress.
 

reefraff

Active Member
If you look hard enough you can find racism in an empty bag. There is certainly still instances of racism (that cuts both ways) but it isn't acceptable to most people. At some point people need to shout down the race baiters and let nature run it's course. I'll tell you the truth I am getting to the point where I am starting to look down on people because of all the special treatment they demand and I am sure others feel the same way.
 

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/395946/this-whole-trayvon-martin-thing-has-me-perplexed/120#post_3527446
I'll tell you the truth I am getting to the point where I am starting to look down on people because of all the special treatment they demand and I am sure others feel the same way.
I have seen that happening. Its like white people in this country are starting to bite back. The guilt trip lasted for several decades, a generation even, but at some point everyone needs to get past it all.
 

2quills

Well-Known Member
It's crazy how many lives can get flipped upside down over something like this. The baiters would probably encourage a fight for reasons not so much about remembering a boy.
I've tried to picture this guy as a racist but the profile just doesn't fit. One has to wonder why a racist would chose to live in such a close community with they very same people that they supposedly hate and want to protect that community. I didn't hear hate in the voice that I heard on the phone call. I've seen some pretty hateful situations in my time. But to me it doesn't fit here.
Tragic accident.
This is a hate crime - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom
 

beth

Administrator
Staff member
It wasn't a hate crime, or a racially motivated crime, but it wasn't an accident either. It was the perfect storm of events leading to the awful death of a teen minding his own business, doing nothing wrong, on his way home. What happened doesn't justify the country being shaken up over race issues. Tragic violent deaths happen all the time wo regard to race.
 

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Darth: That article by Mark Davis about ignoring history in the Martin case is way off base. Reduced to its barest minimum, a black kid is walking down the street when an adult with a gun accosts him in a state where the kid is very aware that not so long ago lynching was the way failure to say "sir" to a white was punished. You cannot ignore the historical context, whether rightfully applied in this instance, or not. From what I hear about Zimmerman's lifestyle, he does not seem to be a bigoted racist, but nevertheless, he regarded the situation as suspicious, and he acted. The person who probably had the "stand your ground" rights was Treyvon Martin, and it doesn't take much imagination to understand the fear that his people's historical experience engendered. That's what makes this case so sad, and complicated. There really isn't a villain, just a kid and an aggressive adult, with a horrendous outcome to their encounter. I think the root cause isn't so much racism or profiling, but a culture in which it becomes OK to use a gun to accost a person, and then plead self defense when the accosted person doesn't want to be accosted. Sad...just sad.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///t/395946/this-whole-trayvon-martin-thing-has-me-perplexed/120#post_3527463
Darth: That article by Mark Davis about ignoring history in the Martin case is way off base. Reduced to its barest minimum, a black kid is walking down the street when an adult with a gun accosts him in a state where the kid is very aware that not so long ago lynching was the way failure to say "sir" to a white was punished. You cannot ignore the historical context, whether rightfully applied in this instance, or not. From what I hear about Zimmerman's lifestyle, he does not seem to be a bigoted racist, but nevertheless, he regarded the situation as suspicious, and he acted. The person who probably had the "stand your ground" rights was Treyvon Martin, and it doesn't take much imagination to understand the fear that his people's historical experience engendered. That's what makes this case so sad, and complicated. There really isn't a villain, just a kid and an aggressive adult, with a horrendous outcome to their encounter. I think the root cause isn't so much racism or profiling, but a culture in which it becomes OK to use a gun to accost a person, and then plead self defense when the accosted person doesn't want to be accosted. Sad...just sad.
How do you know Zimmerman was the aggressive one? The physical evidence doesn't support that opinion and neither does common sense. If he was out to push around some punk he sure as hell wouldn't have summoned the cops. If Martin was afraid why didn't he either run home or hang up with his friend and call his dad?
 

2quills

Well-Known Member
A similar site in my neighborhood on a rainy evening would appear out of place to me as well.
People shouldn't be roaming the communities with guns like that period. That's really the job of law enforcement officials. Zimmerman shouldn't have been armed with anything but a phone if he wanted to be a watch dog for the property.
I believe in the right to own, but I'll never carry in public because I know that guns embolden people when they wouldn't otherwise be. While many young kids at that age tend to act or portray themselves as tough or bad a$$'s for a multitude of reasons. One of which may be in an effort to avoid being a victim to things such as bullying.
 

geridoc

Well-Known Member

How do you know Zimmerman was the aggressive one? The physical evidence doesn't support that opinion and neither does common sense. If he was out to push around some punk he sure as hell wouldn't have summoned the cops. If Martin was afraid why didn't he either run home or hang up with his friend and call his dad?
On the "scale of aggressiveness" it seems pretty clear that walking down the street scores a 0.5, while getting out of a car (despite being told not to do so by a police dispatcher) with a gun scores a 100.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///t/395946/this-whole-trayvon-martin-thing-has-me-perplexed/120#post_3527482
On the "scale of aggressiveness" it seems pretty clear that walking down the street scores a 0.5, while getting out of a car (despite being told not to do so by a police dispatcher) with a gun scores a 100.
People seem to hear what they want on this. Zimmerman was out of his car and following Martin when the dispatcher asked if he was following the kid. That is when the dispatcher asked if he was following him and Zimmerman said yes. The dispatcher said they didn't need him doing that and according to Zimmerman he just walked up to get a street name and was walking back to his car when Martin confronted him. The state's own witness seems to back up Zimmerman's account of how the actual contact was started when she and Zimmerman both said Martin asked Zimmerman if he had a problem.
I personally think Martin got pissed that the creepy cracker was following him and got in his face.
 

beth

Administrator
Staff member
The police dispatcher testified in court that he could see why GZ may have misinterpreted the intent of the dispatcher. Also, GZ says he was already out of the car when the dispatcher asked him if he was following, he said yes, and the dispatcher said, "you don't need to do that". Not exactly a command to not follow. His testimony is that he was on his way back to the car when he was jumped. The testimony in court supports that version.
We do know that Trayvon's friend said that he had actually made it home. That is in testimony. Unfortunately, he made the decision to run back down toward the other end of the complex to confront GZ.
The kid was freaked by GZ, but not fearful enough to call the police or just go inside his house and lock the door. His choice was to confront. Yes, he was the one who stood his ground. A testament to how stand your ground can go terribly wrong when an unarmed person chooses to confront another. GZ should have never left his car. He should have been able to deal with the situation wo pulling his gun (He was 10 yrs older, an adult male, and heavier then the barely 17 yr old). I don't think we could say that TM would not have done the same thing if GZ had been a black man following him. It wasn't about fearing a white man. I think Trayvon would have reacted the same no matter skin color.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/395946/this-whole-trayvon-martin-thing-has-me-perplexed/120#post_3527494
The police dispatcher testified in court that he could see why GZ may have misinterpreted the intent of the dispatcher. Also, GZ says he was already out of the car when the dispatcher asked him if he was following, he said yes, and the dispatcher said, "you don't need to do that". Not exactly a command to not follow. His testimony is that he was on his way back to the car when he was jumped. The testimony in court supports that version.
We do know that Trayvon's friend said that he had actually made it home. That is in testimony. Unfortunately, he made the decision to run back down toward the other end of the complex to confront GZ.
The kid was freaked by GZ, but not fearful enough to call the police or just go inside his house and lock the door. His choice was to confront. Yes, he was the one who stood his ground. A testament to how stand your ground can go terribly wrong when an unarmed person chooses to confront another. GZ should have never left his car. He should have been able to deal with the situation wo pulling his gun (He was 10 yrs older, an adult male, and heavier then the barely 17 yr old). I don't think we could say that TM would not have done the same thing if GZ had been a black man following him. It wasn't about fearing a white man. I think Trayvon would have reacted the same no matter skin color.
That's the thing about this case. Had Zimmerman stayed in his car BUT had Martin just went home.... Zimmerman didn't break any laws but it appears Martin did when he struck Zimmerman. I just don't see where you could convict Zimmerman of a crime, certainly not murder on manslaughter.
 

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Not if you apply stand your ground to Trayvon. Then, Trayvon is justified in his actions but it was a poor decision because it got him killed. Stalking someone is not exactly benign behavior. As the adult in this situation, GZ should have used much better judgement.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/395946/this-whole-trayvon-martin-thing-has-me-perplexed/120#post_3527498
Not if you apply stand your ground to Trayvon. Then, Trayvon is justified in his actions but it was a poor decision because it got him killed. Stalking someone is not exactly benign behavior. As the adult in this situation, GZ should have used much better judgement.
"Stalking
is unwanted or obsessive attention by an individual or group toward another person. Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person or monitoring them."
What Zimmerman did wasn't even in the same time zone as stalking. I don't really see him trying to keep an eye on someone he suspects is looking to burglarize a house until the cops can get there as a big problem. If he hadn't summoned the cops you could make a case that he shouldn't have been following him but in terms of trying to aid the police in contacting him I don't see where he did anything wrong. Now if the neighborhood watch rules stated he shouldn't have been carrying a gun you could make a case for reckless endangerment but the prosecutors didn't do that.
 

bang guy

Moderator
I agree Beth. I think Stand Your Ground would also have applied had George died from his injuries. Trevon was within his rights to use deadly force if he thought George was a threat (as he clearly did).
 

reefraff

Active Member
Had Martin picked up a rock and smashed Zimmerman's head, with no witnesses to say who actually initiated physical contact I believe he could have used stand your ground. But lets not forget, despite what 0bama and Holder and pushing Stand Your Ground wasn't applied to Zimmerman in this case.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Not if you apply stand your ground to Trayvon.  Then, Trayvon is justified in his actions but it was a poor decision because it got him killed.  Stalking someone is not exactly benign behavior.  As the adult in this situation, GZ should have used much better judgement.
I agree Beth.  I think Stand Your Ground would also have applied had George died from his injuries.  Trevon was within his rights to use deadly force if he thought George was a threat (as he clearly did).
You guys are not understand how stand your ground laws are implicated and determined.
Florida's statute reads "(3)?A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
At which point was Trayvon Attacked? Stand your ground does not come into play unless physically attacked. Not a "perceived" threat. One must be attacked first.
 
Top