I'm probably opening Pandora's box here, but I'm interested in your take on this explanation of what killed Trayvon:
A bullet in the heart killed Travon Martin. How many other suspended students from that community died of a bullet to the heart?
Your responses are usually much more... verbose.
Anyhow, you are correct - Martin was killed by a bullet. HOWEVER, you always seem eager to search the deep recesses of history and attribute current happenings to things long past (e.g. slavery, jim crow). Given this proclivity, I wondered if you see anything in Martin's past that may have led him to where he is today. And I'm still wondering, because you chose not to address that issue.
To your point - I have no idea how many other suspended students have died from gunshot wounds. But a related question would be - how many other suspended students chose to attack an armed man?
I refer to my experience. I was not alive during slavery, but experienced Jim Crow in Georgia. I am enjoying the progress in race relations that I have experienced in the past ten years. I'm not interested in speculating about something that you obviously know little about.
Certainly danz57 is a pseudonym used by The Citizen to race bait all you folks.
danz57 is indeed a US citizen but I have absolutely no connection to the rabidly right wing paper of that name.
Shown on the TV protests are people walking around with signs that say "I am Trayvon Martin." I don't get it, I thought he passed away.
Any American with dark skin wearing a hoodie could be considered a criminal, dangerous, and killed - that is what the signs are suggesting. There is a picture circulating with a white family wearing hoodies in support of Travon Martin and the danger of this perception. I think the name of Travon Martin will live in history like the name of Emmet Till. In many cities, the protest crowds are integrated. This is truly an American concern.
The Emmett Till case is an apt comparison.
Imagine a 29 year old 200 lb black man armed with a gun who challenged a 17 year old white boy after first making a derogatory comment about the young man thus showing the attitude he brought to the encounter. The older man pulls his gun and shoots the boy dead. He claims he challenged the boy and the boy attacked and he drew his gun and shot in self-defense.
Does anyone believe that same jury would have returned that same verdict?
No, those good suburban ladies of the jury would have convicted him in a heartbeat and the same people that are defending Zimmerman on this list would be saying that justice was served.
When many people think of the term “racism” they think of Aryan nations/KKK style in-your-face hatred. While that still exists, the far more pervasive and far more dangerous and damaging form of racism is simply a deeply held skepticism toward a different race that believes them to be generally less capable, less honest, and of less integrity than ones own race.
This is the sort of racism that causes casual day-to-day discrimination, causes white jurors to give extreme benefit of doubt to Zimmerman, and perpetuates an unjust and unequal society. This type of racism usually flies under the radar and is often denied by those who practice it. Sadly, many infected with this form of racism even sincerely believe themselves to be nonracist.
Except every once in a while a tragic event like the story of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman occurs which throws off the cover and reveals it in all its ugliness.
Granted, a tragic case but I believe TM was physically superior to GZ. BTW, are you sure DM doesn't write your script? And I guess you'll say it was ok for TM to call GZ a "scruffy-ass cracker" in a phone call, huh?
The point is that Zimmerman had the gun, provoked a confrontation and all indications are he had a negative attitude in approaching Trayvon.
Of course I was not there,but the most likely scenario I envision is Zimmerman confronted Trayvon abruptly, saying "Hold it, where are you from, what are you doing here?" or something along those lines. Which he had no right to do since he is not a law enforcement officer. Trayvon responded by telling him to shove off or words to that effect. Zimmerman then touched, grabbed, or otherwise tried to physical block Trayvon who shoved or hit him.
Zimmerman then went for his gun. In that split second Trayvon saw him drawing a gun, thought his life in clear danger and tackled Zimmerman with Zimmermans head hitting the pavement. Trayvon, now believing he is fighting for his life is on top of Zimmerman who manages to free his gun and fatally shoots Trayvon.
At 17, Trayvon might not haves responded in the wisest way, but he sure as hell didn't deserve to die for it.
No evidence presented by the prosecution supports your version of the"scenario". And just what do you know about the duties, responsibilities, and authorities of a Community Watch Commander?
And just what do you know about the duties, responsibilities, and authorities of a Community Watch Commander?
The duties are on the web (Neighborhood Watch Coordinator)
During the trial it was clearly stated: observe, report to police.
Zimmerman was not a member of a law enforcement volunteer organization. (Sponsored by law enforcement agency and provides training).
We know Z did call out to him; I didn't read that he verbally responded, maybe he did. His only words I know of were from Z's statement, something to the effect that 'you're gonna die tonight', etc... I didn't read Z touched, grabbed, or tried to physically block TM. The only time recorded that Z 'went for' his gun was when TM was pounding his head into the sidewalk. Yes, a lot of assumptions, for sure; glad we have forensic science now to prove the most probable acts and not the practice of 'guessing', as you just did.
Sadly, TM did not survive the incident to present his side of the story, so we're left with piecing together the event through witness statements, and Z's side, of course.
Btw, check out Suggarfoot's link about TM's Facebook statements & possible drug activity. Circumstantial, of course, and not admissible to this case, but I learned a bit about current OTC drug activity by teens & some new slang.
Nice story. I guess we should accept your fiction over testimony and forensics huh?
Boy, I sure hope you never make it through voir dire and onto a jury. Your scenario is an impressive bit of fiction constructed from "whole cloth," as they say. Exactly which facts or evidence support your assumptions?
But, since you like to speculate instead of focusing on the facts that were presented at trial, consider this:
Trayvon's school suspension demonstrates that he was likely involved in burglary - an officer found stolen jewelry and burglary tools in his possession.
Trayvon's text messages and cell phone videos demonstrate that he liked to fight - Trayvon bragged of beating someone who "snitched" on him, and Trayvon wanted to fight him again because the other guy "didn't bleed enough."
When Zimmerman was on the phone with 911, Trayvon was 30 seconds from his (Trayvon's) front door. However, he was shot some four minutes later.
Of course, Zimmerman knew none of this at the time of the shooting; that's why the facts about Trayvon were not presented to the jury. However, it does offer food for thought to us third party observers. I think it supports the idea that Trayvon may have been acting suspiciously (a guy who's likely been a thief is creeping around an area with recent burglaries), and about who most likely initiated the violent encounter (probably the guy who likes to fight and make people bleed, and who likes to take cell phone videos and laugh about homeless people fighting).
At any rate, speculation is irrelevant; the jurors heard the evidence and ultimately determined that the state failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe they got it right, and I don't believe it had anything to do with race.
Zimmerman earlier got fired from his job as a security guard for overly aggressive behavior after he "snapped" and went "nuts" according to coworkers. “He had a temper and he became a liability,” former coworker said. “One time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool and totally overreacted,” he said. “It was weird, because he was such a cool guy, but he got all nuts. He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out.”
The year 2005 was a bad one for Zimmerman: he was arrested for fighting with a cop trying to arrest his friend for underage drinking, and he and his ex-fiancée took out protective orders against each other.
His felony indictments were downgraded or dismissed, in Florida it helps if your father is a retired judge. But Zimmerman had to take court-ordered anger management classes in 2005.
I hope that sometime as you're walking in your neighborhood some neighbor who doesn't know you decides that you're "creeping around" and look suspicious and decides to stop you and question your right to be there. Let's see how you react to that. I'm betting not too well.
...was on his way back w/ Watermelon tea & Skittles to mix w/ Robotussin and make a psuedo-drug that mimics PCP, possibly to sell. His Facebook held discussions of such and alluded to making & selling drugs, including trying to illegally obtain Codeine.
Unfortunately, like your story above, it means nothing to the events of that night or to the trial. If you dragged the past history of any defendant or plaintiff to be considered in any trial you'd triple it's length and belabor the jury with information that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, with the sole purpose of trying to 'paint' someone in a certain light instead of sticking to the facts at hand.
...'hate speech' only applies to minorities (I guess GZ didn't look Hispanic enough!). My neighbor, who works at the airport (for whom I will not say), got into it w/ another employee who called him a 'white trash POS'. My neighbor filed a complaint for the derogatory comment/language, which is against company policy, but nothing happened. Imagine if he were to have called this workmate the 'N' word; my neighbor would probably been suspended for a week, at minimum. This double standard should not be tolerated, period. Heck, I've even adapted to stop using the term 'faggot', and refer to those deviants now as strictly 'homosexuals'.
This is very interesting. The trial has been held. The verdict is in. Under the law, Mr. Zimmerman has been acquitted. Mr, Zimmerman's attorney has stated that 'race' needs to be discussed in this country. Race is the 'elephant in the room' in this trial - but did not enter into the plea of self- defense. If Travon had lived, he also could have pleaded self-defense in the mutual combat confrontation. Mr. Zimmerman is responsible for a death. Travon was not in the act of committing a crime. A tragedy that should never happen again under the law. The law and race perceptions needs to be discussed by good, secure people in 2013 - without recrimination or placing blame - just looking at what is and what we hope to be.
Travon was not in the act of committing a crime.
Right. Other than attempting to murder Zimmerman by bashing in his skull, Trayvon was innocent. The attack on Zimmerman by this 'gansta' (trayvons words) wannabe was unprovoked. Maybe he was all hopped up on 'purple drank' and was preparing to make another batch. He also showed racist tendencies - remember, he called Zimmerman a 'creepy-ass cracker'. That is a racist, derogatory term that blacks use to denigrate people that don't look like them. This 'gansta' was far from innocent.
Those that want to limit innocent people from standing their ground and defend themselves are the enablers of hate, division, and racism.
does. Will he too rush to try Zimmerman without enough evidence in order to satisfy the NAACP and others or will he inform them what they don't want to hear. We'll get to see how "politics" plays into this.
BTW, I wonder if Mr. Holder will follow Janet Napolitano and make a hasty exit soon.
Thank heavens MLK and Ghandi taught us differently. By non-violently standing our ground, and reacting with love instead of hate - bloodshed was limited in taking steps in changing discriminatory practices. Unfortunately, Travon and Mr. Zimmerman reacted to the fear based on racism. Let's hope this does not become the American way.
I stand corrected: Travon was not in the act of committing a crime until he was confronted by Mr, Zimmerman and engaged in mutual combat. According to the testimony - Travon did not know that Mr. Zimmerman was a Neighborhood Watch Coordinator - but died in fear of a 'crazy-ass cracker'. Mr. Zimmerman thought that he was in the act of preventing another crime committed by a 'black man in a hoodie'. To those who feel that 'race' is not part of the fear in this tragedy - you're living in la-la land. IMO.
Sorry, I don't live in Los Angeles area any more. It's about race? Well gee that's not according to the interviewed juror, Prosecuting Attorney, Zimmerman’s defense, and the Martin's attorney. If they say it's not about race how do you come to your conclusion?
the best anonymous comment (AJC, I think) that I have seen in any write up of the coverage of the Zimmerman trial is the following: "Only in America can a brown man kill a black man and yet the blame falls on white people"
Even valley thinking can comprehend the fear that motivated this tragedy. What was the 'fear' based on? (According to the words of the two involved - "black with a hoodie" and 'crazy-ass cracker".) Now even one who left Los Angeles recognizes those words indicate 'race' in the thought of the speaker. Right? On The View, the Zimmerman attorney recognized this - but of course - it would have been inappropriate to argue that in the face of a self-defense case between mutual combatants. To ignore the basis for the 'fear' is a product of la-la land inhabitants. . . . IMO. And to ignore 'race' and act as if it doesn't exist as a problem in this country will be unfair to the younger generation - who have moved on - and see through this craziness in a racist society trying to justify its error. (Both black and white society) In order for this to ever be corrected - the underlying basis for the racist 'fear' in this country has to be dealt with.
Let's take race out of it....by de-humanizing Martin and humanizing Zimmerman, it's easy to accept the verdict. Everyone wants to make Martin the bad guy when he isn't even here to tell his side of the story. Whichever side of this people are on - everyone should remember that a 17 year old lost his life for walking down a street after stopping for candy and something to drink. He will never fall in love, he will never go to college, he will never have a life partner, he will never have a career, he will never have children or grandchildren. He had only 17 years on this earth and it was snuffed away by a self imposed "watchman" who should have kept himself in his car like he was told. Instead, he took matters in his own hands. Because Martin cannot speak for himself, we know only part of the story. All I see from this is absolute tragedy. Zimmerman now gets to life his life living in fear, people will avoid him, cross to the other side of the street, flip their locks on their doors and live in fear of him that he will go off the deep end again. I hope that is a bit of torment for him - it is deserved.
So many are agreeing with you, No need for 'campa' in this tragedy. There are no winners.
race had nothing to do with it. In her interview with Piers Morgan, she said that she warned TM that because GZ was an adult and following him, that GZ was probably a homosexual rapist and that he should run away. It had nothing to do with GZ being light skinned or TM being black skinned. According to her that never entered into it. She also said that the use of the term "cracker" does not mean white people, but anybody of any color who might be LEO or security/comm watch.
She went on to say that she believed that TM, who was just seconds away from his fathers house, doubled back to confront GZ, (who according to the 911 call tapes had lost TM at that point) because he didn't want to lead the pervert to his house where his younger brother lived.
I'm curious how the left will react when even though no one involved in the case (victim, witnesses, prosecution, judge, jury, defense) says race was a factor, the media has tried to make it about race anyway. Only now do we see that the real story was that TM was a homophobic gay-basher.
People want to charge GZ with hate-crime, even though there is no evidence for that. If GZ had not had a gun and TM had beat him senseless, would those same people want to charge TM with a hate-crime, since according to Jeanteal, the only reason TM confronted GZ was because he suspected him of being gay and therefore a child rapist? Somehow I doubt it.
go to the 6 minute mark
DM - according to Rachel Jeanteal on CNN last night
race had nothing to do with it. - that GZ was probably a homosexual rapist and that he should run away.
Only now do we see that the real story was that TM was a homophobic gay-basher.
Wow! I listened to the entire video. Do you remember the meaning of 'crackaa' that she shared? (Person of authority/security, etc.) Do you remember her answer to if she thought the situation was 'racial'? Please - others please listen to her interview. I'm sure we all hear based on our own perspective. She made a point of the jury being 'old' school - and her generation 'new' school. I don't pretend to understand the 'sentences' found in many of the renderings of the 'new school' vocabulary. Do you?
This is why it is important for persons to have a face to face discussion about perceptions and understandings of words; culture; etc., We study foreign cultures and languages - but in many cases, we don't understand one another.
You keep using this phrase, but one guy jumping out of the bushes and pummeling another guy is not "mutual combat." The only injuries suffered by Martin - aside from the fatal bullet wound - were bruises to his knuckles from punching Zimmerman in the face. It appears that the only action offered by Zimmerman was firing the round that stopped the beating he was receiving at Trayvon's hands.
So it can only be "mutual combat" if Zimmerman's account is a lie. Just to be clear, that is your position - right? Can you support it with the evidence?
Also, you keep implying that Zimmerman was in fear because Martin was black. I believe he made no effort to attach a racial identifier to Martin until asked to do so by the 911 dispatcher, correct? And even then, it sounds to me like he wasn't sure - "he LOOKS black." I think your analysis may be flawed.
You keep using this phrase, but one guy jumping out of the bushes and pummeling another guy is not "mutual combat.
Did you watch the trial? Where were these bushes at the point of contact that Zimmerman pointed out to the detectives? (There was a video played of his interview with the detectives - and the prosecution made quite a point of no bushes near the dog path.) What bruises? There was no blood on Martin's hands. You evidently did not listen to the testimony given at the trial. It was not my analysis. There was mutual combat. Zimmerman won - he had a gun. Zimmerman did not lie - he fought with Travon. That is mutual combat. Zimmerman had made numerous calls to 911 identifying the suspects in his neighborhood as 'black'. The word coon was most distinct in Zimmerman's call. Coon is a derogatory word used by ignorant persons for 'blacks'. The historical word - crackaa/cracker - has been used in the black community since slavery. The term described the 'man' who used the crack of the whip to keep 'slaves' in line, (Authority figure) Both sides presented their analysis to the jury. The jury made a decision. What is the point of being on 'sides' today? We should be on the side of 'law' that will prevent this situation from happening again.
Also, you keep implying that Zimmerman was in fear because Martin was black.
Zimmerman evidently wasn't that fearful of a 'black' man - or because of his fear, he would have stayed in the car until the police arrived . . .IMO. Please share what words I used for you to arrive at the above implication. At the point of confrontation, it is safe to assume that both men were fearful. If the jury thought that Zimmerman was not fearful for his life - he should have been convicted of at least manslaughter under the law,
What bruises? Good catch - I should have said abrasion. See page 3 of Martin's autopsy, and the accompanying sketch of the body:
But perhaps Martin didn't receive this injury from beating Zimmerman. He could have gotten it from beating the guy who "snitched" on him (per the text messages on his phone). Either way, it does not appear that Zimmerman initiated physical contact with Martin prior to the gunshot wound that stopped the assault... which makes your claim of "mutual combat" dubious.
As to proof of your use of the "fear" angle, please re-read your post at 4:00PM. It looks pretty straight forward:
Even valley thinking can comprehend the fear that motivated this tragedy. What was the 'fear' based on? (According to the words of the two involved - "black with a hoodie" and 'crazy-ass cracker".)
Trayvon obviously thought he was attacking a white person, as he was probably brought up to hate white people.
Trayvon was the only one in the altercation that had racist tendencies based on his own statements. Trayvon made the decision to attack a person carrying a gun and paid the consequences for his actions and his hate.
Danz57, I will agree with you on this point - there have been so many black men wrongly convicted of crimes that justice cannot possibly be served without Zimmerman being convicted of at least manslaughter.
Boy, you have fallen completely off the logic train!--Unless this is a huge dose of sarcasm!
This is no place or time for logic. :-) Sarcasm aside, any honest person that followed the trial close enough and was not preconditioned for an outcome would have to admit that an acquittal stemming from a reasonable doubt is an understandable outcome. But many (most?) people are either preconditioned or not honest, many are angry at their lot in life, and this outcome provides them with an opportunity to express their frustration.
From all indications I've seen the trial was conducted fairly. I am more concerned about the misfitting racial based reaction to it, which I think is damaging to the cause of racial equality.
...you can blame the idiot DA who bowed to protest pressure to try him for the laughable charge of 2d degree murder. If she would have aimed for voluntary/invol manslaughter, Zimmerman might have been made to pay for his indiscretion of following Martin. Stupid legal move, IMHO, and a predictable end; there was absolutely NO proof of any initial intent of Z to purposely harm Martin, which is REQUIRED - at a minimum - to prove 2d degree.
Why should he have to "pay for his indiscretion of following Martin". That was not illegal.
...that's why I said 'might have', pending the result of the coming fracas.
Were you on your soap box then, or were you out in the crowd laughing ahd high-fiving because someone who the majority of the nation felt was guilty was set free by a jury? Just wondering? Were you out there protesting when a young white man was killed leaving a Braves game after committing only the sin of being white? Did you take to the streets when a black thug killed an upstanding, young black man who just happened to be the next male he saw as he threatened to do after a black female had slapped him and in his words--he did not hit women but he would attack next male he saw. Unfortunately this young man, his mother's only son happened to be that innocent bystander? Or is it only when it is reversed that you consider it racist or terrible? Does racism only go in one direction, or doesn't it count when many other fine young black men are killed by thugs and gang members? Double standard?
Why do you have to go back to the Emmett Till case (which was a tragedy and a travesty) when there are so many current attacks---is it because this is sure to incite racism and that seems your aim.
I must say that I have no idea of what the "right" verdict should have been in this case. I wasn't sitting in the courtroom, nor was I an observer of the incident. However, whether the jury got it right or wrong, based on what they heard, they did what they felt was right in finding not guilty. At this point, there is nothing anyone can do to change that verdict. But, I do wonder how rioting in California is going to help this situation. People have been saying that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin, and he may have done so. People are also saying that they don't understand how that profiling can continue in today's society. May I suggest that it might be because of the example society is presented with. Look at the rioting taking place, do you honestly think that this is giving people a "good image" and instilling "good faith" about a segment of society? I suggest that calm protests would produce more effrective and positive outcomes than rioting. I'm thankful that Fayette County seems to have better race relations. Yes, there are still problems, but they are being addressed in a more positive way. Thank you citizens of Fayette County for being more level-headed than some other communities out there.
Many are not looking at the rioting, but at the many peaceful protests happening throughout our country - and in Georgia. Most of these protests are integrated / and the one in New York appeared almost 'white'. Again, because of the rioting in California (Oakland?), one classifies a whole race? It's like having a confrontation with one white person and labeling that person 'trash'. We use racial slurs to denigrate. Some use negative situations to judge an entire race. Most communities in our country are like Fayetteville in progressing in race relations.
You would find the negative aspect that was not intended. Based on most of your comments on these threads, you just can't help yourself I guess. My comments were intended to be positive. I'm sorry you felt that I was classifying a whole race based on your interpretation of my previous comments. But, I guess that's just how you see things.
Your observation is one reason why sincere people should converse face to face rather than by 'words' only. If we had been in a face to face discussion - we probably would perceive from voice tone, facial expression, etc., if a negative or positive statement was intended. It is important for Americans to 'see' how their words are being interpreted. I sincerely believe that the majority of Americans are not racist - but because in many instances we have been separated/afraid to discuss race with one another - we are having great difficulty dealing with this 'elephant in the room'. One reason some citizens in this county who happen to be African American and live in this county have stopped participating in this discussion is the broad brush that is used to describe African American citizens. Some participants have realized this - and have stopped making such broad generalizations - and the conversation has become far more civil. I can say exactly the same for myself and African American contributors who have made broad brush statements regarding 'white' citizens.
Thank you citizens of Fayette County for being more level-headed than some other communities out there.
I felt your statement regarding Fayette County was welcomed and honest.
I appreciate your honest comments regarding "broad brush statements" and the "generalizations" that come with them. I work in a very diverse environment where everyone truly seems to get along. Thankfully, this hasn't been a problem for anyone, and that is one of the reasons I was able to make my statement regarding the citizens in this county. I'm blessed to work in that type of environment and appreciate it even more when situations such as these arise. However, I still cannot fathom why rioting has to occur in order to make a statement. And, I KNOW that these riots are taking place with diverse participants, not only African Americans and ALL of them are wrong for the actions they have chosen as their form of protest. This is not a comment to demean or "profile" any specific group other than those acting out in such a destructive way, no matter their race, nationality, creed, etc. I sincerely hope that you understand my perspective.
Was not Justice served... Was a trial conducted and a verdict rendered?
So are they seeking Justice or are they seeking vengeance?
To correct perceptions/actions based on an article of clothing and the color of skin of a human that precipitates fear. (And some times the loss of life) This sentiment is not just being expressed in the 'black' communities in our country. It has even been expressed in this discussion. Many feel that this situation should not have happened and want steps to be taken to prevent it from happening again.
Many feel that this situation should not have happened and want steps to be taken to prevent it from happening again.
How do you stop two hot heads from going at it? The courts reviewed the evidence and decided that Zimmerman was "Not Guilty". And while I fully agree that not guilty does not equal innocent it does confer that TM did at least as much to cause his own death as Zimmerman. Sad yes. Worthy of protests no.
We can postulate lots of those but let me try one:
What if, seeing as TM knew he was a stranger in that community, he had
aapproached GZ and said," Hey, I'm TM and currently visiting ---in Apartment/house---, so you'll be seeing me out and about for some time." Immediately defuses any problem that GZ could envision. Then sometimes you're just gonna have two personalities that clash-period.
What if, seeing as TM knew he was a stranger in that community, he had
aapproached GZ and said," Hey, I'm TM and currently visiting ---in Apartment/house---, so you'll be seeing me out and about for some time." Immediately defuses any problem that GZ could envision.
Excellent point. Just remember as someone else out here stated. Only in America can a brown man kill a black man and it be blamed on the white man.
Might have been a different scenario if Mr. Zimmerman had introduced himself as the Neighborhood Watch Coordinator - or better yet, waited for the police to arrive. There are two sides to this story - we have only Mr. Zimmermans side, forensics, and the young lady on the phone. Other than that - it's speculation. Ladies and gentleman - the trial has been held, the verdict is in. The jurors did their job. The citizens of this country want some action (legal) to never put two people in this situation again. Only in America is a citizen identified as black, brown, or white. There were only two men involved in this tragedy. One is both brown and white. Only in America.
In an earlier post you referenced Jeantel's definition of a Crackaa:
Wow! I listened to the entire video. Do you remember the meaning of 'crackaa' that she shared? (Person of authority/security, etc.)
Now you want to claim that TM did not know that GZ was a security person that he was attacking? Which is it? A racist comment or TM knew who he was dealing with? Straight answer. No long comments meant to misdirect please.
...tonight on Channel 2 news a sister in ATL interviewed said a car drove by and shot down her brother, who was not a gang member and had no idea why he was murdered. He was just hanging out on their lawn and was shot.
You won't hear about it ever again, it won't make the national news. The crap happens EVERY day; the Zimmerman/Martin affair is/means NOTHING comparatively, except for being exploited by major news networks for ratings and those others seeking to enrich themselves on the somewhat unique circumstances of the situation. It was sad, it was adjudicated, it is over. Losers, inc. the networks, and small-minded people with ulterior motives are the only reason we still hearing about this.
I agree with you!! I worked for seven years in a community that was well known for gang activity for over two/three generations. The last year of my service in that community, I attended at least two or three funerals a month for families that lost a relative due to gang activity. NOTHING IN THE PAPERS!! Fortunately, gang activity in Los Angeles has decreased - but Chicago is horrendous. If the little girl who was shot in Chicago had not just participated in the inauguration parade, we wouldn't have heard about that tragedy. Looking at the glass half full - this discussion has pointed out that good people can sincerely have different opinions about a subject - and that the 'race' problem in the United States has improved greatly - but there is still the 'elephant in the room' that crops up and should be dealt with.
...as it is media & opportunistic exploitation that makes these sad events such 'national' issues. Certainly race, or more so cultural, relations will always be a concern in such a melting pot that is America, but issues such of this must ALWAYS be contained within the circumstances that they are, and not exacerbated to be an example of the 'whole' issue.
If you look at other countries such as France or Germany, who have recently (i.e. the last 3 decades) allowed for increased immigration, their problems concerning such have increased exponentially. Clashes of culture certainly tend to lend to the problems arising.
...are a result of race baiters seeking not justice and not equality but unequal opportunity in America.
They want SOCIAL Justice not equal justice... Many others are simply ignorant pawns of these hucksters.
verdict was reached. Both the prosecution and the defense had the opportunity to 'strike' prospective jurors. Both the prosecution and defense had the right to present their case, and both did. Both sides were heard, the jury made a decision and that decision was "not guilty." That is our nation's justice system. Why is "justice was not served" when the verdict people want is not received? Remember the O. J. trial? Many, many people were not happy with that verdict but remained lawful, they did not take to the steets with destruction as their goal.. No one used that opportunity to destroy property that others had worked to obtain. Just what gives someone the right to demolish what they had not worked for? To me, it seems like a bunch of thugs just waiting for an excuse to destroy and plunder. None of those injured or who's properties were destroyed had anything in and way shape or form to do with the Zimmerman verdict. And let the bleeding hearts just skip the part where they come in and say they do it because they are downtrodden, etc, etc, etc. They are thugs plain and simple. Why didn't all these people take to the street when a 2 year old was shot in the face for no reason other than the mother had no money to give to the animals who tried to rob her. In that case it truly was a 'baby' but there is no uproar----and that is just one instance. It is sad when anyone loses their live regardles of the situation.