Zimmerman Not Guilty Verdict Turns Reality on its Head: Ralph Schoenman (and vid)
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/07/15/313922/trayvon-martin-case-reek...
"Press TV has conducted an interview with Ralph Schoenman, author and political commentator, Berkeley, about the issue of the case of George Zimmerman..'Black youth are an endangered species in the Unites States. The racism is implicit and the racism is abundant."
I wonder if anyone's researching the possible correlation between an increase in Stand Your Ground laws, and a rise in the number of concealed weapons permits. Perhaps it's become critically problematic, as more Americans feel the need to carry a gun, rather than keep it at home. Are there more guns kept in vehicle glove boxes, than under bedroom pillows, nowadays?
that's a really interesting question AW. The idea of protection being increasing the amount of guns people are allowed to have is a strange one...
did you need it's legal in Tennessee to have concealed weapons in bars (and Arizona, Virginia and Georgia)?
I wonder what would have happened if Trayvon Martin had been carrying a gun, and had shot Zimmerman in self defense after being stalked. Would he have been standing his ground? Would he be viewed as a right wing hero?
I wonder what would have happened if Trayvon Martin had been carrying a gun, and had shot Zimmerman in self defense after being stalked. Would he have been standing his ground? Would he be viewed as a right wing hero?
Lol..He d be given the death penalty.
So why didn't the prosecution raise race as a factor in the killing?
Quite probably they didn't do so because the FBI had already concluded that race was not a motivating factor.
After interviewing nearly three dozen people in the George Zimmerman murder case, the FBI found no evidence that racial bias was a motivating factor in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, records released Thursday show.Even the lead detective in the case, Sanford Det. Chris Serino, told agents that he thought Zimmerman profiled Trayvon because of his attire and the circumstances — but not his race.
Serino saw Zimmerman as “having little hero complex, but not as a racist.”
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/12/155918/more-evidence-released-in-t...
why didn't the prosecution raise race as a factor in the killing?
An even more basic question is why the prosecution didn't fight to select a jury that was more representative?
why didn't the prosecution raise race as a factor in the killing?An even more basic question is why the prosecution didn't fight to select a jury that was more representative?
The cynic in me says that the prosecution felt that a jury composed of women would be more likely to feel sympathy towards Martin so the advantage was theirs, not the defense's.
a report on CNN a while ago with a US jury specialist, who said the gender mix probably not a factor; their personal characteristics counted more:
one on a neighbourhood watch program, another a permit holder for a handgun, a third had a personal security incident, etc.;
and apparently the interim jury vote was 3-3 for/against acquittal, with the 3 dissenters changing their votes ...
why didn't the prosecution raise race as a factor in the killing?An even more basic question is why the prosecution didn't fight to select a jury that was more representative?
Also, [url=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/07/zi... did they seat juror B37?[/url]
Robert Weisberg teaches criminal law at Stanford Law School, and he immediately wonders what it meant when juror B37 asserted that “You never get all the information. How do you form an opinion if you don’t have all the information?" Weisberg sums up his lawyerly concerns in one sentence: “She thinks the world is one big reasonable doubt.”Gail Brashers-Krug, a former federal prosecutor and law professor, is currently a criminal defense attorney in Iowa. She also jumped back when B37 said, ”You never get all the information.“ “That's exactly what a defense attorney loves to hear,” says Brashers-Krug. “That's reasonable doubt, right there. If I were a prosecutor, that would make me extremely nervous about her.”
Brashers-Krug has another reservation about seating B37: “She really wants to be a juror. She seems to be going out of her way to minimize the disruptive effect of a multiweek trial on her life. Jurors rarely do that. She is also taking pains to avoid saying anything particularly sympathetic to either side. Both sides tend to be very skeptical of jurors who are particularly eager to serve on high-profile cases. Often they have their own agendas, or are attention-seekers.”
Todrick, if you can't see that this man hunted and killed a black teenager and walked free, you don't belong on these forums. Please don't post in this thread again. Thanks.
Catchfire, Todrick was reporting the verdict. The jury obviously didn't see the case as "hunted and killed a black teenager", otherwise Zimmerman would have been found guilty. They saw it as self-defense, which is why he was acquitted.
Don't you think it might be a good idea to back off from asserting your unsubstantiated opinion as truth and banishing people? I think babble would be a better place if George Victor and Fidel (to name two) still posted, but you have driven them away.
ygtbk, thanks for your post and I appreciate the respectful tone. I don't agree that Todrick was simply reporting on the case -- imo he was insulting and denigrating the righteous anger to (either) an unjust system or an unjust verdict. I don't think "mob mentality" and "lynching" language is helpful, and it certainly does not lend itself to producing an acceptable tenor of discussion. Many others have said that Florida's law prevented Zimmerman from being convicted, and others have said that race is not a factor. They weren't asked to leave the discussion.
As for Fidel and George, I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
@Catchfire - well, it was intended to be semi-respectful, but horseshoes and hand grenades...
And yes, we disagree on some things.
And the process will continue until GZ is found guilty of something:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/os-george-zimmerman-doj-investigation,0,4338518.story
Apart from the usual contrarians, I find the MSM mostly reflective of the popular outrage at the verdict.
Apart from the usual contrarians, I find the MSM mostly reflective of the popular outrage at the verdict.
That's probably because the general public bought into the original NBC's claim that this was all about race. Absent the MSM's feeding frenzy and attempts to build this into a race case (with the attendant increase in sales) this would never have made the front page let alone dominated them for months.
It is about race. It's also about Truth, Justice, and The American Way vs the law. We'll see how Clark Kent, and his colleagues at The Daily Planet, shape the narrative.
And the process will continue until GZ is found guilty of something:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/os-george-zimmerman-doj-investigation,0,4338518.story
I certainly hope you're right, since he is in fact guilty of an innocent teenager's death. And nobody has to "make" this into a race case. This was all about race from the word go. Trying to cut the race angle out of it is cutting the whole incident away. It leaves you looking at a frame with no picture in it. Which, of course, allows you to see anything you want.
And the process will continue until GZ is found guilty of something:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/os-george-zimmerman-doj-investigation,0,4338518.story
I certainly hope you're right, since he is in fact guilty of an innocent teenager's death. And nobody has to "make" this into a race case. This was all about race from the word go. Trying to cut the race angle out of it is cutting the whole incident away. It leaves you looking at a frame with no picture in it. Which, of course, allows you to see anything you want.
Since he was found not guilty your statement is factually challenged.
So why didn't the prosecution raise race as a factor in the killing?Quite probably they didn't do so because the FBI had already concluded that race was not a motivating factor.
After interviewing nearly three dozen people in the George Zimmerman murder case, the FBI found no evidence that racial bias was a motivating factor in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, records released Thursday show.Even the lead detective in the case, Sanford Det. Chris Serino, told agents that he thought Zimmerman profiled Trayvon because of his attire and the circumstances — but not his race.
Serino saw Zimmerman as “having little hero complex, but not as a racist.”
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/12/155918/more-evidence-released-in-t...
I'm guessing you didn't read the link I provided. Geez, cops who wouldn't even lay charges after telling Zimmerman to stay put didn't think race was a factor. Gosh!
why didn't the prosecution raise race as a factor in the killing?An even more basic question is why the prosecution didn't fight to select a jury that was more representative?
Because the prosecution was throwing the case under the bus. One black teen sacrificed to the greater good of white supremacy.
Since he was found not guilty your statement is factually challenged.
No, it would be factually challenged if I said he was found guilty in a court of law, but that's not what I said. I said he IS guilty. This is a moral judgement that I am making based on my own moral faculties. This may surprise you but some people don't defer to the authorities when deciding right and wrong. Some people can make their own minds up about these matters. Good thing too, as history is littered with examples of unjust sentences. If we all just took our cues from authority then society would never progress.
Since he was found not guilty your statement is factually challenged.
No, it would be factually challenged if I said he was found guilty in a court of law, but that's not what I said. I said he IS guilty. This is a moral judgement that I am making based on my own moral faculties. This may surprise you but some people don't defer to the authorities when deciding right and wrong. Some people can make their own minds up about these matters. Good thing too, as history is littered with examples of unjust sentences. If we all just took our cues from authority then society would never progress.
Well if guilty just means what YOU think means guilty, who am I to disagree? But that's not what it means in consensus reality.
"
The system failed him when the bullet ripped through his chest, and the man who shot him said he mounted him and stretched his arms out wide, preventing him from even clutching the spot that hurt.
The system failed him in those moments just after he was shot when he was surely aware that he was about to die, but before life’s light fully passed from his body — and no one came to comfort him or try to save him.
The system failed him when the slapdash Sanford police did a horrible job of collecting and preserving evidence.
The system failed him when those officers apparently didn’t even value his dead body enough to adequately canvass the complex to make sure that no one was missing a teen.
The system failed him when he was labeled a John Doe and his lifeless body spent the night alone and unclaimed."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/opinion/the-whole-system-failed.html?s...
"The system failed him when the bullet ripped through his chest, and the man who shot him said he mounted him and stretched his arms out wide, preventing him from even clutching the spot that hurt.
The system failed him in those moments just after he was shot when he was surely aware that he was about to die, but before life’s light fully passed from his body — and no one came to comfort him or try to save him.
The system failed him when the slapdash Sanford police did a horrible job of collecting and preserving evidence.
The system failed him when those officers apparently didn’t even value his dead body enough to adequately canvass the complex to make sure that no one was missing a teen.
The system failed him when he was labeled a John Doe and his lifeless body spent the night alone and unclaimed."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/opinion/the-whole-system-failed.html?s...
"The system did NOT fail in the case of #TrayvonMartin It worked just as it is SUPPOSED to work. It's called institutionalized racism. #FB" --Mitchell Plitnick
Well if guilty just means what YOU think means guilty, who am I to disagree? But that's not what it means in consensus reality.
There is no consensus my semantic trolly friend.
And, this must be the reality part:
Well if guilty just means what YOU think means guilty, who am I to disagree? But that's not what it means in consensus reality.
Am I to assume that your definition of "consensus reality" is "whatever authority figures tell me"? Because if you have some other means by which you make moral judgements, then I don't see the distinction between us. If you don't have any other means by which you make moral judgements, then I pity you.
This man was also found not guilty in a court of law.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Jury-acquits-escort-...
Do you agree that he did nothing wrong?
I have a problem with this article. It needs to be be edited.
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/krystalline-kraus/2013/07/trayvon-martins-killer-walks-free
There are way better rebuttals out there. This is weaksauce. You can do better.
Well if guilty just means what YOU think means guilty, who am I to disagree? But that's not what it means in consensus reality.
Am I to assume that your definition of "consensus reality" is "whatever authority figures tell me"? Because if you have some other means by which you make moral judgements, then I don't see the distinction between us. If you don't have any other means by which you make moral judgements, then I pity you.
If you want to redefine "guilty" to mean "found morally culpable by Jacob Two-Two, no matter what the jury verdict was", feel free. I do not regulate your morals. However, in consensus reality he was found not guilty by the jury. And that's not that hard to understand.
After Trayvon: 40 Reasons To Hit The Streets
http://www.countercurrents.org/mickeyz160713.htm
"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them." - Frederick Douglass
So why didn't the prosecution raise race as a factor in the killing?Quite probably they didn't do so because the FBI had already concluded that race was not a motivating factor.
After interviewing nearly three dozen people in the George Zimmerman murder case, the FBI found no evidence that racial bias was a motivating factor in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, records released Thursday show.Even the lead detective in the case, Sanford Det. Chris Serino, told agents that he thought Zimmerman profiled Trayvon because of his attire and the circumstances — but not his race.
Serino saw Zimmerman as “having little hero complex, but not as a racist.”
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/07/12/155918/more-evidence-released-in-t...
I'm guessing you didn't read the link I provided. Geez, cops who wouldn't even lay charges after telling Zimmerman to stay put didn't think race was a factor. Gosh!
The cops did not "tell" Zimmerman to stay put. It was a 911 operator and she told Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that". A very different thing.
The operator had no authority to tell Zimmerman to do anything.
BTW, the cops that refused to arrest Zimmerman in the first place were the local police, not the FBI - that was a separate investigation.
BTW, the cops that refused to arrest Zimmerman in the first place were the local police, not the FBI - that was a separate investigation.
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanford_Police_Department_%28Florida%29#Mis...'s have a look at Sanford police:[/url]
Press reports have indicated a number of cases of misconduct by officers of the Sanford Police Department.
In 2010, a Florida Department of Law Enforcement report noted that Sanford police Officer Christopher McClendon had misused his official position by helping a car dealer recover cars from delinquent customers in exchange for having his own car payments forgiven.[22]
In February 2010, press reports indicated one officer was fired, and another, Ned Golden, Jr., was suspended for two weeks[23] after sending sexist and racist text messages on a department computer.[24]
In January, 2011, the same Officer Golden was assigned to retraining after approaching a car of people at a gas station with a drawn gun. Officer Golden grabbed the car when it pulled away. He then claimed the driver of the car tried to kill him by driving away while he held on to the car.[25] No charges were filed in the case. In August 2011, after an investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Golden was fired. The state report recommended he be charged with filing a false police report, official misconduct and assault with a deadly weapon.[26] No charges were filed by the State Attorney's Office.[27]
Officer Golden is the son of the head of the local police union.[24]
In that same month, the chief of the department, Brian Tooley, took an early retirement as a result of an incident involving one of his officer’s sons. Justin Collison was involved in a fistfight caught on video tape. Press reports indicate Collison, the son of a police lieutenant, may have received preferential treatment by the Sanford Police Department.[28]
In April 2011, Officer DeAnthony Shamar was fired when it was discovered he had used a boy scout as a proxy buyer in a drug investigation. In his nine years as a Sanford police officer, Shamar had been investigated by the department 25 times.[29]
In December 2012, Officer Stephan Santiago was charged with leaving the scene of an accident after a chase that culminated with him driving his car the wrong way on the street, bumping off the curbs several times. Santiago passed a field sobriety test and the police department promised an internal investigation. The same officer had been involved in a barroom brawl in 2008.[30]
And the fact that the police didn't even arrest him at the time doesn't strike you as wrong? People have gone to trial for seriously injuring or killing people in legitimate cases of self-defence. You come across a scene with a man with a gun and another person dead, and it doesn't cross your mind to take the guy in?
why didn't the prosecution raise race as a factor in the killing?An even more basic question is why the prosecution didn't fight to select a jury that was more representative?
The cynic in me says that the prosecution felt that a jury composed of women would be more likely to feel sympathy towards Martin so the advantage was theirs, not the defense's.
What I meant was why the prosecution didn't push for a jury that was at least half black? OJ Simpson had 2 trials, and the racial composition of each trial was different. The black jury found in his favour, the wite jury against.
BAR: Trayvon and White Madness - by Glen Ford
http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/trayvon-and-white-madness
"Racism is a form of mental illness, in which the afflicted perceive things that aren't there, and are blind to that which is right in front of their eyes."
Question:::: If Zimmerman had not been armed how many people here think he would have gotten out of his truck and had the guts to approach Trayvon?
We all know now he wasn't much of a fighter eh?
Give some guys a gun and they grow a set of balls and a backbone!!!
Question:::: If Zimmerman had not been armed how many people here think he would have gotten out of his truck and had the guts to approach Trayvon?
We all know now he wasn't much of a fighter eh?
Give some guys a gun and they grow a set of balls and a backbone!!!
He would have just hit the kid with his truck.
In North American there is no such thing as "warning shots". Even the police don't fire warning shots.
In the case of the Flordia mother going to her vehicle to get a pistol then bringing it back in the house and firing it with kids around wouldn't have in my opinion sounded like warning shots at all to a jury.
While the warning shot case does, in my opinion, make the racism in the Zimmerman case prett damn glaring, I agree that I don't sympathize too much with someone "just firing a few warning shots off."
Canadians Show Anger at Zimmerman Verdict (and vid)
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/07/18/314420/canadians-show-anger-at-...
"With candles, hoodies, signs and anger, hundreds came to downtown Montreal's Square Philips in solidarity with the Trayvon Martin family and to speak out on what they believe was an obvious injustice..."
If you want to redefine "guilty" to mean "found morally culpable by Jacob Two-Two, no matter what the jury verdict was", feel free. I do not regulate your morals. However, in consensus reality he was found not guilty by the jury. And that's not that hard to understand.
No, it's very easy to understand, and yet I still went out of my way to explain that I was talking about something different.
"No, it would be factually challenged if I said he was found guilty in a court of law, but that's not what I said. I said he IS guilty. This is a moral judgement that I am making based on my own moral faculties."
What I am saying is just as easy to understand and still you are confusing what I'm talking about. There is a distinction between a verdict in a court of law and your own moral judgements. At least, there is for all of us who have autonomy of thought.
Funny that you quoted my questions and then ignored them. I'll ask again:
Is there any other criteria for you when making moral judgements besides what is dictated to you by authority figures?
Do you think the people in the links I provided, both of whom were found innocent in a court of law, are guilty of anything?
I think the evidence presented to the jury required a not guilty verdict. Since the defense had evidence that showed that Zimmerman suffered injuries at the hands of Martin that could have left Zimmerman in fear of sustaining significant bodily harm, the state had to provide very persuasive evidence that showed that Zimmerman had done something to Martin that justifiably caused Martin to strike Zimmerman. If Zimmerman had not received possibly significant wounds to his head, the state would have been justified taking the case to trial with the evidence they had and would have most likely convicted Zimmerman. The state would also have had a strong case if there had been evidence of injuries to Martin, other than the fatal shot. But the state had no such evidence. Since the burden of proof falls to the state, the state had to address the phorensic evidence that showed that Zimmerman suffered physical injuries while Martin's only injury was the fatal one. That being said I also feel that if Trayvon had been white and Zimmerman black, an African-American Zimmerman would have been unjustly convicted.
Funny that you quoted my questions and then ignored them. I'll ask again:
Is there any other criteria for you when making moral judgements besides what is dictated to you by authority figures?
Do you think the people in the links I provided, both of whom were found innocent in a court of law, are guilty of anything?
To the first question, yes. If I were a juror and thought the defendant was being charged under an unjust law, I would vote to acquit.
To the second question: in the links you provided, both men were found not guilty. The acquittal of the second man is more morally offensive to me than the acquittal of the first man. This suggests to me that the Texas stand-your-ground law should be changed to prevent its use in cases of criminal activity.
Since GZ's acquittal was not based on stand your ground, but rather on self defense, I think that the links you cite, although sad, are of limited relevance.
They only seem of limited relevance because you are studiously avoiding my point. As you say, both verdicts are morally offensive to some degree. This means that you consider these men guilty of something, though the court does not. For any autonomous individual there is a distinction to be made between the official verdicts of the court and our own moral judgements. So for me to say I consider George Zimmerman guilty of murder, as a moral judgement, is not incorrect, because it is separate and distinct from the judgements of the court. Heaven help us all if that was not the case.
They only seem of limited relevance because you are studiously avoiding my point.
You are actually making two distinct points:
a) A moral judgement is not the same as a legal verdict. (I agree with you on this point)
b) You are therefore entitled to call people guilty who have been found not guilty. (I think this is an abuse of language)
So for me to say I consider George Zimmerman guilty of murder, as a moral judgement, is not incorrect, because it is separate and distinct from the judgements of the court. Heaven help us all if that was not the case.
I have no problem with your statement in this formulation. It's when you elide the "Jacob Two-Two, as a moral judgement, regardless of the legal verdict, considers..." part that I think you are misusing the language.
They only seem of limited relevance because you are studiously avoiding my point. As you say, both verdicts are morally offensive to some degree. This means that you consider these men guilty of something, though the court does not. For any autonomous individual there is a distinction to be made between the official verdicts of the court and our own moral judgements. So for me to say I consider George Zimmerman guilty of murder, as a moral judgement, is not incorrect, because it is separate and distinct from the judgements of the court. Heaven help us all if that was not the case.
I agree, people must always be free to express their opinion that a jury's verdict was wrong.
According to the evidence in this case, where do you think the jury went wrong in it's verdict?
Never mind.
[url=http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/juror-says-george-zimmerman-... Says ‘George Zimmerman Got Away With Murder’[/url]
[url=http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/juror-says-george-zimmerman-... Says ‘George Zimmerman Got Away With Murder’[/url]
In the interview that will air on "Good Morning America," Maddy said that she and the jurors followed Florida law and the evidence put forth was not sufficient to prove murder. And for that, she said, Zimmerman walked.
Pretty much puts paid to the issue.
Pretty much proves the law is not justice. Fascist laws for a fascist country.
@kropotkin: certainly the War on Drugs and NSA surveillance are troubling signs for the U.S., but are you suggesting a weaker burden of proof is appropriate for a murder charge?
