The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Wattree's picture

    Save Your Breath, Zimmerman Supporters - The Black Community Know You Better Than You Know Yourselves

    The vast majority of people in this country - both Black, White, and others - are good people. While we all have a strain of racism in us, it’s not a conscious racism, and most of us of normal intelligence are engaged in a constant internal struggle to eradicate it when we recognize it in ourselves. What makes it such a struggle is we’re constantly inundated by it in this country, and the reason we try so desperately to weed it out is, being of normal intelligence, we see it for what it is - a form of gross stupidity.

    But as a Black man - one who has three mixed grandsons, including Eric Wattree III, and a daughter-n-law who is so pure in her White heritage that she makes Mitt Romney look like an Angolan immigrant - I’ve found the debate over the George Zimmerman verdict very enlightening. I used to think that racism was a choice, but now I see that there is a group of people, of normally good conscience, in this country whose racist strain is so innate to who they are that they are completely blind to it. They don’t intend to be racist, nevertheless, their racist attitudes and assumptions seep all the way to their bone marrow. We’ve seen a clear example of that in the Zimmerman verdict.
    .
    It takes either racism or a complete lack of common sense not to clearly recognize that racism played a huge role in both George Zimmerman’s motives, and his intent. First, the only thing that caught Zimmerman’s attention about Trayvon Martin was the fact that he was a Black male. Secondly, Zimmerman contacted 911 more than 40 times, and virtually every call involved Black males. Third, Zimmerman was instructed to remain in his car, and he ignored those instructions. Fourth, Zimmerman claimed he murdered Trayvon in self-defense, but regardless to what took place after he approached Trayvon, Zimmerman had to approach Trayvon to place himself in a position to require him to have to defend himself. And fifth, Zimmerman claimed that he had to resort to lethal force because Trayvon, who weighed 40 pounds less than him, was banging his head against the concrete so vigorously that it caused him to fear for his life. Yet, all he had to show for this brutal assault were a few scratches, not the huge lumps on his head that you would expect from a person whose head had been banged against concrete.
    .
    Thus, I feel safe in saying that no parent in America - Black or White - would find that anywhere close to a justifiable excuse for the murder of their child - a child who was doing nothing more criminal than going to the store to get a bag of Skittles. So I submit that it takes either gross racism or gross stupidity to accept such a story as a justification for murder.
    .
    In order for people to accept such a story they have to be of the following mindset:
    1). Simply because Trayvon was Black that was an acceptable reason for Zimmerman to suspect him of criminal activity.
    2). Again, because Trayvon was Black, he posed a serious enough threat to the community to justify Zimmerman ignoring police instructions to remain in his car.
    3). Since Trayvon was Black, they should ignore the fact that Zimmerman actually approached him in the first place.
    4) Since Trayvon was Black, it was the height of audacity for him to think he had the right to defend himself after being confronted by a man who wasn’t a police officer, and who didn’t have any visible sign of authority.
    .
    If the above seems reasonable to you, you're a racist - period.
    .
    If we accept that as the standard for justice in this country, that could cause murder-for-hire to overtake drug dealing as an easy source of disposable income. What’s to prevent some woman’s boyfriend from dragging her husband in an alley, blowing his brains out, and then calling the police and claiming self-defense? Or what’s to prevent a robber from killing his victim to cover his crime, and then calling the police and claiming he was attacked? Thus, the standard that Zimmerman was freed on was absolutely ridiculous - and clearly racist in nature.
    .
    An assault is an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. So just by following, and then walking up to Trayvon at night constituted was an assault, because you don't have to put your hands on a person for it to constitute an assault. Putting you hands on them is assault and battery. An assault is merely placing them in fear for their well being. So it was Trayvon who had the right to defend himself. If the exact same scenario had taken place, but it had been a Black man who killed a White kid, the Black man would undoubtedly already be on Death Row - for first degree murder.
    .


    But Black people are used to such ridiculous standards being applied to them, because many Americans, when it comes to self-serving comfort of racism, have a pronounced blind spot - and it’s historic in nature. The blind arrogance of many Americans is absolutely astounding - and then they’ll say things like, "There you go playing the race card again!" Of course we are, because you’re a racist, idiot!
    .
    How in the hell can a White person even presume to tell a Black man about racism, and the state of racism in America? They have absolutely no idea what America looks like through the eyes of a Black man. George Zimmerman stalked an unarmed Black child, who was minding his own business, AFTER being told by the police to stay in his car, then shot and killed him. That’s murder, regardless to how you slice it - Period.
    .
    Now, I love this country, but I don’t suffer any illusions about what it represents. But if you relate the truth about this country to some White folks - especially conservatives - they’re so blind to reality that they’ll call you un-American, regardless to how many facts you bring to bear. The reason for that is, as Americans, we’re expected to adhere to an unspoken agreement to perpetuate the American myth.
    .
    But the easily demonstrable fact is, the United States is one of the most racist countries on the face of the Earth - and it always has been. All this "freedom and justice for all" was a lie when it was written, and it's still a lie.
    .
    Again, Americans have a delusional blind spot when it comes to this country. We condemned Hitler for killing 6 million Jews, but we conveniently ignore the fact that Americans killed over 100 million Native Americans - and some historians place the number at closer 300 million. We call Al Qaeda unconscionable terrorists for killing three thousand Americans, then we trot right over to Iraq and kill over one million innocent women and children - and for absolutely nothing! Then we talk about the war against terrorism, but we're the only country on Earth that has dropped not one, but two, atomic bombs on Japan - one each, on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing and maiming thousands of innocent men, women, children, cute little puppies, and cuddly little kittens.
    .


    Yeah, I know - we were at war with Japan. But we were at war with the Japanese government, not innocent noncombatants, and terrorism is defined as "the killing of innocent noncombatants for political purposes." So based on that definition, the United States is the most brutal and prolific terrorist nation in the history of mankind - and I didn't even mention the atrocities committed during slavery, the Jim Crow years, and during WWII when Black war heroes were forced to give up their seats on the train for Nazi prisoners of war.
    .
    So George Zimmerman supporters can talk until their mouths are dry about why he was justified in killing that innocent child, but they’re not fooling the Black community for one second. Because contrary to what they’ve obviously convinced themselves to believe, being a minority and being dumb is far from synonymous, so we know them much better than they obviously know themselves.
    .
    Eric L. Wattree
    Http://wattree.blogspot.com
    [email protected]
    Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)
    .
    Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

    Comments

    Thanks

    Black parents send their male children out every with the understanding how not to be perceived as a threat. A Black male may find that by Calling 911 when you suspect a threat against your person, may wind up with you as the one being questioned. Milwaukee police laughed when it was suggested that Dahmer was harming Black males. Diallo was gunned down by police. Officer Friendly might just not be your friend. Black youth feel that they are left to fend for themselves.Involving the police my increase the treat level for a Black male teen.the teen may be pulled down to the station or assaulted for protesting their innocence. A hoodie, Skittles and canned ice tea make you a threat. Trayvon did what he could to protect himself from a thug with a history of assaulting a police officer and who had a former girlfriend file a restraining order.

    The attempts to justify this miscarriage of justice are irritating.


    There was a multiracial response protesting the Zimmerman verdict. 


    Good post, Wattree. Thanks.


    Well Eric 'we' did not kill 300 million Native Americans; at least intentionally.

    We brought viruses and such from the 'old country'.

    But we and I mean we including General Jackson decimated what populations were left in this country following 'our' entry into this continent three hundred years prior. And we did it intentionally.

    I am not going to rant here as I usually do.

    But damn, I don't care if its Coulter or Rush or Beck or FOX...I have not witnessed such racist bullshite on cable or the web for a long long time.

    I saw many Black commentators on cable just reciting the rules that they feel they must give their children following this terrible verdict.

    I know that there are those who would go back to the OJ debacle; but damn. I mean a guy with a gun entered a fist fight. And that is assuming all the facts in evidence at the trial.

    I have nothing against the cook on Food Channel. She claims she even voted for President Obama.

    But listen to folks like Steve King and Senator Cruz and a hundred other repubs and they miss the point regarding racial relations in this country.

    And the defense attorney for Zimmerman all of a sudden sounded like a KKK leader.

    He said that if Zimmerman had been killed, Trayvon would never have been charged.

    WHAT A GODDAMNABLE LIE THAT IS!

    See, I get so mad.

    And the 'riots' threatened by FOX  and a hundred other pundits. There are no riots.

    There are middle class Blacks advising their children that the odds are against them and to stop wearing 'hoodies' and never talk back to a copper!

    I hear your rage.

    And I am so very sorry.


    I never talk back to a copper, it's safer that way. YES SIR is what I say, then I have my opportunity in court, to make them look like asses.  


    And the coppers as you put them are who Martin was supposed to rely on for safety?

     


    I have seen figures and stats telling me that 30% or more of Black 'youths' have been arrested and most of them convicted.

    The percentage of Blacks or even Hispanics who are 'caught with drugs' are prosecuted to the extreme and whites are not!

    Take a look at the Rolling Stones fiasco in London fifty years ago for chrissakes.

    I will tell you what; I am white and if my kids were little I would make sure they do not talk back to coppers or wear hoodies at night.

    We ask the question:

    Why are a majority of prisoners and parolees and probationees people of another race?

    Yeah we are racist as a country.

    Why have not the current Administration set up pardon boards all over this nation to cut back on prisoners?

    That's all I got.

    Except 30 or 200 people should not be the only number receiving Executive Clemency in this country or in any one state.

    We should be pardoning thousands upon thousands of folks every damn month.

    okay, that is enough!


    Thank you,

    But you don’t have to apologize. One of the things that I hate most about situations like this, other than the obvious is the guilt that the average White person feels about incidents like this. This is not a White problem; this is an idiot problem. So if there’s any feelings of guilt involved, ALL people of good conscious, Black and White, should feel it, because we’re in the majority, and we’re ALL allowing it to happen.

    The problem is, we as the majority, have allowed ourselves to become so distracted that we’re allowing a handful of idiots destroy this nation - and that’s the way it has always been in every society. The vast majority of people in Germany were not Nazis, but they just sat on their hands and let a handful of idiots take over their country.

    So we need to turn off MTV, BET, and ESPN, and begin to focus on the things that are important to our well being. I tell people that all the time, but they tell me that I take things too seriously, and I need to loosen up a bit and enjoy life. But I’ve always found it funny that when the boots show up at their door, they’re ringing my phone off the hook trying to get my help. People need to wake up BEFORE they hear the boots at their door, and I fear that America is going to find that out the hard way. Because what many of these Zimmerman supporters don’t realize is Trayvon wasn’t just the son of Black people, he was the son of all of the poor and middle class in this country - and that's even after Mitt Romney slipped and told them. So that idiot, Zimmerman, is too dumb to realize, that he's guilty of fratricide.

     


    I've been thinking about this trial and thinking about the intense public reactions that accompany sensational trials in general. Eric, I don't dispute that a guilty man went free. Nor do I dispute your eloquent argument that white America has a blind spot when it comes to race.

    But I wonder if your generalized charge of racism is too simplistic. For many Americans, I doubt that bigotry in the classic sense drives their views of the trial. I suspect that it's not so much race prejudice as race bias.

    This is a little difficult to explain, so please bear with me. When it comes to violent crime, people tend to respond most strongly when they can identify with the victims. When a middle-class white person dies in a random act of violence--say a terrorist attack--middle-class white people freak out. They think to themselves, "That could be me!" or "That could be my kid!" and they get scared.

    They don't react nearly as strongly when a black kid dies in a gang shooting--even an innocent child. Is that because they don't like black people? I doubt it. Is it because they value white lives more than black lives. In a way, but I would be careful about reading too much into that. I suspect that many simply can't imagine themselves or their children in the victim's place, so the crime doesn't provoke their fears. That attitude is technically racist but not in the old white supremacist way. It's also pretty hard to avoid, no matter what race you are or how liberal your opinions.

    One consequence of this tendency is that in crimes involving two people of different races, opinions invariably break down along race lines--on both sides. Consider the OJ Simpson trial. A large section of the population--predominantly white--was certain that OJ was guilty. Another large section--predominantly black--was certain that he was innocent. Were all these people bigots? I doubt it. But I suspect that blacks could more easily identify with OJ, while whites could more easily identify with Nicole, and that led them to interpret the events in a biased way.

    I could offer you many other examples involving race or religion or ethnicity in countries all over the world, but I think you get the point.

    Coming back to the topic, I expect that blacks are more likely to look at Martin and say, "That could have been my kid!" while whites are more likely to look at Zimmerman and say, "That could have been me!" And those identifications make them far more likely to interpret the events one way or the other.

    Now I don't excuse such thinking. Anyone who cannot acknowledge the likelihood that Zimmerman was the aggressor is guilty of bias. But bias is not the same as bigotry. And I worry that tarring every biased American as a bigot is unfair, even counterproductive. It might be better to help people recognize their biases rather than broadly brush them as bigots.


    I've been calling what you describe, tribalism. I agree that it's a little bit different than old-style bigotry, but not all that much. I know a lot of white people - many of my siblings for instance - that have grown up with a few black, brown and asian friends and bristle at being called racist. But while they accept those friends as members of their tribe, they are still very hostile - in a Fox News sense - towards other blacks, hispanics, and maybe even asians, though asians aren't often played up as being scary.


    Tribalism is a good word for the phenomenon. I imagine that it's not wholly distinct from white supremacy, just one end of the spectrum.


    Just to be clear, while I acknowledge the likelihood that Zimmerman was the aggressor, I don't know that the likelihood goes beyond a reasonable doubt. That's why, as with the OJ Simpson case, a civil suit might find justice where a criminal suit did not.


    I was asserting the likelihood that he was the aggressor, not the stronger case that the crime was beyond reasonable doubt. I do not know how I would have voted had I been on the jury.


    Racists Convicted Trayvon of Not Being Able To Prove Why He Deserved to Live

    Zimmerman Supporters are suggesting that no one point out evidence of racism - whether that racism was intentional or not - while at the same time, accepting the fact that it goes without saying that because Trayvon was a young Black male that Zimmerman was justified in his assumption that he constituted a threat to the community. What is that if it isn’t racism?

    Clear Evidence of that is the fact that most Zimmerman supporters are accepting the murderer's version of events - a murderer, I might add, who has been caught in several inconsistencies. Why would they do that? If a guy is arrested for shooting someone in an alley, would they blindly accept the murderer’s word that the victim attacked him? If so, what's to prevent every murderer from claiming that he was being attacked. So if every murderer was treated with the same deference that George Zimmerman was treated, the only way to convict anyone of murder would be with an independent eye witness.

    We have no evidence to suggest that Trayvon did any of the things that Zimmerman claimed. Yet, Zimmerman supporters are claiming that we have to prove Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Well, it had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman initiated a chain of events that ended in the death of an innocent kid. So it is up to Zimmerman to prove that there were mitigating circumstances that made the murder of an unarmed child justified. But instead, they convicted Trayvon - who was guilty of nothing more than going to the store - of not being able to prove he had a right to live. How is that not racism?

    http://www.thestate.com/2013/07/10/2856356/sc-supreme-court-stops-murder...


    I agree with every word you said, but the pictures are IMHO completely over the top and inflammatory.  I just object to the pictures you posted because they do nothing to make those who are not already distressed, see your point of view and in fact, give them ammunition (!) to attack your hyperbole (ie. this was not an organized lynching- it was a cluster-fuck)

    I won't say more, except that I am unable to get over my anger and sense of impotence at this murder and its aftermath. 

     


    I agree with CVille about the pictures. They distract from your words and from your point.


    Cville,

    They were pictures that reflect the American blind spot. Of course people don’t want to see them, and of course they’re over the top, but more often than not, those things that we would rather avoid are exactly what we need to see. People don’t want to see them because they are a part of the "unspoken agreement" among Americans to perpetuate the American myth. But I don’t call my column "Beneath the Spin" for nothing:

    About Blatant Racism Disguised as an Honest Disagreement

           "It is truly sad how many people try to disguise their racism as an honest disagreement. What do you think the chances are AGAINST Rush Limbaugh thinking that Zimmerman was guilty? If such incidents were merely an honest disagreement, why is it always so predictable what side of the disagreement you will ALWAYS find conservatives? In addition, the primary reason that they are on the side that they are is because, in this case, they're willing to take the murderer's word, and demonize the victim.

    "I'd be willing to bet my home that if Zimmerman had been Black, and Trayvon had been White, most conservatives would be on the other side of this debate. So if you think that this is merely a simple disagreement, you're in denial. No? Name me just one time when Rush Limbaugh was on the side of Black people.

    "Take your time and search. I'm very patient."      

     


    Wattree, I understand what you're trying to do with the pictures, but I don't think it's effective. Instead of persuading people of your point--that Americans have a blind spot--the pictures tend to cause people to discount your words, which are far more persuasive than the pictures.


    Indeed, that was my point.  We are not all (in fact most of us are not) followers of  Rush L.  My point was that if Wattree wants to appeal to anyone with any sensibility at all it does no good to first accuse them of being immune to what those horrific pictures represent. 

    In fact, just reprinting several of Resitance's posts would capture the mind-set of those who are tone- deaf to race issues, without the grotesque pictures here that really have nothing to do with this case. 


    I gotta add one more note:

    From his first words, I was riveted. When he talked about the “fierce urgency of now” and “meeting physical force with soul force,” about his “dream rooted in the American dream,” that “sons of former slaves and sons of former slave owners will sit at the table of brotherhood,” that children would “not be judged on the color of their skin but the content of their character,” and “little black boys and little black girls will join hands with white boys and white girls as brothers and sisters,” chills ran up my arms. When the throng burst into “We Shall Overcome,” I stood in my basement, all alone, and sang with them: “We shall overcome some day.”


    Richard,

    That's happening all over America today. Black and White and people like you and I have more in common with one another in many ways than either of us have in common with our grandparents. So America is right on course.

    I first noticed it when my son was a little boy. One night he was telling me about a friend of his. Then the next morning when I dropped him off at school, he pointed him out to me. There one little Hispanic kid in a group of Black kids. But instead of my son saying the Mexican boy, he said the one in the red sweater. Being a psychology major at the time, I was immediately struck by that.

    Then later, when my daughter was about to enter high school and my son was in his last year of junior high school, and I move them into the suburbs to try get them away from the crack epidemic that was raging in Los Angeles, we were one of just a handful of Black families in the area, so I was very concerned. But my daughter became vice president of the student body, Homecoming Queen, they were both basketball stars, and their little clique became the "in group" of the entire area - and my livingroom used to look like a United Nations Assembly. They chose their friend based on character, and to this day they seem to be totally oblivious to race.

    I have three mixed grandsons, so if they fall in love with White girls, I’ll have a Black wing of the family on my daughter’s side, and a White wing on my son’s side - and that’s happening all over America. So as I see it, in two or three more generations being an American won’t just a nationality, it’ll be an ethnicity. So these handful of throwbacks to Jim Crow are trying to hold back Niagra Falls with a teacup.

     


    What Wolraich said - with the caveat that white people do not see Zimmerman as one of them*. On his driver's license he self-identifies as Hispanic and based on his lineage from Wikipedia he is la raza but a quick search of the National Council of La Raza's website only turned up a couple of items that indicated that they perceived him (at least politically) as white so they must not want to claim him either. Kind of sad to be an amalgam of three races and claimed by none, no?

    Also, what CVille Dem said about the photos. You should have at least captioned them for context, e.g., the lead photo is of the 1920 Duluth, Minnesota lynchings. Unless, of course, you wanted to muddle the context.

    The Florida trial was a travesty and a farce. Most people realize that -- even white people.

     


    What Zimmerman should have been charged with:

    782.11 Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act.—Whoever shall unnecessarily kill another, either while resisting an attempt by such other person to commit any felony, or to do any other unlawful act, or after such attempt shall have failed, shall be deemed guilty of manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
    History.—s. 13, ch. 1637, 1868; RS 2388; GS 3213; RGS 5043; CGL 7145; s. 719, ch. 71-136.
    Peracles has probably already pointed this out.
     
    I would like to add something I learned a long time ago from a cop friend. Prosecutors have been known to charge someone with a higher degree of homicide knowing that a jury is likely not to convict when they might for a lesser degree. Used sometimes in domestic-abuse homicides.
     
    There's really no way of knowing why the Zimmerman prosecutors went for the greater crime.  Was it to satisfy the crowds clamoring for a murder trial? How would have a charge of manslaughter been perceived?
     

    Exactly, the whole trial was about perception. Not satisfied with a jury determination, the opponents seek vengeance, as they have throughout. 


    Seriously? What exactly is the unlawful act here? Imagine that a white, college-bound high-school student gets shot by a black trigger-happy private security guard while walking home from the candy store. Are you telling me that the guard would or should be charged with "Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act?" How would that go over in suburban Florida?


    No. I am saying that Zimmerman was more likely to be found guilty of manslaughter for killing Martin during a fight than for murder 2. Regardless of who started the fight they were assaulting each other.  Assault is a felony, right?

    Personally, I wish the laws were different. Zimmerman never disputed that he killed Martin. The question was whether it was justifiable self-defense. I think when anyone claims justified homicide, they should automatically be required to 'justify' it to a jury -- that means testifying under oath to the jury. Neither the police nor the prosecutors should be able to make that call.

    Notice at the link the use of the term unlawful homicides for murders and manslaughter. IMO, there should be no such thing as a lawful homicide in any statute.

     

     


    I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that if the prosecution conceded that Martin assaulted Zimmerman, they would have essentially conceded the case on self-defense grounds.

    The primary problem Wattree has addressed is not the law itself. We can all admit that the legal system is not perfect. Sometimes criminals get off.

    But there are two problems that should make us more uncomfortable:

    1) The law is applied inconsistently. This case would have been very different if Martin had killed Zimmerman.

    2) There are too many people who accept Zimmerman's defense at face value. It's one thing to acknowledge that the prosecution cannot prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It's another thing to believe that he's innocent.


    If they had not been pressured to bring a case, despite the apparent self defense. This case smacks of political pressure. Now this acquittal has contributed greatly to those who see racism under every rock. Now they'll want to tear down the pillars. Maybe we could calm the agitation, we can have another and another trial, till the opponents get the results THEY want. "G Zimmerman must hang"  they shout. Mark Omara explained it well. It was not theres to prove GZ  innocent; the State had that burden but O'Mara stated, they would prove GZ was innocent, for that I am grateful because  it would have been extremely hard to make a decision  The State under political pressure would deny the defense exculpatory evidence and faulty evidence, relying solely on a case for sympathy. The State had to persecute GZ because  some group wanted his blood, damn the facts.


    Facts?  What facts?

    That Martin was unarmed and had just gone to buy Skittles?

    That Martin had every right to be in the apartment complex?

    That you should be able to buy candy and return to your apartment unmolested, EVEN IF WEARING A HOODIE?

    That Zimmerman was advised after he called 911 not to pursue the "suspicious looking person?

    Or are you saying that facts include what Zimmerman said in Fox News but refused to say under oath?  Are you saying that it is a fact that Martin attacked Zimmerman?  What do you base THAT on, and how can you call it a fact?

    This is one fact that I know, and so do you:  

     

    If George Zimmerman had not jumped to an erroneous conclusion and incorrectly identified that 17 year-old boy as DANGEROUS (which he certainly turned out not to be, against a vigilante with a loaded gun), Trayvon Martin would be home with his family, and George Zimmerman would be sitting around looking for someone else to harass.


    FACT: TRAYVON MARTIN ASSAULTED  GEORGE ZIMMERMAN..... WITH THE INTENT TO CAUSE DEATH OR SEVERE BODILY HARM ...... that is why Martin is dead ......... Evidently you fall into the camp that says " If your going to lie tell big lies" A jury and over 68% of the public, disagrees with your assumptions or critical thinking skills. When will you do your part to stop fanning the flames of Racism? I'm thinking you're the one whose tone deaf?  G Zimmerman was acquitted, the jury believed Zimmerman was attacked. But Of course you always know better.   


    That "fact" has not been proven, nor was it accepted by the jury. Many on the jury have expressed doubts about what happened that night, but having doubts was enough for them to find Zimmerman "not guilty". Again, you need to understand what "reasonable doubt" actually refers to.


    I know what the instruction to the jury was. you insist in you semantic provocations? Having listened to the defense, as others have, the evidence was compelling to  ME and others  that G Zimmerman was assaulted. As I am sure some jury members thought so too, and reasonable doubt was the only hurdle they had to consider. but the TRUTH as seen by many; was there was no doubt G Ziimmerman was assaulted and  self defense was justified.  Enough to bring back the signed statements that Zimmerman DID NOT murder Trayvon, because  the truth cast doubt, on the States contentions. 


    Cville, if you're going to talk facts, talk them.

    Skittles is irrelevant, and Zimmerman didn't say Martin was "DANGEROUS" - he said "suspicious". The hoodie was mentioned later in giving a description, as was I think a hesitant guess to his race - it wasn't what Zimmerman said made Martin look suspicious. [but Skittles and hoodie made great media marketing]

    Martin was a guest in the apartment complex. I'm assuming their visit was short enough not to violate the complex's rules against transient guests, but he wasn't a resident. He was unknown in the neighborhood. The complex had large signs about Neighborhood Watch and suspicious persons at both gates (though Martin entered through the hedge, which is normal when traveling by foot, but also how those messing with the neighborhood entered).

    We do know the neighborhood had had a number of break-ins, which would make some of the residents nervous - one woman had moved out after a scary incident with an intruder rattling the bathroom door with her and her son inside. The jury heard this testimony.

    Martin had been suspended 3 times from school, had been in recent fights, had been found with what appeared to be stolen jewelry in his backpack, was caught doing graffiti, was a regular pot smoker. None of this makes him particularly "DANGEROUS", but he was no longer quite the cute little kid in the Hollister shirt, as you can see from the family photo (far right) and 7-11 shot below.

    Zimmerman was advised *AFTER* he was out of the car going down the path that "you don't need to do that". He seemed to agree "okay" and seemed to stop running/hurrying as his breathing got more normal and the wind whistling in the phone stopped. Martin would have had a good lead going down the path.

    The jury did accept that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot (though some testimony opposite), and witnesses testified that Martin was getting off a lot of punches, the famous "MMA style". [note: Zimmerman "refusing" to speak under oath is irrelevant - there are numerous justifications for that in court strategy, and our Constitution allows for that option - it doesn't mean the defendant is a liar or coward or anything pejorative - he and his lawyer simply decided it was in his best interest not to testify]

    So what is not fact is how the fight started, so you have to decide for yourself how moments after Ziimmerman got off the phone where he was speaking calmly that he and Martin ended up in a fight just around the corner. Did Martin wait for him? Who threw the first punch? Would following Martin justify that punch? Would Zimmerman start a fight knowing the police were on their way? And would the level of beating justify pulling out a deadly weapon? If Martin threw the first punch, is he partly responsible for his own death? [do you think Zimmerman's guilty of 1st or 2nd degree murder or manslaughter or something else? to what extent did he have the right to protect himself in a fight - depending on whether he's seen as causing it or Martin?]

    [Note: while Zimmerman was armed, it appears he never had the gun out until the end of the fight, so wasn't used to threaten or intimidate. While it certainly upped the chance of a fatal result - that's part of the reason for carrying if needed -  Zimmerman did not break any law by carrying a weapon he was licensed for, and his constitutional rights didn't decrease by carrying it, though he had the additional responsibility to use the weapon as the law requires]

    [and on the rhetorical side, if a reporter follows Brad Pitt or some instant celebrity for 5 minutes, are they justified in breaking the reporter's nose?]


    The Zimmerman verdict and the response by his supporters confirmed the fears of parents of Black males


    The bottom line is that it is okay to murder an unarmed Black male.The justice system will back you up.


    "The justice system" included 6 jurors who were given testimony, including Zimmerman's MMA training, his knowledge of Stand Your Ground (which wasn't invoked), his interest in police activity, his previous 5 or 6 911 calls, reactions to his Neighborhood Watch activity.

    The prosecution withheld all controversial photos & messages from Trayvon's phone from the defense.

    So what part of the justice system do you feel let you down, backed up "murder"?


    The part of a the justice system that made Black parents to tell their Black sons that they were considered threats to society in even more pointed terms  let me down. . The fact that George Zimmerman, a man who assaulted a police officer and had a restraining order, was able to carry a gun let me down.The fact that Zimmerman could go free after committing a murder despite "not using his senses"let  me down.  The decision simply verified what Black parents fear about the justice system. 

    You are incapable of understanding.


    Presuming it actually happened that way, hitting a cracka in the face isn't without its risks. I think most parents try to get their kids to avoid violent confrontations, whoever's in the "right". I've always been the p***y who walked away from fights. May have lost face, but avoided a lot of trouble. Any time you put yourself at the whims of the justice system - white, black, Inuit - you're gambling.


    Thanks for proving the point that you are incapable of understanding the issue.


    I understand the point. Many want to walk around with some chip on their shoulders and EVERY other member of a different race is assumed to have it out for them. So don't tell us about Racism when everyday some group wants to claim they are, the only ones being mistreated. I wasn't a slave trader, I would never have approved of it, I loved Martin Luther King and the cause. I was against Apartheid and did what I could to end it . But I dont go around tearing and burning down my town because some provacateurs rile up a group, telling them; all whites including a jury had it out for the blacks. I am tired of black brothers stereotyping ALL others as against them.  Racism? Take the rafter from their own eyes first.   


    Who is burning down your town?


    You should have asked who burned down our towns and when the anger and the fiery rhetoric rises up again, the mob will take to the street, as history has shown ? Who dragged a poor truck driver out of the cab of his truck, because he was white, smashing his head with a concrete block. Concrete?  Some of us were around when the mau mau uprising occured.


    What year was this?


    April 1992; interesting to see R. cite that in this way, vis-a-vis his positions on gun ownership. And see this video on that.


    It is fascinating to see someone who loves MLK Jr  hold on to the belief that King would have supported the murder of Trayvon Martin. It is also fascinating to see Zimmerman supporters oblivious to the clear message the decision sends to the parents of Black males in the United States. It is open season on their children.


    You obviously do not understand the fears parents of Black male teens. The worst fears are justified by the Zimmerman supporters.


    I am aware of the techniques of the Fear Mongering going on and how the subject is exaggerated by some.  That there are some who are easily misled by the "repetition in order to reinforce the intended effects of this tactic"  What Demagogue will arise knowing he has found supporters? "You must elect him, because he, will protect your kids"


    Do you agree with the WaPo's Richard Cohen that Blacks should gladly submit to being viewed with suspicion to make others feel safe?


    If Zimmerman still only thought Martin was "suspicious" then why the hell did he shoot him?  He obviously wasn't a danger to Zimmerman, who knew, after all that he had a huge advantage at hand. 

    Peracles, just for your information, FACTS are what actually happened, and there is only one living person who knows what really happened. He chose not to testify.  The FACTS are unknown about the altercation. What the jury accepted -- the DA and/ or the Defense proposed -- are stories that explain things based on each side's self-interested version of events.  The jury believed one side and not the other, but don't confuse that with facts. 

    What do three school expulsions have to do with anything?  Trayvon Martin broke no law, and he had every right to be where he was.  If you are a guest at someone's home, you most certainly have the right to come and go unmolested. Being "unknown in the neighborhood" is a ridiculous excuse to justify Zimmerman tracking him. Do you go around introducing houseguests to your neighbors so they won't shoot them?  

    Well, I know that not one word I've said here will make you think differently, or at all.  Just don't go around making up "facts" while criticizing anyone for misusing the word. 


    Three school expulsions, likely testifies to the fact TRAYVON  may have been rebellious? Maybe he was unable to follow the rules of conduct; a necessary element to maintain order?  Evidently he thought he didn't have to follow the laws of civil order?  Why would assaulting anyone, prick his conscience?  He had already shown a propensity, to disregard rules of civilized behavior.


    "...likely...maybe...evidently...he had already shown a propensity, (sic) to disregard rules of civilized behavior."

    You have really gone off the deep end.  I hope you have a job that does not require logical thinking or comprehension of proportions.


    I had to leave it vague, for fear your attacks would be against me for stating it as fact. I can assure you, kids don't get expelled for being model citizens.  It is I, who hopes you don't have a job requiring, critical thinking skills. You should have been able to connect the dots. Model students don't get expelled 3 times.  mediocre students dont get expelled 3 times. Trouble makers get expelled, those who can't accept the rules get expelled. Usually they receive a warning first, of what constitutes good conduct and then having been told of their errors and they continue on their wayward ways they are expelled, in order to protect the rest of the class (society). If what I say is the basis of the expulsion,  it is any wonder Zimmerman's claims of being assaulted are true?. 3 times proves a tendency, in the continuation of undesirable traits, by a less than model citizen. More like a threat to society?  Someone capable of sucker punching someone trying to bash the victims head into the concrete sidewalk.


    Some factual data on discipline in schools.


    Why didn't I see this coming? You always seem to find, the excuse you need. Instead  of giving us, Trayvon's school administrators reasons, for his suspension. ....The REAL AND PERTINENT FACTS  of this particular case.  Did the Zimmerman defense have this knowledge? Were they precluded from offering into evidence, this information? Did the prosecution prevented it, because they thought it prejudicial to who they were representing ?  Just as they tried to block the toxicology report?  


    There are facts - for example we know that Zimmerman got out of the car and moved quickly during the phone call, before the dispatcher said "you don't need to do that".

    There is evidence that seems certain - for example if all witnesses agree

    There is evidence that persuades - if most witnesses agree

    There is supposition or extrapolation from details that may or may not be true.

    I tried to give you some facts to work from.

    3 "expulsions" are actually "suspensions". Fact.

    The gated neighborhood had rules about transient guests and cars entering the neighborhood, signs about Neighborhood Watch procedures, limits to cars parked & repaired on the street, etc. - Trayvon's "every right" is subject to the rules of the neighborhood, not open-ended. Fact.

    Trayvon was a guest at an apartment - whether that gave him the right to use say the clubhouse without a tenant present, I don't know and I suspect you don't either.

    Being unknown in the neighborhood, perhaps high and weaving around while talking on the phone, dressed like a street punk, coming through the bushes on foot, might all have made him "suspicious" and the sign on the gate said "suspicious people and events will be reported to the police".  Did Zimmerman "molest" Martin or just "track" him? As I've noted several times, it's a bit dumb to find someone suspicious, call the police, and then lose sight of the person so the police show up and just drive around blindly. On the other hand, it is a bit creepy to follow someone without identifying (does Neighborhood Watch have some kind of vest to show?)

    You've yet to address rights of property owners/residents, such as the fact that a resident was scared out of her wits with her child while an intruder rattled her bathroom doorknob. When do you balance things out so that it's not just guests who have rights, but everyone?


    Was Trayvon Martin the intruder?


    He may have appeared similar to an intruder, whether in attire or behavior or what not. You can google descriptions of previous intruders in the area to get some info.


    So Trayvon Martin was not the intruder.Thanks.


    Into G Zimmerman's Space?


    "If Zimmerman still only thought Martin was "suspicious" then why the hell did he shoot him?  He obviously wasn't a danger to Zimmerman, who knew, after all that he had a huge advantage at hand." - uh, duh, he was getting beat up. At that point Martin was no longer "suspicious" he was a danger. Ever been punched in the face? One witness talked about "MMA style" - while I don't see that Zimmerman's face looked oh that terrible, he did take some hits.

    We know FACTS because there are recordings say of Zimmerman talking to the dispatcher, so we know for example that he got out of the car and was winded before she said "we don't need you to do that". So yes, part of the story is "FACTS".

    "If you are a guest at someone's home, you most certainly have the right to come and go unmolested." That depends - if I throw up on the host and kick the dog, I may be tossed out on the lawn. If I'm a guest after 11 in a dorm that has a 10pm curfew, they might treat me as trespassing.  Hotels often limit who can visit guests, and certainly guests can't walk through the kitchen. If Trayvon were to carry a gun in his hand, you might say he didn't have that right. So your absolutes are limited.

    The gate on the community warned about suspicious looking people, and Zimmerman called in Martin as looking suspicious - those last 2 tidbits are FACT. And according to the rules of the neighborhood, that part was accepted procedure.

    Testimony is not "FACT" but depending on how believable it is, we build it up to be a part of the equation. There's a picture of Zimmerman's broken nose - unless photoshopped extremely well, it's FACT.

    What does get curious is where we have an analysis of the court case by Ta-Nehisi Coates where he notes the prosecution failed to prove Zimmerman guilty beyond reasonable doubt - and then he flabbergasts me by comparing Zimmerman to a drunk guy at a 7-11 who decided he didn't like rap music and shot a driver. That's miles away from having someone on you punching you and pulling out a gun in reaction. How come we reason so badly? How can we compare a horrid group lynching with dozens of whites calmly looking at the camera with a solo guy on Neighborhood Watch reporting what he thought suspicious and that leading to a 1-on-1 fight resulting in a shooting?

     


    Zimmerman initiated the events.Trayvon had a right to defend himself. According to the picture,Zimmerman lost a fistfight. What urgent medical care did Zimmerman require after he lost the fight?


    Even juror B37 admits that Zimmerman confronted Martin. Yet she says that Martin played a "huge roll" in his death. She says she "knew" Martin threw the first punch, despite the absence of witnesses.

    Charles Blow of the NYT that Black men can't run because they may be suspected of theft.Black men can't walk too slowly like Martin they may look suspicious. If they are confronted like Martin they can expect to wind up dead.


      Was Zimmerman's nose broken? I haven't read that anywhere.

      We don't know who started the fight, and even if Martin threw the first punch, Zimmerman was the one who got out of the car to confront him, after the dispatcher advised him against it. I doubt Zimmerman was really in mortal danger, since Martin was unarmed and was the smaller of the two. He should have at least been nailed for manslaughter.


    Oh bloody hell

    1) Zimmerman was already out of the car moving down the path when the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that" at which point Zimmerman said "ok". what he did then we're not sure. We don't know whether Zimmerman went to "confront" him or as he says, to see where Martin went.

    2) i put up a picture of Zimmerman with broken nose below, his doctor testified it was broken. perhaps faked, who knows.

    3) I put up a picture of Martin above - he was certainly fairly tall if you notice

     


     Unless Jeantel is lying, it was a "confrontation" even by the most narrow definition of the term.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/justice/zimmerman-trial

     Anyway, if you are following someone you consider an "asshole" and then get out of the car and go up to him, that might be a confrontation even if you don't say anything.

     In the call to the dispatcher, Zimmerman doesn't say he went to see where Martin was going. He does give any explanation of his conduct.

    http://www.motherjones.com/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman

     He outweighed Martin by a good deal.


    The testimony of the Black girl doesn't count. Juror B37 "knew" that Trayvon threw the first punch. Black parents in Florida can feel " confident" that the legal system hands out equal justice. 


    They keep spreading the same misleading talking points; such as Zimmerman was told to stay in his car; so therefore he was the first to threaten. BS  They dont even have the complete facts, then they come here repeating half truths. I read comments today that said Trayvon had a fight earlier that day and it was reported he lost and was angry and bitter about it. Also it was reported that he was kicked out of his mothers house and told to go live with his dad. Also over 6 ft. Tall he played football and had studied martial arts. The last thing Zimmerman needed to run across, was an angry, bitter martial arts student who was pissed off, looking to take his anger out on someone. Good thing it wasn't someone out to walk their dog, it might have been them who got assaulted.  


    The problem I have with those who accept Zimmerman's defense at face value is they never explain why they think Rachel Jeantel is lying. Both cannot be telling the truth. If one is sure that Zimmerman is telling the truth they need to make a convincing argument as to why they think Jeantel is a liar.

    Reality is that most likely most of those who believe Zimmerman is telling the truth don't know who Jeantel is or what her testimony was. They believe Zimmerman simply because they want that story to true for personal or political reasons.


    I found Jeantels testimony tainted by bias. Of course she wanted to see the "old cracker"  punished. I found her demeanor hostile and realized she would never offer anything but information, leading to setting Zimmerman up. When all the testimony, by all the other witnesses, is considered in totality  I believe Trayvon didnt say "get off me" as Jeantels story, as an attempt to portray, Zimmerman was the aggressor on top of Travon ...... I could imagine an assailant saying GET OFF........me  MY ASS   Sucker punch  POP! .....It's a good thing for her, perjury is hard to prove. Could it be, the reason she was so hostile, because she was forced to testify and it would expose more of the lies, she gave the Police originally?. Because she didnt want to offend Travons mother, so she told half truths to protect her. it's her story and she stinkin to it, even if it wasn't the whole truth  


    Trayvon. His name is Trayvon. And your comment is pure conjecture.


    Give it up teacher, I don't find it essential to have words spelled correctly in this format. If I were writing a book I might consider hiring you. But I know you're smart enough to know who I'm talking about. ... 2nd   I am only giving my perspective, as though I was a member of the jury. I can give as much weight, to any of the witnesses as I deem. That is how her testimony came across to me. 


    So you let the armed guy with the record of assaulting a police officer and who had a restraint order go free? The kid with the Skittles and iced was guilty?


    Peracles has many times laid out the truth to you, so dont come to me, with your lame justifications. Next you'll try to say it's okay for an assailant to assault someone, as long as they had baby formula in their pocket?   Maybe an assailant could justify assault  by carrying some Sudafed  and it would be presumed the poor dead assailant was sickly 


    None of us were there, so none of us knows the truth.


    Social identity is very elastic, and black-white race distinctions easily trump white-latino race distinctions, especially if the Latino is an American-born mixed-race security guard named George Zimmerman.

    If Trayvon Martin had been a middle class white kid, and George Zimmerman had been an out-of-work Mexican immigrant with a Spanish name, I'm sure it would have have been a different story.


      We didn't kill a hundred million Indians. One hundred million is the highest estimate of the number of Indians in all of the Americas in 1492( Three hundred million would have been about three quarters of the world's population). It was the Spaniards who killed tens of millions of Indians, before the United States existed, and before any of our ancestors arrived on these shores.(I myself don't think the Spaniards can be held answerable for the Indians killed by smallpox--they had no control over it).

     It is dubious to compare the slaughter of Iraqi civilians by Americans  to 9/11. It should probably be compared to the slaughter of Iraqi civilians by the jihadists, who killed at least as many Iraqis as the Americans.


    Black parents are now reassuring their sons and daughters that things will be ok despite a Florida court finding  their lives and testimony worthless.