[pooka]

I'm not the one making extensive use of conditional logic and speculation. I can easily say "I have no idea", "I don't have enough information to make an accurate determination one way or the other", "I don't give enough of a shit to care". My initial thought is, gee, that is interesting. I'd be curious to know more. Perhaps you are onto something. Or perhaps, statistically speaking, white people are better at framing black people in these scenarios. I'm sure it has something to do with socio-econmic factors, education, racist judges or whatever. Long story short... **** if I know?

You and some others know in your hearts that you are right based on intuition, cursory assessments, throwing of chicken bones or magic mind-vag powers. You're two steps away from shouting an octave higher to me that god is real. Our world-views do not align and I believe you do yourself a disservice for not stepping back and looking at things a little more logically. I don't see the world the way you do nor will I ever find fat girls attractive. Let's just agree to disagree.

[pooka]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Pure speculation huh? The statistics show otherwise ...

Wait, I got distracted and almost cared to go off on that tangent. What the hell does this agglomeration have to do with this particular case? I mean, I think I get what you're saying. It was decided on race and not on evidence? I'm obtuse, dude, help me out.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The Zimmerman verdict is an undeniable reminder that "legal" justice and "moral" justice are not always the same thing. But even from a "legal" justice perspective, I don't think it's a stretch to say that those who are unsurprised yet still disappointed with the outcome know on a visceral level that if the roles had been reversed the outcome would have been very different. This case below is a prime example of why.

A group of unarmed white teens, one of Puerto Rican descent, shows up in the middle of the night outside a black teen's home hurling threats, racial slurs, and profanities toward him. Apparently, because they believed a false rumor that the black teen was responsible for an Internet chat room message threatening to rape a girl they all knew. This much is not in dispute as the prosecution acknowledged it in court. The son wakes up his father and says that they are coming to kill him. The father retrieves his pistol ... given to him by his grandfather who was chased out of Alabama by the Klan no less ... heads outside and confronts the group of teens. To defend his family and his home. The white teen of Puerto Rican descent either lunges for the gun or tried to smack it away depending on who you want to believe. And the father shoots him in the face killing him. Accidentally he claims. Maybe. Maybe not.

My point here is that dude was convicted for manslaughter and for the pistol (again a family heirloom) being unlicensed. And it didn't matter that the father and his family had a "reasonable fear of imminent death or grave bodily harm" from the mob outside their house. The prosecution's reasoning? The man should have tried to calm the unarmed teenagers or simply locked his doors and waited for the police. Imagine that.

Man Convicted for Shooting Teenager | NYTimes.com

OAW

I'm not for a second going to try and hit you with this "post-racial" shit. I don't think we're close to that, and I assume you agree.

Likewise, I'm not going to say race didn't play a factor in the case you quoted here.

However, I think you have to point out that what you can do with a gun in Florida is way different than what you can do in New York.


I live in Illinois. We have the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Our government has a vastly different opinion on guns than the government of Florida.

If Zimmerman shot Martin here there is no question Zimmerman would have gotten manslaughter. It's a gimme case.

[OAW]

I said ....

Originally Posted by OAW

I don't think it's a stretch to say that those who are unsurprised yet still disappointed with the outcome know on a visceral level that if the roles had been reversed the outcome would have been very different

You said ....

Originally Posted by pooka

Pure speculation on your part.

To which I responded with those statistics that clearly show to all but the most willfully obtuse that race plays an enormous role when it comes to the likelihood of a defendant being successful when claiming justifiable homicide. The viewpoint to which you responded is one I hold because of the collective experience of my people with disparate treatment by the US justice system for hundreds of years. And contrary to the deeply ingrained and deliberately ignorant opinions of some, it is NOT the product of some sort of mass hallucination. Or some sort of figment of our collective imagination. It is systemic and it is pervasive. And these little things we call facts support it. You see similar discrepancies when it comes to who gets the death penalty. You see similar discrepancies when it comes to who gets incarcerated for drug possession. Even who gets suspended from school for the same offense.

Some excerpts from an op-ed that sums this up quite nicely ....

Many legal analysts, convinced that the prosecution did not have enough evidence to prove its case, had predicted the acquittal even before the trial began. Reasonable doubt, they said repeatedly. The state must persuade the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

But reasonable doubt is an elastic standard, and it seems to work in favor of whites much more often than it does blacks. It is hard to imagine that a black “neighborhood watch volunteer” who pursued and killed a white kid under the same circumstances would have walked away a free man.

Nowhere is that more true than with stand-your-ground laws, which are the gun lobby’s way of provoking legal mayhem. You can run a person to ground, provoke a confrontation, kill him and get away with murder. Especially if the person you kill is black.

Last year, the Tampa Bay Times did an exhaustive investigation of cases involving Florida’s controversial stand-your-ground law, which was passed in 2005. The newspaper examined nearly 200 cases.

The findings? “People who killed a black person walked free 73 percent of the time, while those who killed a white person went free 59 percent of the time,” the newspaper reported.

That conclusion mirrors others about the inequities still endemic in the criminal justice system. Decades ago, a landmark study of the death penalty in Georgia found that black defendants were 1.7 times more likely to receive the death penalty than white defendants and that murderers of white victims were 4.3 times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who killed blacks.

Those statistics simply confirm what many black Americans already know to be true: the criminal justice system is among the country’s last bastions of rank discrimination, a patchwork of institutions that rely on stereotypes as much as evidence, implicit assumptions as much as proof. Black men and women are more easily judged criminals, and black victims more easily viewed as disposable.

Kareem Jordan, a criminologist at the University of Central Florida, told the Tampa Bay Times: “I don’t think judges or prosecutors or whoever works in the field of criminal justice is consciously saying black life is worth less than that of other ethnicities. But at the end of the day, it could be something that’s subconscious going on if you look at how the media depicts black life.”

One of the more egregious cases in Florida involved 31-year-old Marissa Alexander, a black woman with a master’s degree and no criminal record. Separated from her husband, she had taken out a restraining order against him. When she went to the house she had shared with him to pick up personal belongings, he confronted her and threatened her. She fired a weapon — she called it a “warning shot” — but did not strike him.

Even Gray admits he understood her fear: “If my kids wouldn’t have been there, I probably would have put my hand on her. Probably hit her.” Nevertheless, a Florida jury took 12 minutes to convict her of aggravated assault, for which she was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

‘Reasonable doubt’ for Zimmerman, but rarely for black defendants | theGrio

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not for a second going to try and hit you with this "post-racial" shit. I don't think we're close to that, and I assume you agree.

Likewise, I'm not going to say race didn't play a factor in the case you quoted here.

However, I think you have to point out that what you can do with a gun in Florida is way different than what you can do in New York.


I live in Illinois. We have the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Our government has a vastly different opinion on guns than the government of Florida.

If Zimmerman shot Martin here there is no question Zimmerman would have gotten manslaughter. It's a gimme case.

Agreed.

OAW

[pooka]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I said ....
You said ....

I think I more accurately summed it up on the last page.

"****in' white people don't go to jail for this shit"

I'm not arguing with you. You're acting like all of this highlights some great big ole point that no one gets but you. Immaterial shit aside, why do you feel that justice was not served in this particular case? From an optical answer sheet's perspective. Or is it about the greater good, messaging and greater social impact or something?

addendum: You seem to be saying that this entire boondoggle highlights a great disparity in how the law treats different races on these issues && that this "BITCH" of a man is guilty as ****. I get the first part. Not so much the second.

[subego]

Re: Marissa Alexander.

How is that race? Warning shots are always illegal, and always wreck claims of being in fear for your life.


Edit: firing a gun is not for warning, it is for killing. The warning is pulling the gun, not firing it.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by pooka 

I think I more accurately summed it up on the last page.

"****in' white people don't go to jail for this shit"

Huh?

You said ....

Originally Posted by pooka

I for one would rather see consistency, logic, structure, etc in the application of the law instead of "****in' white people don't go to jail for this shit"

Which seemed to me that you were juxtaposing "consistency, logic, structure in the application of the law" with "****in' white people don't go to jail for this shit". Implying that lacking in the former and only focusing on the latter. But if I misinterpreted what you are saying my apologies.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

Re: Marissa Alexander.

How is that race? Warning shots are always illegal, and always wreck claims of being in fear for your life.


Edit: firing a gun is not for warning, it is for killing. The warning is pulling the gun, not firing it.

"Race" in the sense that Stand Your Ground in Florida didn't shield this black defendant. Here we have a man with a documented history of domestic violence, subject to a restraining order, actively threatening her, and who admitted that he was going to hit her. But she's the one who gets 20 years for aggravated assault against him! When she didn't even shoot the guy!! But Zimmerman can actually kill an unarmed kid and walk. How is it legitimate self-defense for Zimmerman but not Marissa Alexander? Or the case I posted about earlier in the thread when a black guy is doing time for shooting a white guy that pulled a knife on his son. How is that not legitimate self-defense?

OAW

[subego]

What I'm telling you is that's the way the law is written.

A warning shot is not standing your ground.

If she had killed him, she would have walked.


It's stupid, but it's not race.

[subego]

The prosecutor didn't bag her because she's black, the prosecutor bagged her because they could.

Edit: this has been my argument from day one. The prosecutor's choice not to charge Zimmerman wasn't because Martin was black or because Zimmerman was innocent, it was because they couldn't win the case.

They were forced to try the case, and what happened? They couldn't win the case.

[subego]

Have I mentioned I don't like prosecutors?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

What I'm telling you is that's the way the law is written.

A warning shot is not standing your ground.

If she had killed him, she would have walked.


It's stupid, but it's not race.

If that is the case ... and don't get me wrong because I have no reason to doubt you ... then that has to be one of the most abjectly retarded things I have heard in quite a long time.

OAW

[Snow-i]

OAW, when you consider that blacks are almost 6 times more likely to be the victim of and just under 8 times more likely to be the perpetrator of violent crime, your stats demonstrate the opposite of the point you were trying to get across. Blacks are just under 8 times more likely then whites to be the aggressor in a violent crime but only 3.54 times more likely to die in a case of justified homicide?

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
Page 3.


Lies, Damned Lies and statistics.


If you were half as concerned about the institutional racism at the heart of every major city, i.e. black on black crimes which never make even the local news anymore, you might be productive with your efforts. Instead, you're race-baiting in a thread about a case that doesn't even involve a white person. When you speak out on the countless acts of senseless violence in our inner-cities and put even 1/10th of the concern into that for which you do a case that doesn't have anything to do with race, except for in the media, I'll be here to listen.

What exactly are you trying to prove? That acquitting GZ was a result of rampant racism? You've lost it man. What's worse is you lose credibility for when there actually is a racially based injustice/killing. The boy who cried wolf.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

If that is the case ... and don't get me wrong because I have no reason to doubt you ... then that has to be one of the most abjectly retarded things I have heard in quite a long time.

OAW

The Stand Your Ground law certainly has issues, but this is more you can't avoid unintended consequences with a combinatorial explosion of laws. They're separate laws with separate aims, which mix badly.

Warning shots are, AFAIK, are flat-out illegal in every jurisdiction.

You may recall a case from awhile back in NH (which is at the lax end of the regulation scale) where an old man fired a warning shot at a robber so he wouldn't flee.

He pretty much had the right to waste the guy (it was at a neighbors, so there was some question), but the warning shot was assault.

The prosecutors fully intended to bag the old man for it until the public outcry forced them to drop it.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The Zimmerman verdict is an undeniable reminder that "legal" justice and "moral" justice are not always the same thing. But even from a "legal" justice perspective, I don't think it's a stretch to say that those who are unsurprised yet still disappointed with the outcome know on a visceral level that if the roles had been reversed the outcome would have been very different. This case below is a prime example of why.

A group of unarmed white teens, one of Puerto Rican descent, shows up in the middle of the night outside a black teen's home hurling threats, racial slurs, and profanities toward him. Apparently, because they believed a false rumor that the black teen was responsible for an Internet chat room message threatening to rape a girl they all knew. This much is not in dispute as the prosecution acknowledged it in court. The son wakes up his father and says that they are coming to kill him. The father retrieves his pistol ... given to him by his grandfather who was chased out of Alabama by the Klan no less ... heads outside and confronts the group of teens. To defend his family and his home. The white teen of Puerto Rican descent either lunges for the gun or tried to smack it away depending on who you want to believe. And the father shoots him in the face killing him. Accidentally he claims. Maybe. Maybe not.

My point here is that dude was convicted for manslaughter and for the pistol (again a family heirloom) being unlicensed. And it didn't matter that the father and his family had a "reasonable fear of imminent death or grave bodily harm" from the mob outside their house. The prosecution's reasoning? The man should have tried to calm the unarmed teenagers or simply locked his doors and waited for the police. Imagine that.

Man Convicted for Shooting Teenager | NYTimes.com

OAW

That was New York, with different laws and statutes, and the man left his house with the gun and didn't have a CWP.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Correct me if I'm wrong but if you believe neither Martin nor Zimmerman's story, legally, you have to let Zimmerman walk.

That is correct, but I'm rather sure they would have taken longer than 17 hours, if that were the case.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but she also didn't allow things like ZImmerman's history with his ex-fiancé and his assaulting a police officer to be submitted either.

One was > a decade ago and the other was mere months.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Pure speculation huh? The statistics show otherwise ...


OAW

This wasn't a Stand Your Ground case.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

OAW, when you consider that blacks are almost 6 times more likely to be the victim of and just under 8 times more likely to be the perpetrator of violent crime, your stats demonstrate the opposite of the point you were trying to get across. Blacks are just under 8 times more likely then whites to be the aggressor in a violent crime but only 3.54 times more likely to die in a case of justified homicide?

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
Page 3.


Lies, Damned Lies and statistics.


If you were half as concerned about the institutional racism at the heart of every major city, i.e. black on black crimes which never make even the local news anymore, you might be productive with your efforts. Instead, you're race-baiting in a thread about a case that doesn't even involve a white person. When you speak out on the countless acts of senseless violence in our inner-cities and put even 1/10th of the concern into that for which you do a case that doesn't have anything to do with race, except for in the media, I'll be here to listen.

What exactly are you trying to prove? That acquitting GZ was a result of rampant racism? You've lost it man. What's worse is you lose credibility for when there actually is a racially based injustice/killing. The boy who cried wolf.

That was a lot more harsh than it needed to be.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

The Stand Your Ground law certainly has issues, but this is more you can't avoid unintended consequences with a combinatorial explosion of laws. They're separate laws with separate aims, which mix badly.

Warning shots are, AFAIK, are flat-out illegal in every jurisdiction.

Except Utah, I believe. A warning shot is de facto assault with a firearm, if not attempted murder. If you're pulling the trigger in an altercation, you'd better be aiming to kill.

FWIW, I don't believe race was an issue in this case at all, until the networks and Fla AG got hold of it.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

I though the Zimmerman verdict was horsesheet. It makes me sad not only for the fact that an innocent person was killed and his killer got away with it, but also the eventual impact it may have in the future if people start to use the same sort of situation as an excuse to off people they merely suspect of something citing the same BS 'self-defense' in a situation they provoked. Anyone who actually cares about the right of self-defense being misused until an excuse is found to ban the whole concept, should be wary of this, let alone the dumbasses patting that idiot Zimmerman on the back.

Meanwhile, the racial component is unfortunate. It turns a stupid situation even stupider with all the usual race-huxters rolling around in it like they just found a new shakedown rallying cry to last out the decade.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

OAW, when you consider that blacks are almost 6 times more likely to be the victim of and just under 8 times more likely to be the perpetrator of violent crime, your stats demonstrate the opposite of the point you were trying to get across. Blacks are just under 8 times more likely then whites to be the aggressor in a violent crime but only 3.54 times more likely to die in a case of justified homicide?

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
Page 3.

You are making an apples to oranges comparison and you know it. The stats I cited are dealing with people who are already a homicide defendant and the success ratio of claiming justifiable homicide. Using the white-on-white scenario as the baseline, the figures show the relative success rates for the other 3 scenarios. Which is completely unrelated to the relative rates of involvement with "violent crime". A category that is far more expansive than homicide I might add. And if that went over your head let me make it more plain. Your numbers include not only homicides but rapes, assaults, robberies, etc. And if doesn't occur to you how that's a different ball of wax than the figures I cited which deals with a SUBSET of homicides alone then I can only suggest a remedial course in basic logic and common sense.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

If you were half as concerned about the institutional racism at the heart of every major city, i.e. black on black crimes which never make even the local news anymore, you might be productive with your efforts.

"Institutional racism" is what produces stats like the ones I cited. I see this is going downhill fast.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Instead, you're race-baiting in a thread about a case that doesn't even involve a white person.

Really fast! It would appear you are one of those misinformed individuals who thinks that "white" and "Hispanic" are mutually exclusive. I suggest you review a dictionary or a US census form to discover the error of your ways.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

When you speak out on the countless acts of senseless violence in our inner-cities and put even 1/10th of the concern into that for which you do a case that doesn't have anything to do with race, except for in the media, I'll be here to listen.

First of all you aren't qualified to speak about what concerns me because you don't know me like that. It's also borderline idiotic to suggest that my relative lack of commentary about the "senseless violence in our inner-cities" in the PWL is indicative of some sort of lack of concern. Why? Because the PWL is primarily a debate forum. So who here is on the side of "senseless violence"? Anyone chomping at the bit to articulate and defend that position in a thread? Don't worry .... I'll wait:

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Well it would appear that there aren't any takers so there isn't much to debate when it comes to that topic. Besides, there's nothing "senseless" about violence in inner cities at all. It's rooted in competition over drug turf and revenge shootings/killings. Quite unlike the Aurora or Newtown killings which are more aptly described as such. In any event, the violence you speak of is overwhelmingly committed by small groups of people. Generally gang-bangers involved in criminal activity. People who represent a fraction of the black community. So my concern is primarily for the civilians who get caught up in that foolishness. Like Hadiya Pendleton or the little infant Jonylah Watkins who were both killed. And the many other people who are shot and/or killed by criminals because of stray bullets, mistaken identity, etc. And that's why this case strikes a much deeper nerve than some gang-bangers pulling a drive-by. Because Trayvon Martin was a civilian. Not a perfect kid. Then again who is? Just a typical kid. And a far cry from the "thug" many portrayed him to be. As Det. Serino told GZ .... "That was a kid with a future, a kid with folks that care. Not a goon."

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

What exactly are you trying to prove? That acquitting GZ was a result of rampant racism? You've lost it man. What's worse is you lose credibility for when there actually is a racially based injustice/killing. The boy who cried wolf.

If by "rampant" racism you mean "overt" or "explicit" racism. Then no. That's not what I'm saying at all. Such displays of explicit racism are generally frowned upon in our modern society. And publicly at least such expressions are generally only prevalent in anonymous comments on news sites or blogs or other types of internet forums. But implicit racism is unconscious. It's typically rooted in stereotypes, fears, and media images of minorities produced by people subject to the same. And the person is often unaware when they are doing it. I'll give you Mr. Zimmerman's words as a prime example ....

Originally Posted by George Zimmerman

Hey, we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy-- it's Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.

Now ask yourself ... what behavior is GZ describing here? Walking down the street in the rain. Something that millions of people do all the time. He didn't say TM was looking in windows, trying to see if doors were unlocked, peeking in cars, etc. You know ... something that would actually be consistent with burglary. He described someone who was walking down the street in the rain minding his own business. But in GZ's mind he was "suspicious" nonetheless. He was "up to no good" despite there being nothing in his actual behavior to justify such an assessment. The only thing ... I repeat ... the only thing TM had in common with the perpetrators of the recent break-ins was that he was young, black, and male.

What made TM one of "these assholes ... they always get away" for GZ? Why did GZ consider TM to be a "f*cking punk"? Because the presumption of criminality on the part of black males is deeply rooted in our society. Does that make GZ some type of flagrant racist? Absolutely not. But it is this erroneous presumption that set this entire tragic chain of events in motion. It is this same presumption that led to the shoddy police investigation by the Sanford PD. It is this same presumption that led the local prosecutor to not order GZ's immediate arrest GZ based upon the recommended manslaughter charge by Det. Serino. When that's exactly how it would have went down if a grown black man had shot an unarmed white kid. GZ's entire defense was rooted in this presumption and with a predominantly white jury the chances of it being believed rose exponentially. Look at any news site with a story on this trial and read the comments. There you will see just how pervasive this presumption is among GZ supporters. It is blatant and undeniable.

Does this mean that the facts and the evidence didn't matter? Not at all. But while implicit racism is insidious it is nevertheless a powerful influence on how such facts and evidence are interpreted. Now in my view (and that of Det. Serino) it is much more logical to think that the exasperated individual with the gun who said "these assholes ... they always gets away" and then chases after the kid despite being told not too is more likely to try to detain the kid ... than the kid is to lay in the cut and launch an unprovoked attack just for sh*ts and grins. The notion that a kid who was running away in fear from the "creepy" dude one minute all of a sudden transforms into "Super Thug" the next is absurd. But again, the entire GZ defense was predicated on that. To believe GZ one has to essentially believe that narrative on some level. But as the author I cited above noted ... "reasonable doubt is an elastic standard, and it seems to work in favor of whites much more often than it does blacks."

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That was New York, with different laws and statutes,

True.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

and the man left his house with the gun and didn't have a CWP.

Since when do you need a CWP on your own property?

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I though the Zimmerman verdict was horsesheet. It makes me sad not only for the fact that an innocent person was killed and his killer got away with it, but also the eventual impact it may have in the future if people start to use the same sort of situation as an excuse to off people they merely suspect of something citing the same BS 'self-defense' in a situation they provoked. Anyone who actually cares about the right of self-defense being misused until an excuse is found to ban the whole concept, should be wary of this, let alone the dumbasses patting that idiot Zimmerman on the back.

This doesn't happen often, but .

OAW

[OAW]

First vote among the jurors:

1 - Murder 2
2 - Manslaughter
3 - Not Guilty

Yet somehow they ended up at Not Guilty.

OAW

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Since when do you need a CWP on your own property?

OAW

He was in Long Island, where it's illegal to have a loaded gun on your own front porch.

[OAW]

Looking at the interview the juror essentially dismissed Ms. Jeantel's testimony because of her "education level" and "communication skills". Notable because she said nothing about the actual content of her testimony.

OAW

[subego]

I feel like we're reading different transcripts. She says she doesn't find Jeantel's testimony credible but

Then she discusses her education in the context of feeling bad for her.

She later discusses the content of her testimony.

[subego]

Here's the part about why no manslaughter. At some point the jury was split evenly between not guilty and manslaughter.


COOPER: Because of the only, the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?

JUROR: Right. Well, because of the heat of the moment and the stand your ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.

COOPER: Even though it's he who had gotten out of the car, followed Trayvon Martin, that didn't matter in the deliberations. What mattered was those final seconds, minutes, when there was an altercation, and whether or not in your mind the most important thing was whether or not George Zimmerman felt his life was in danger?

JUROR: That's how we read the law. That's how we got to the point of everybody being not guilty.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

You are making an apples to oranges comparison and you know it. The stats I cited are dealing with people who are already a homicide defendant and the success ratio of claiming justifiable homicide. Using the white-on-white scenario as the baseline, the figures show the relative success rates for the other 3 scenarios. Which is completely unrelated to the relative rates of involvement with "violent crime". A category that is far more expansive than homicide I might add.

OAW, violent crime is exactly what spawns self defense homicide cases. It's not a murder unless someone dies, and lethal self defense is appropriate during the commission of any violent felony. So no, you're absolutely 100% incorrect when you say they are "unrelated."

And if that went over your head let me make it more plain. Your numbers include not only homicides but rapes, assaults, robberies, etc. And if doesn't occur to you how that's a different ball of wax than the figures I cited which deals with a SUBSET of homicides alone then I can only suggest a remedial course in basic logic and common sense.

How is it a different ball of wax? Those statistics you cited surely include self-defense homicides spawning from the attempted commission of assaults, robberies, rapes, etc. When you have a higher ration of violent black on white crime, you're going to have a higher ratio of self defense cases purely because the two directly proportional. I'm encouraging you to direct your rage at the institutions which cause those numbers to be disparate instead of using them to prove a point in a black on mexican crime that ended in the use of lethal self-defense.

"Institutional racism" is what produces stats like the ones I cited. I see this is going downhill fast.

I don't know what institution crafted that graph, but I seriously doubt it was in the interest of cooperation.

Really fast! It would appear you are one of those misinformed individuals who thinks that "white" and "Hispanic" are mutually exclusive. I suggest you review a dictionary or a US census form to discover the error of your ways.

So GZ was a white guy to you? That fits nicely with all the race-baiting.

First of all you aren't qualified to speak about what concerns me because you don't know me like that. It's also borderline idiotic to suggest that my relative lack of commentary about the "senseless violence in our inner-cities" in the PWL is indicative of some sort of lack of concern. Why? Because the PWL is primarily a debate forum. So who here is on the side of "senseless violence"? Anyone chomping at the bit to articulate and defend that position in a thread? Don't worry .... I'll wait:

Ok, I'll rephrase. Why are you citing black on white statistics when the debate is about a black on mexican crime?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Well it would appear that there aren't any takers so there isn't much to debate when it comes to that topic. Besides, there's nothing "senseless" about violence in inner cities at all. It's rooted in competition over drug turf and revenge shootings/killings. Quite unlike the Aurora or Newtown killings which are more aptly described as such.

So those people are less worth our concern despite the suffering extends ten-thousand fold compared to the media-hyped atrocities?

In any event, the violence you speak of is overwhelmingly committed by small groups of people. Generally gang-bangers involved in criminal activity. People who represent a fraction of the black community. So my concern is primarily for the civilians who get caught up in that foolishness. Like Hadiya Pendleton or the little infant Jonylah Watkins who were both killed. And the many other people who are shot and/or killed by criminals because of stray bullets, mistaken identity, etc. And that's why this case strikes a much deeper nerve than some gang-bangers pulling a drive-by. Because Trayvon Martin was a civilian. Not a perfect kid. Then again who is? Just a typical kid. And a far cry from the "thug" many portrayed him to be. As Det. Serino told GZ .... "That was a kid with a future, a kid with folks that care. Not a goon."

And Zimmerman is a far cry from a racist or a vigilante as many have made him out to be. Treyvon made a fatal mistake by attacking Zimmerman, and as sad and as senseless as that is it has zilch to do with Black on White crimes.

I cry because the same politicians who are fueling this uproar continue to allow the "institutional" violence as you've described wreak havoc on the honest people caught in the cross-fire.

If by "rampant" racism you mean "overt" or "explicit" racism.

I meant widespread and pervasive, not necessarily overt.

Then no. That's not what I'm saying at all. Such displays of explicit racism are generally frowned upon in our modern society. And publicly at least such expressions are generally only prevalent in anonymous comments on news sites or blogs or other types of internet forums. But implicit racism is unconscious. It's typically rooted in stereotypes, fears, and media images of minorities produced by people subject to the same. And the person is often unaware when they are doing it. I'll give you Mr. Zimmerman's words as a prime example ....

So just to make sure I understand your position, you think that was a racist thing to say? If a black person acts suspiciously and someone describes them as such, they are automatically racist? You think if a white guy or mexican doing the same thing wouldn't have elicited the same response from Zimmerman?

Now ask yourself ... what behavior is GZ describing here? Walking down the street in the rain.

Well considering Treyvon was high I'd say Zimmerman was pretty astute.

Something that millions of people do all the time. He didn't say TM was looking in windows, trying to see if doors were unlocked, peeking in cars, etc. You know ... something that would actually be consistent with burglary. He described someone who was walking down the street in the rain minding his own business.

No, he described him as acting suspiciously like he might be on drugs or something (which he was). You have to fill in alot of gaps to say that TM was just minding his business if you look only at GZ's statement.

But in GZ's mind he was "suspicious" nonetheless. He was "up to no good" despite there being nothing in his actual behavior to justify such an assessment.

Except that he was acting suspiciously, like he was on drugs or something (which he was).

The only thing ... I repeat ... the only thing TM had in common with the perpetrators of the recent break-ins was that he was young, black, and male.

Or acting suspiciously, like he was on drugs or something near houses that were broken into?

What made TM one of "these assholes ... they always get away" for GZ? Why did GZ consider TM to be a "f*cking punk"?

That he was acting suspiciously, like he was on drugs or something (which he was). Or suspended from school (which he was), or like he was real hood or something (which, based on the picture of him with the handgun, he was trying to portray himself as).

Because the presumption of criminality on the part of black males is deeply rooted in our society. Does that make GZ some type of flagrant racist? Absolutely not. But it is this erroneous presumption that set this entire tragic chain of events in motion.

But GZ tried to do the right thing by contacting the authorities and letting them handle it. He left his car to get a definitive address and Treyvon Martin jumped him. Sounds like his observations about suspicious behavior panned out to be something.

It is this same presumption that led to the shoddy police investigation by the Sanford PD. It is this same presumption that led the local prosecutor to not order GZ's immediate arrest GZ based upon the recommended manslaughter charge by Det. Serino. When that's exactly how it would have went down if a grown black man had shot an unarmed white kid. GZ's entire defense was rooted in this presumption and with a predominantly white jury the chances of it being believed rose exponentially. Look at any news site with a story on this trial and read the comments. There you will see just how pervasive this presumption is among GZ supporters. It is blatant and undeniable.

OAW, you've made alot of jumps here. Why do you racism where I see possible incompetence? A court of law affirmed the original recommendation that charges were unwarranted. Infact, the prosecution didn't really put up much of a case for anything. It was all "what ifs" and not a lot of meat. This is what happens when you mix special interests with politicians in a judicial case. Someone looks like an idiot (the prosecutors here).

Does this mean that the facts and the evidence didn't matter? Not at all. But while implicit racism is insidious it is nevertheless a powerful influence on how such facts and evidence are interpreted. Now in my view (and that of Det. Serino) it is much more logical to think that the exasperated individual with the gun who said "these assholes ... they always gets away" and then chases after the kid despite being told not too is more likely to try to detain the kid ... than the kid is to lay in the cut and launch an unprovoked attack just for sh*ts and grins. The notion that a kid who was running away in fear from the "creepy" dude one minute all of a sudden transforms into "Super Thug" the next is absurd. But again, the entire GZ defense was predicated on that. To believe GZ one has to essentially believe that narrative on some level. But as the author I cited above noted ... "reasonable doubt is an elastic standard, and it seems to work in favor of whites much more often than it does blacks."

OAW, I honestly think you want to see racism here, and no amount of evidence or lackthereof will push you off of that.
- Infact, Treyvon's words were "Creepy ass cracka" which, at least around here, is a hood thing to say. Ever think that maybe TM was a bit racist? I mean he describe GZ as a racial slur, maybe he profiled Zimmerman and that's why he decided to jump him? Or is racism only when it's against blacks? I see that as just as likely and just (if not more, with the slur) as well supported as your supposition.




Please forgive any typos or grammar issues. It's late and this is a long post.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Looking at the interview the juror essentially dismissed Ms. Jeantel's testimony because of her "education level" and "communication skills". Notable because she said nothing about the actual content of her testimony.

OAW

That's the key part you took away from that juror interview on CNN? Seriously? The girl's testimony was horrible, she was combative, irritated at being there, and seemed entirely unsure of herself in her delivery (as per the juror's own words). I'm not sure where you're trying to go with that.

As the juror said, Zimmerman and the defense, in general, seemed more credible than the prosecution. Also, as she said, the jury didn't think race was an issue and didn't even discuss it. They felt Martin's actions sparked GZ's suspicions, not his skin color. Why? Because the jury hadn't been fed a steady diet of bias and race-baiting from the media during the whole trial, like the rest of America had been subjected to.

[OAW]

Watching the Rachel Jeantel's interview on Piers Morgan. I can see now see wears braces. Which naturally impacts speech. And has what we call a "thick tongue" or a bit of a lisp. However, she is speaking up a lot more than she did in court. Whether it was her or better microphones I can't say.

OAW

[OAW]

Actually she said she has an underbite dental condition that actually requires surgery but she has resisted doing that because it takes a year of recovery. Wow.

OAW

[OAW]

Snow-I

The fact that you said GZ was Mexican speaks volumes. It is demonstrative of just how misinformed you are about the particulars of this case. I'll just leave it at that.

OAW

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

First vote among the jurors:

1 - Murder 2
2 - Manslaughter
3 - Not Guilty

Yet somehow they ended up at Not Guilty.

How are you surprised. The conviction needs to be "beyond reasonable doubt". Obviously, neither M2 nor MS could be proven that way.

So, what exactly is your point .

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Snow-I

The fact that you said GZ was Mexican speaks volumes. It is demonstrative of just how misinformed you are about the particulars of this case. I'll just leave it at that.

OAW

Yes, please leaving it at taht, because you are really starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel.

-t

[OAW]

Shaddim

Have you ever considered that perhaps Rachel Jeantel was "combative" because Atty. Don West was combative towards her? He was an asshole towards her without question. And I don't begrudge him for that because he's a defense attorney doing his job. Don't hate the player ... hate the game.

OAW

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

You have 100% lost me.

If how a prosecutor handles a case has nothing to do with the outcome, why have one?

(I'm guessing my question doesn't jibe with the intent of your statement, but I can find no other reasonable interpretation. As I said, you've lost me)

The behavior of the prosecution in no way impacts whether a case itself has merit or the judgement is fair in the moral (≠ legal) sense.

If you have trouble understanding my position, think about the following hypothetical situation: let's say the prosecution tries someone for murder, and the evidence is water-tight. The police has found a video of the accused committing the murder during a search of the suspect's home. There is zero question he is the perpetrator. But then the prosecution makes an error handling the paperwork which renders the video inadmissible in court (e. g. the search was unlawful). Then in absence of other evidence, the prosecution will note be able to convict the accused even though it's clear he is the murderer.

In other words, even though the prosecution effs up, morally speaking, the case is clear, the perp should be in jail rather than roaming free on the streets. Does that make it more clear?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yes, please leaving it at taht, because you are really starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel.

-t

I'm sorry ... but did I say something that was in error with respect to this particular point? Or did Snow-I? The lack of differentiation ... either due to inability or unwillingness ... is precisely the phenomenon that leads to the very dynamics that manifested in this particular case.

OAW

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Shaddim

Have you ever considered that perhaps Rachel Jeantel was "combative" because Atty. Don West was combative towards her? He was an asshole towards her without question. And I don't begrudge him for that because he's a defense attorney doing his job. Don't hate the player ... hate the game.

OAW

She walked up to the stand, sat down, and before the Defense attorney could even speak, she was pissed off and staring daggers at him. He didn't even have time to start anything, her mind was set.

The saddest part of all of this is how Trayvon is being used to further agendas. Unfortunately, there are several to choose from.

The anti-gun lobby has claimed dibs on the 10 y/o Trayvon:



The NAACP on the 14 y/o (w/ hoodie):



While the 17 y/o, who was recently expelled from school for violence and truancy, had already run afoul of the law numerous times, and was well on his way to having a drug problem, doesn't really seem to matter to anyone:





His parents, community, and "role models" failed him. No anger and tears for that young man? No dragging his mother and father out and asking them WTF happened? Of course not, let's crucify the white (Hispanic) guy who eventually had to deal with what "little" Trayvon had turned into, which led to two lives being destroyed that night.

[ebuddy]

The real tragedy no one wants to talk about are the numbers of precious black youth being gunned down throughout this country on a weekly basis; two children killed in Chicago over the 4th of July weekend. No... no, we weren't talking about white-hispanics or blacks or racial profiling because none of those were factors. Just-cold-blooded-murder. In fact, no one talked about this at all. Not the activists, not the guilty white people, none of the 99%'ers... none of them -- not a single one.

The real injustice is NOT SNITCHING on countless perps guilty of murder that will never face the law for their cold-blooded crimes. I wonder if my brothers and sisters understand just how many Zimmermans they've protected by not snitching. No... no, we don't want to talk about those things. Those are real things. Horrible things that take the lives of many more than one, every day.

Better that we should trump this case up to be something it's not so that everyone -- read -- everyone will be compelled to exploit this poor kid for their narrative du jour.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

[U]
Better that we should trump this case up to be something it's not so that everyone -- read -- everyone will be compelled to exploit this poor kid for their narrative du jour.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

She walked up to the stand, sat down, and before the Defense attorney could even speak, she was pissed off and staring daggers at him. He didn't even have time to start anything, her mind was set.

I'll repeat what I said earlier. Have you ever considered that perhaps Rachel Jeantel was "combative" because Atty. Don West was combative towards her? And now I'll encourage you to recognize the fundamental fact that Rachel Jeantel's cross-examination by Atty. West on the witness stand was NOT their first encounter. There is this thing we call the deposition process.

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The behavior of the prosecution in no way impacts whether a case itself has merit or the judgement is fair in the moral (≠ legal) sense.

If you have trouble understanding my position, think about the following hypothetical situation: let's say the prosecution tries someone for murder, and the evidence is water-tight. The police has found a video of the accused committing the murder during a search of the suspect's home. There is zero question he is the perpetrator. But then the prosecution makes an error handling the paperwork which renders the video inadmissible in court (e. g. the search was unlawful). Then in absence of other evidence, the prosecution will note be able to convict the accused even though it's clear he is the murderer.

In other words, even though the prosecution effs up, morally speaking, the case is clear, the perp should be in jail rather than roaming free on the streets. Does that make it more clear?

Thank you for the clarification. I understand better, but I think the issue is you trying to apply rationalism to Florida.

The fundamental issue here, which I've been harping on since the beginning, is by Florida law, what Zimmerman did is legal.

Let that sink in for a second. If there are no witnesses to counter your claims, it is de facto legal to murder someone in Florida.


The only place you can apply rationalism to this is by getting the legislature to change the law. If you let a prosecutor "rewrite" the law to serve justice for the angry public, that's it. Game over. Better hope the public never gets angry at you.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by pooka 

Eh, you figured what? I'm quite capable of stepping back and looking at problems/issues/puzzles from alternative view points. The moment "feelings" come into play (forgive my grasp of English, but I don't consider empathy and perspective to be interchangeable), I attribute it to one's mind-vag. Or as OAW would say, the part of your brain that makes you act like a bitch.

Feelings are integral to the human experience, not to mention this case. Travyon felt threatened. Zimmerman felt his life was in danger.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That is correct, but I'm rather sure they would have taken longer than 17 hours, if that were the case.

Not according to one of the jurors.

However, she did acknowledge that the jury was initially split on the decision, saying that two jurors initially pushed for a manslaughter charge and a third pushed for a second-degree murder conviction. Eventually, all settled on not guilty verdict.

That's half the jury, FYI.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

One was > a decade ago and the other was mere months.

You mean one happened when he was closer to Travyon's age? Could you explain to me at what rate the relevance of assaulting a police officer decays?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Not according to one of the jurors.

That's half the jury, FYI.

Was that split based on what they believed, or their understanding of how the law applied to what they believed?

It doesn't sound like the jury came to a conclusion by changing what they thought happened so everybody agreed. In the jury room they actually got to read the laws in question, and they directed the jury to feel the only relevant evidence was from a very short time preceding the use of deadly force.

Those events, everyone presumably agreed before they started deliberating.

[Chongo]

Could be Miss Jentel is guilty of inciting a hate crime

JEANTEL: Yes. Definitely. After I say, "Might be a rapist." For every boys or every man, every who's not that kinda way, see a grown man following them, would they be creep out? So you gotta take as a parent. You tell a child, "You see a grown person follow it you, run away," and all that.

BTW GZ and RZ Jr are both bilingual. His Mother is African/Peruvian

[subego]

Stop.

[The Final Dakar]

Chongo, derail king.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Was that split based on what they believed, or their understanding of how the law applied to what they believed?

It doesn't sound like the jury came to a conclusion by changing what they thought happened so everybody agreed. In the jury room they actually got to read the laws in question, and they directed the jury to feel the only relevant evidence was from a very short time preceding the use of deadly force.

Those events, everyone presumably agreed before they started deliberating.

I couldn't tell you, I'm posting it to cast reasonable doubt on Shaddim's feeling that the jury wholly believed Zim's story.