Zimmerman found not guilty

[Minskaya]

You have to understand that 'innocent' is synonymous with 'without blemish'. In this sense then, none of us are truly and thoroughly innocent.

The utmost a jury can do then is declare a person not guilty of a specific charge.

[zraver]

Well according to Rachael Jeantel on Piers Morgan, TM attacked GZ because Tm thought GZ thought he was gay.... if true TM died in the commision of a hate crime... Oh the tangled webs.

New Talking Point: Trayvon Was the Bigot, As He Thought Zimmerman Was Gay - Elspeth Reeve - The Atlantic Wire

[gunnut]

I did not know "cracka" is an acceptable term for white people.

[Parihaka]

Unfortunately the only source we have for what Zimmerman did prior to the physical altercation between the two is Zimmerman himself.

I was thinking in terms of where Zimmerman said he'd meet the cops vs where the assault and killing took place, but as you say it's moot if the 911 operator can't give clear directives.

[Parihaka]

Well, it should be. Decisions should be removed from individuals and replaced by a centralized government agency run by disinterested technocrats who has only the interest of the community in mind.

The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.

i introduced a smiley specifically for this :whome:

[Parihaka]

The legal system in the US is founded upon the presumption of innocence.

A jury cannot and should not prove that a defendant is innocent.

They need only find that they are not guilty of the charge. The accused is then assumed innocent in the eyes of the law.

Precisely. This is a much misunderstood basic aspect of the law, where people think their personal opinions somehow should be taken into consideration legalistically. If that's a word. Hmmm.

[gunnut]

i introduced a smiley specifically for this :whome:

But I was speaking as a registered democrat...:whome:

[zraver]

You can call a white man what ever you want as long as he is actually he and not transgendered or gay. Apparently the same applies to hispanic men if you call him white-hispanic.

[troung]

Some people in a fantasy world losing their minds and the point... :grump:

COMMENTARY: Concealed handguns a form of white social control

2
Share to Facebook
Share on Twitter
COMMENTARY: Concealed handguns a form of white social control - The Washington Post

By Mark I. Pinsky| Religion News Service, Updated: Tuesday, July 16, 1:52 PM

Racism remains a dark, durable — and seemingly intractable — element of the American personality. Predictably, the trial of George Zimmerman for the fatal shooting of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin was a national racial Rorschach test.

The not guilty verdict has allowed shadow racists among conservative media pundits the cover to begin to emerge with their real agendas: Trayvon Martin was a typical, young, inner city thug, and he got what was coming to him.

The case opened a vein of bile only exacerbated by the anonymity of the Internet. As demonstrated in the past, people were willing to write vile things from behind the cyber curtain they would never have the courage to say in public (albeit often with spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors). The more threatening of these — amplified and magnified by talk radio and cable television — raised fears of post-verdict violence that have thus far not materialized.

I covered more than two dozen capital murder, rape and insurrection trials in the South in the 1970s, and death penalty cases in California in the 1990s.

I covered the shooting of Trayvon Martin and the trial of George Zimmerman, and have a dual perspective on the proceedings, and the outcome. As a longtime court reporter, the jury’s decision did not surprise me. As a religion writer the outcome was nonetheless troubling, no less for having seen it coming.

The further you are from the courtroom the more ethically and morally vexing Zimmerman’s acquittal must seem. Where is the justice? Did not Trayvon Martin, have a superior moral — and legal — right to stand his ground and to defend himself that rainy night, returning from an innocent errand? Clearly, he did.

Part of the problem with the trial, apart from the prosecution’s now widely acknowledged blunder in overcharging Zimmerman with second-degree murder, lies with the Florida legislature, and the political climate that sent its members to Tallahassee.

In particular, with the lunatic — and, I would argue, racist — manner in which it has defined self-defense. You can start a fight for any reason, and if you begin to lose the altercation, and feel you are about to suffer grave body harm, you can kill the other person with total immunity.

Or, worse, if you manage to extricate yourself, you are under no obligation to leave the scene. You can safely stand in the middle of the street and shoot the other person in the heart. (The state’s “Stand Your Ground” law played no role in Zimmerman’s criminal trial.)

Where are the moral and ethical underpinnings for such a legal philosophy? Much of it, in my view, and that of other political historians, derives from a Florida legislature controlled by a Republican Party whose modern, 20th-century foundation is the White Citizens’ Council; when Southern blacks battled their way into the Democratic Party as part of the civil rights movement, diehard racist whites left for the GOP.

More recently, the GOP has been shaped and skewed by a demagogic notion of what constitutes law and order, and a creepy, almost pathological fixation with carrying concealed handguns. In Florida, Texas or North Carolina there is little demonstrated practical need for citizens in non-high risk occupations to be armed outside their homes and places of business.

With barely a wink and a nod, it is evident to a significant segment of the white political class in Florida, and throughout the Sunbelt, who the menace is considered to be — the “other,” people like Trayvon Martin. In much the same way that lynchings in the 19th and 20th century served as a symbolic — and actual — mechanism of social control in the South, so too does the acquittal of George Zimmerman for taking the life of Trayvon Martin.

(Longtime religion writer  Mark I. Pinsky is author of the forthcoming “Met Her on the Mountain: A Forty-Year Quest to Solve the Appalachian Cold-Case Murder of Nancy Morgan.”)

[Triple C]

1. What does Fox have anything to do with liberal media not make Chicago's problems front and center? Oh wait, you're pulling a Roosy. When in doubt, just drag out Fox/Bush/Republicans to defend the dubious record of liberal media/Obama/Democrats.

I am pointing out the obvious: ALL media ignore routine and common place urban violence because it is routine and commonplace. If unreporting on urban crime has an ideological bias, you'd expect conservative press to use it to attack liberal political strongholds. Yet, it does not happen. This is basic logic.

Btw, NYT has been tracking urban violence trend in Chicago with bi-monthly updates, so had CNN.

2. Fox does not care about Chicago but Fox does report the high number of murders in Chicago. Why? Because Fox is owned by Murdoch who is in cahoots with the Koch brothers and Karl Rove and they would like nothing less than to see blacks suffer while doing nothing to stop it... Oh wait...the mayor of Chicago is a democrat and Chicago has some of the most stringent gun laws in the US. All is well.

Again, completely missing the point.

Detroit is your precedent.

Yes! And what an excellent example of dealing with urban violence!

[gunnut]

Btw, NYT has been tracking urban violence trend in Chicago with bi-monthly updates, so had CNN.

And here we are, with nation wide protest over the death of dozens of young black men every single day, killed by other young black men.

[Monash]

Except it hasn't happened.... The anti-gun crowd made similar projections about shall- issue laws.... Problem with these predictions is gun owners tend to be more law abiding and less prone to violence.

zraver, No serious person would suggest that the outcome of the Zimmerman decision will be an immediate/significant escalation in similar shootings. What this and similar events will do however is convince less prudent, (or more hot headed if you prefer) and poorly trained civilian that they can in some circumstances initiate "incidents" and be protected from the consequences of their own actions. America is a big place - ask yourself how many other potential "Zimmermans" there are walking around out there, perhaps in your own town with a firearm and a self appointed charter. One unnecessary shooting is bad enough, even if this decision results in only a few score more over the next few years that is surly worse.

As for the trial IMO it was a serious laying the 2nd degree murder charge, based on the albeit limited amount I have read about the case so far there was insufficient evidence of premeditation/recklessness. Had they given the jury a manslaughter charge alone however and I'm betting the outcome would have been different. Beyond that not much to say, no wins out of this except perhaps Zimmerman's lawyer.

[zraver]

Had they given the jury a manslaughter charge alone however and I'm betting the outcome would have been different. Beyond that not much to say, no wins out of this except perhaps Zimmerman's lawyer.

Under Florida law, because he was in fear for his life, having been disabled by TM's assault upon his person it was a legal shoot. Florida's stand your ground law had nothing to do with the trial. When TM continued to beat GZ long after he was down and out the situation escalated. According to Rachel Jeantel, the beating continued because TM thought GZ was gay.

GZ got his ass beat, he deserved it. TM died during the commission of a felony and that has nothing to do with race or stand your ground laws.

[Triple C]

And here we are, with nation wide protest over the death of dozens of young black men every single day, killed by other young black men.

And it has got zilch to do with the damn lib media.

[gunnut]

And it has got zilch to do with the damn lib media.

Sure it has. Why aren't the damn lib media out blastin' the plight of the black community on the air waves every single day? Why are the damn lib media so obssessed about a single black man killed by a non-black man? From the way the Zimmerman case was covered you'd figure the black community never suffered from violence except by non-blacks.