24 replies to this topic

[Leo Crimson]

I'm going to assume that everybody who reads this thread knows the basic details about the shooting; if not, then...I dunno.


But yeah, today, Zimmerman appeared in court after being charged with second-degree murder and turning himself in to Florida authorities yesterday. Bail was set, etc, etc.


http://www.bbc.co.uk...=PublicRSS20-sa



Opinions on this and whether you think Zimmerman shot Trayvon completely out of racism?

[Game Master JRPomazon]

The man shot Trayvon because obviously there was some sort of conflict. He didn't go killing for the sake of sport. You could believe that Trayvon was a sweet little angel who loved his mommy and daddy and did well in school or that Zimmerman was protecting himself from some gangsta wannabe thug. Regardless of the context the truth remains that Zimmerman shot Trayvon and he will eventually have to face the consequences for his actions.

But there is one thing about this issue that has been perfectly clear to me since day one. I didn't know Trayvon. I have never known Zimmerman. I have no bias towards either one. And frankly, that's the media's job in the first place so I'll just leave it to them to paint this picture whatever color they want.

Also, Zimmerman isn't White Hispanic. He's Hispanic. Just Hispanic. It's a little irritating that people think this is just another case of blatant White vs. Black racism in the US.

[Elvenlord]

He's bi-racial, actually. Both white and hispanic.

Anyway. Did he shoot him because he's black? No. Did he automatically factor him being black into him being dangerous? Seem likely, considering this is Southern US.

[Game Master JRPomazon]

Elvenlord, on 13 April 2012 - 12:22 AM, said:

He's bi-racial, actually. Both white and hispanic.

Anyway. Did he shoot him because he's black? No. Did he automatically factor him being black into him being dangerous? Seem likely, considering this is Southern US.

Well, I did not know that. Explains the last name.

[Chief Fire Storm]

Elvenlord, on 13 April 2012 - 12:22 AM, said:

Did he automatically factor him being black into him being dangerous? Seem likely, considering this is Southern US.

It's more than just likely I think. Zimmerman has a history of calling 9-11 for what he has considered suspicious looking people. As far as I know these calls have only ever been about black individuals.

[SOAP]

Technically speaking being Hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race in itself. It's possible to be wholly white or wholly black and be Hispanic as well. For example, I'm considered white even though I'm brown as dirt. I have some black and native american in me but not any more than what is typically considered "white."

For that matter, Hispanics can be racist against blacks too. Heck, there's racism even amongst Hispanics between black and white latinos. For example, my aunt in Peurto Rico, who would pass as white anyways due to her fair skin and blonde hair and blue eyes, says a lot of racist things against Dominicans who are pretty much black as Hispanics can get. Ironically for her, most of our Puerto Rican ancestors were black slaves brought to the island from Africa so I don't know what she's on about. Actully racism within Hispanic culture pisses me off even more for that very reason because most of us are far more mixed than non-Hispanics so we have less of a reason to be racist. Yet it happens.

Edit: I'm totally convinced the murder was racially motivated. I hope he's found guilty and goes to jail for what he's done. I'm just surprised he turned himself in. I wasn't expecting that. Maybe he's feeling remorse for what he's done yet, of course, he's pleading not guilty. So I don't know.

Edited by SOAP, 13 April 2012 - 01:38 AM.

[TheAvengerLever]

I don't care if it was racially motivated or not. I don't care if he was attacked first. Trayvon was unarmed and he had a gun, and that's all that should matter.

[SOAP]

TheAvengerButton, on 13 April 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

I don't care if it was racially motivated or not. I don't care if he was attacked first. Trayvon was unarmed and he had a gun, and that's all that should matter.

If this was a perfect world yeah that should be the only thing that matters. But it ain't a perfect world.

[TheAvengerLever]

I just think that the media has made it out to be something racial as opposed to just, "some dude murdered some unarmed kid with a gun."

Then the media starts saying, "Neighborhood watch shoots black kid." and then people are too fucking busy talking about racial prejudice and motivation and not seeing the fact that its just about a guy who is a bit too trigger happy.

[SOAP]

That's true. But racial violence is still a pretty big deal regardless. Perhaps more so than the death a kid at the hands of an adult. If it were just a case of a trigger happy neighborhood watch shooting an innocent kid, then it would just be an extremely unfortunate tragedy. If it was racially motivated, then it shows that's a deeper problem within the community that goes beyond just Zimmerman if an unarmed black kid in a hoodie is considered threatening enough to warrant being killed out in self-defense. Racism still exist, especially in the south where I've seen how dangerous it can be first hand. Racial violence is something that effects a whole community, maybe even the whole nation. Yeah turning it into a media circus probably won't solve anything but ignoring it and pretending it's not there doesn't help either.

[Chief Fire Storm]

TheAvengerButton, on 13 April 2012 - 08:41 PM, said:

I just think that the media has made it out to be something racial as opposed to just, "some dude murdered some unarmed kid with a gun."

Then the media starts saying, "Neighborhood watch shoots black kid." and then people are too fucking busy talking about racial prejudice and motivation and not seeing the fact that its just about a guy who is a bit too trigger happy.

I have seen the media go both ways on this. I have heard commentators mention how troubled they are that arresting someone for shooting an unarmed kid was even a question. They also do point the racial side of this. and I do not think they are wrong to do so. We have a man the repeatedly called authorities to report on black people in his community. As far as I know none of those instances resulted in an arrest. I would have to conclude that the people he reported to authorities were innocent of any crimes. On the 9-11 call he made about Martin he used a racial slur. This is very much a racial issue. I don't think it helps matters to just pretend it isn't.

Hate crime nonesense aside, and keep in mind I'm no legal expert, I think the racial side of it helps the prosecution in proving a derranged mind which is what they need for a 2nd degree murder charge to stick.

[SnowsilverKat]

The issue was that after this guy called 911 and alerted the police to a suspicious person, the police told him not to engage the suspicious person, and that they were coming to investigate.

Zimmerman decided to engage this kid anyway, and now the kid is dead.

Right there. That's the whole of the issue. He was specifically told not to take the law into his own hands and he did anyway.

[Green Goblin]

SnowsilverKat, on 14 April 2012 - 06:40 AM, said:

The issue was that after this guy called 911 and alerted the police to a suspicious person, the police told him not to engage the suspicious person, and that they were coming to investigate.

Zimmerman decided to engage this kid anyway, and now the kid is dead.

Right there. That's the whole of the issue. He was specifically told not to take the law into his own hands and he did anyway.

Came in here to post this.

In addition to this, I think both sides need to stop trying to show how good or bad a kid Trayvon is. He was a kid. Odds are, he smoked weed. So did half of my High School graduating class. In no way does it justify what happened to him.

Honestly, what I think happened is this guy tried to assert some non-existent authority over this kid, and when the kid told him to go fuck off, the guy wouldn't let off. The kid probably started whoopin' the guy, so the guy goes "no way I'm getting my ass kicked by some kid" and shoots him.

[arunma]

Green Goblin, on 15 April 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

SnowsilverKat, on 14 April 2012 - 06:40 AM, said:

The issue was that after this guy called 911 and alerted the police to a suspicious person, the police told him not to engage the suspicious person, and that they were coming to investigate.

Zimmerman decided to engage this kid anyway, and now the kid is dead.

Right there. That's the whole of the issue. He was specifically told not to take the law into his own hands and he did anyway.

Came in here to post this.

In addition to this, I think both sides need to stop trying to show how good or bad a kid Trayvon is. He was a kid. Odds are, he smoked weed. So did half of my High School graduating class. In no way does it justify what happened to him.

Honestly, what I think happened is this guy tried to assert some non-existent authority over this kid, and when the kid told him to go fuck off, the guy wouldn't let off. The kid probably started whoopin' the guy, so the guy goes "no way I'm getting my ass kicked by some kid" and shoots him.

Totally agreed. There's a picture circulating on random racist sites (remember that white supemacist girl I told y'all about who accidentally Facebook friended me, who I keep around for entertainment purposes?) with Trayvon flicking off his webcam. Yeah, I'm sure this kid wasn't that great a guy; most high schoolers aren't. But like you said, that's not the issue. He could have done time in juvie for beating up a baby and it wouldn't change Zimmerman's actions on a moral or legal level. What you have here is a guy who started an altercation with some unarmed person on the street and shot him. That ought not to be legal, and at the very least he should be convicted of manslaughter (though I think 2nd degree murder is the more appropriate charge).

I saw an excellent article yesterday about Bill Cosby's take on all this. He says that the issue isn't race, it's guns. Even though his own kid was shot dead, he doesn't oppose people owning guns. He does oppose people carrying them around when doing neighborhood watch. Whatever the gun laws in a state, people have to exercise responsibility. Much like alcohol, guns can make angry people angrier. If you know you're angry, you really shouldn't be carrying a gun with you.

Whatever the case, we know that Trayvon had no obvious motive to pick a fight with Zimmerman, unless Zimmerman engaged in some agressive behavior. And if you begin an altercation, you more or less give up the right to shoot the other guy, especially if he's unarmed. I think that by focusing on race, the true injustice here is being ignored. An unarmed minor who engaged in no illegal activity was shot dead by a neighborhood watchman, and I think the nature of the crime is pretty clear. Much like the Dharun Ravi case, once again we have the law trying to get inside peoples' minds, and using its presumed mind-reading power to determine the crime and appropriate sentencing. Let's stop prosecuting thought crimes and judge people on their actions. Zimmerman's actions, which are largely undisputed, should be enough to put him away for a long time.

Edited by arunma, 17 April 2012 - 05:35 PM.

[Selena]

I'd agree, to an extent, that it definitely has to do with guns. Not so much the guns by themselves. More the mentality a lot of people - especially Americans - have toward them. It's partly the regular media, which turns the general population into a bunch of cowards, and partly the hardcore gun advocates, who seem to think that the entire world will end if we have to pass a safety test to get a gun/gun locks become mandatory/ guns are taken away. And then criminal zombies will burst through your living room door at any given moment if you let your guard down. A family member of mine has recently gotten heavy into guns because his friends shoot things for fun out in rock quarries and the open woods.

I recall one instance where we were watching some news report about a robbery in a local store. Guy ran up to a lady's shopping cart, grabbed her purse, and ran. My stepfather's reaction was, verbatim: "If she had a gun, she could have just shot him!"

You know what? Take my purse (or wallet, in my case). Just take it. I really do not care. I don't carry cash, so I'll call my bank and immediately report my debit card stolen, and you can just have my library card if it means that much to you. But I'm not going to shoot someone and potentially watch the life drain out of them just because they dared to do me minor harm. Watching someone die, or severely injuring someone, is something that should weigh heavily on your conscience. Lots of screwed up kids out there who make mistakes, especially now that most young people can't find work, and many of them will find redemption. Have them arrested; do not kill them unless they're actually threatening to kill you. Which, despite what you hear in news reports, is rare. You can usually spot violent behavior before it strikes, and if you can't, then you won't have a chance to get your gun out in the first place.

I will kill someone if they are threatening my life, and especially the life of a loved one, but I do not want to watch someone die because I "accidentally" put one in between their ribs just because they wanted to steal my money or my car or some thing that can be replaced. Use the gun to threaten, if necessary, not to kill.

And that "if you'd have just shot him..." mindset is the sort of mentality that may be at play in this situation. He probably had a bias against black male teens. He assumed the worst. He then preferred shooting someone, and taking matters into his own hands, rather than waiting for the police to arrive. Martin was already running away when Zimmerman made the call. It's highly unlikely that he ran back and somehow threw the first punch at Zimmerman. The most logical chain of events, given the evidence available, is:

Zimmerman followed Martin, he called the police, Martin bolted because some guy was following him, Zimmerman told the cops he would stay put and let them pursue instead, Zimmerman breaks his word and chases, the two end up in an altercation, Zimmerman finds the fight more difficult than anticipated, Zimmerman whips out his gun and shoots him.

And so, in the end, a kid died for no reason.

1. If you can't take someone down using your bare hands, then don't try. You are not Batman. If you've never been in a real fight, don't decide that an encounter with a potential criminal is going to be your first one.

2. The police are professionals.

3. If you observe a suspect discreetly, you can direct the police right to him. If you get confrontational, like getting out of your car and going up on foot, you'll make them run, and you'll lose them. Or end up killing them, in this case.


I think one of the saddest things about the whole encounter was the ragged screams of help heard on resident calls to the police, and it sounds like a fairly young guy. Even if Martin ended up beating on him a bit, which doesn't seem to be the case due to his unscathed face, then it was probably done because he was scared that some big guy was following him at night.

[Leo Crimson]

Zimmerman got bail for 150 grand.

http://www.vancouver...1793/story.html



You know, I'd like to think that in a good justice system people suspected of murder aren't usually allowed out on the streets after they've been arrested. But that's just me.

[Chief Fire Storm]

I don't think there is much of a chance of him going on some killing spree. He got himself in a questionable situation. He didn't go out looking to kill. With teh GPS device he isn't much of a flight risk. His case will go before a jury. That's all that really matters.

[Toan]

Chief Fire Storm, on 20 April 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

I don't think there is much of a chance of him going on some killing spree. He got himself in a questionable situation. He didn't go out looking to kill. With teh GPS device he isn't much of a flight risk. His case will go before a jury. That's all that really matters.

I'm not worried about him. He knows the severity of his situation. I'd be more worried about all the other unhinged individuals who see him as a racist killer and a target for their anger and/or violence. Honestly, a exorbitant bail Zimmerman couldn't have posted might have been the safer option for him.

[Chief Fire Storm]

I think his attorney is arguing he should be allowed to leave the state for now to an undisclosed location.

[SOAP]

Chief Fire Storm, on 20 April 2012 - 11:31 PM, said:

I think his attorney is arguing he should be allowed to leave the state for now to an undisclosed location.

I think he should have remained in jail where he was safer. Not that I care what happens to him.

All I care about is that Florida takes a serious review of their Stand Your Ground Law. What people determine as a threat isn't always a good justification to kill another person.

[arunma]

Heh, Lena, you're a better person than me. If someone steals a wallet/purse, seems to me that they deserve whatever comes to them, including imminent death. That said your point is well taken, and killing someone is the sort of thing that should weigh heavily on someone. I can see why someone might keep a gun at home. But taking one out on the streets is a bad idea simply because of the possibility of killing someone who doesn't have any violent intentions (as may have been the case here with Zimmerman and Trayvon).

Now Soap, you bring up another interesting point: one's perception of a threat isn't a proper justification to kill someone. The idea of self defense is that you can kill someone if they are trying to kill you, i.e. you can choose your own life over theirs. With this comes the responsiblity to make the right judgment. If you kill someone who didn't mean you any harm, then you're responsible for the consequences. In other words, if you're going to kill someone because you perceived that they were threatening your life, you have to be correct in your judgment. Incorrect judgment in this matter has to result in at least a manslaughter conviction.

[SOAP]

arunma, on 27 April 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

Heh, Lena, you're a better person than me. If someone steals a wallet/purse, seems to me that they deserve whatever comes to them, including imminent death. That said your point is well taken, and killing someone is the sort of thing that should weigh heavily on someone. I can see why someone might keep a gun at home. But taking one out on the streets is a bad idea simply because of the possibility of killing someone who doesn't have any violent intentions (as may have been the case here with Zimmerman and Trayvon).

Now Soap, you bring up another interesting point: one's perception of a threat isn't a proper justification to kill someone. The idea of self defense is that you can kill someone if they are trying to kill you, i.e. you can choose your own life over theirs. With this comes the responsiblity to make the right judgment. If you kill someone who didn't mean you any harm, then you're responsible for the consequences. In other words, if you're going to kill someone because you perceived that they were threatening your life, you have to be correct in your judgment. Incorrect judgment in this matter has to result in at least a manslaughter conviction.

Which brings us back to racism and how as long as black people are viewed as this scary "boogie man," then the whole idea of having the right to shoot someone you perceived as threatening your life is bullshit. It just becomes a free pass to kill someone just because they're different than you. It's an incorrect judgement alright, but one that too many people are being raised into. Until that stops, then stuff like this is just going to repeat itself. And the cycle of violence will continue. It's not just this case or this one man or even one law that has to change, it's entire worldview. A very STUPID and IGNORANT worldview that needs to removed from our society.

Edited by SOAP, 30 April 2012 - 05:48 AM.

[arunma]

SOAP, on 30 April 2012 - 05:47 AM, said:

Which brings us back to racism and how as long as black people are viewed as this scary "boogie man," then the whole idea of having the right to shoot someone you perceived as threatening your life is bullshit. It just becomes a free pass to kill someone just because they're different than you. It's an incorrect judgement alright, but one that too many people are being raised into. Until that stops, then stuff like this is just going to repeat itself. And the cycle of violence will continue. It's not just this case or this one man or even one law that has to change, it's entire worldview. A very STUPID and IGNORANT worldview that needs to removed from our society.

Well, actually I think that racism and the stand your ground law are two separate issues. Stand your ground is indeed a free pass to kill someone, but not necessarily because they're different from you. I'm pretty sure that was the case here, but one could kill someone and then apply the stand your ground defense just as easily if the victim is similar to the shooter in every respect. After all, people of the same race, socioeconomic class, political party, etc., do murder one another, and under the right circumstances a stand your ground defense could be applied. It might have even happened before. If so, then I'm not sure why this case was the first that was brought to a national spotlight, but perhaps its because of the possibility that racial profiling was involved. People kill each other for plenty of reasons other than racism. And the racism is present in our society whether stand your ground laws exist or not, they just provide one opportunity for it to show itself.

Now as to the racism issue, this gets into some poisonous topics that no one wants to talk about for reasons of political correctness. But we really have to talk about these things if they're ever going to get solved. For example: the well-known statistic that blacks are the most likely racial group in America to be convicted of crimes. And just to silence anyone who wants to argue this point, here is the percentage of the prison population distributed by race. Now let's be clear that this is not an argument about causation. You can argue that black people are not genetically more prone to commit crimes, but that they are disproportionately poor, and since poor people tend to commit more crimes most criminals will be black (I would actually agree with this). And/or you could argue that the system is biased against blacks. The question of why blacks get put in prison is not what I want to address here; all that's important is that the largest minority of convicts are black. Now race actually plays an insignifcant in our brain chemistry, but it has a significant impact on our outward appearance. And that is how others will tend to classify us in the absence of other distinguishing information. So Joe Shmoe out on the street sees black people disproportionately getting hauled off to jail, makes the mental association between being black and being a criminal, and then figures that he should avoid the black kid walking down the sidewalk on the other side of the street. You can easily see how a Joe Shmoe with a gun and an inflated ego would take the next step and just kill the kid.

Yes, it's wrong to make generalizations based solely on physical appearance. Yes, it's wrong to judge someone you know nothing about. But here's the thing: you can't legislate peoples' thoughts. I'm not even talking about moral imperatives here; controlling peoples' opinions is literally impossible. Certainly you can influence them. And I think we've done a good job of that by teaching in public schools, on television, and elsewhere in our culture that racism is wrong. But humans have an innate tendancy to form patterns. And since race is manifested in the form of physical appearance, it's a natural variable that people will assign to other people. What we really need is for black people to stop going to prison.

How do you do that? I don't know of any magic solution to this, but here is the point where we need to start addressing the causation issue (i.e. why are blacks disproportionately represented in prison?). Assuming it's socioeconomic, the obvious solution is to get kids in poor neighborhoods to go to college and get middle class jobs. If blacks are poor and poor people commit crimes, then getting blacks into the middle class will solve this problem. But you can't just throw money into black-only scholarships, as has been the case up to this point. It requires a transformation of inner city culture into one where education is respected and rappers/basketball players are not. But I shouldn't say anymore about that, because you all are fully aware of my rants about how sports should be utterly eradicated from American culture.

My point is this: the problem isn't as simple as saying that whites kill blacks because whites have guns. The race issue has been around in America for quite some time, and is not the result of any one specific law.

[SOAP]

Even if we can't legislate people's thoughts we can damn sure make it harder for them to commit bodily harm to other people based on incorrect judgements. Basically even if we can't stop people from thinking crazy, the laws should make it as difficult as possible for people to act on their crazy thoughts. That's kinda why laws are there to begin with. At least that's why they should be there.

I'm not sure I agree that poor people commit more crimes. If anything rich people commit more heinous crimes, they just have the money to get away with it. The only reason more poor people commit crimes is the sheer fact there's more poor people. If everything was more relatively proportional I'd hazard to guess that rich people are more saturated with criminals than the poor and middle class. But... that's just me.

Edited by SOAP, 30 April 2012 - 04:46 PM.

[Chief Fire Storm]

SOAP, on 30 April 2012 - 04:45 PM, said:

Even if we can't legislate people's thoughts we can damn sure make it harder for them to commit bodily harm to other people based on incorrect judgements. Basically even if we can't stop people from thinking crazy, the laws should make it as difficult as possible for people to act on their crazy thoughts. That's kinda why laws are there to begin with. At least that's why they should be there.

How should we do this? Right now, what hate crime legislation does is tell us it is illegal to kill someone just because you are predjudiced against something about them. Why is it not good enough for it to be illegal to kill?