Trayvon Martin Shooting

[Avatar]

Interesting question. And good post.

--A

[Prebe]

Second that.

[Ananda]

It's interesting to see old civil rights leaders called racist and all the many flaws of their thinking and life works pointed out. It certainly sends a message.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

So far, I haven't seen anyone involved in the case who made (or is currently making) good choices.

The late Mr. Martin was wrong for overreacting and apparently chasing Mr. Zimmermann, as well as not clearly identifying himself as a resident of the neighborhood who had every right to be walking around peacefully regardless of the time.

Mr. Zimmermann is wrong for thinking himself to be "the sheriff 'round these here parts" and having a history of being a belligerently overzealous "neighborhood watchman". I suspect he is a cop "wannabe" and it wouldn't surprise me if it is revealed that he has applied for police work previously and been denied. He is also wrong for thinking that a young black male wearing a hoodie is "suspicious". This actually goes beyond racism because apparently some of us are still judging people based on how they dress without any context whatsoever.

Jackson and Sharpton--I refuse to apply the honorific "reverend" to either of them because, in my opinion, they are not fit to be reverends given their history of inflammatory behavior--are wrong for stirring up so much negative emotion. Sadly, this is the only way they can get their name in the news and probably the only way in which they feel relevant any more.

The New Black Panthers are wrong for putting a bounty on Mr. Zimmermann.

The local police and DA are wrong for not treating Mr. Zimmermann like anyone else in similar circumstances. If he is truly innocent under Stand Your Ground, then what harm would there be in proceeding with an arrest, an arraignment, and then a grand jury hearing? He could be out of jail on a PR bond while awaiting trial.

Mr. Martin's mother is wrong for allowing her lawyers to file copyrights on the phrases "I am Trayvon Martin" or "Justice for Trayvon". Apparently the death of a loved one is still a good reason to try and make some money.

It would actually be in Mr. Zimmermann's best interests to have a trial, as this would bring out all the details of the events. If he feels he is justified then the jury will agree based on the evidence. Of course, the venue would have to be changed--it wouldn't be possible to seat an impartial jury from the local pool.
The problem with a trial would be if Mr. Zimmermann is found not guilty because the family, and others, would always believe he is guilty no matter what factual evidence is presented. To them, he is guilty because their son is dead.

When did this happen? 26 February? There have probably been one or two dozen murders around the country in the last month but none of them are getting this much attention. Why not? Is it because they are not racially charged?

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

That's a pretty good post, Hashi.

[Cail]

More information....

Police: Zimmerman says Trayvon decked him with one blow then began hammering his head

With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered, law-enforcement authorities told the Orlando Sentinel.

That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say. There have been no reports that a witness saw the initial punch Zimmerman told police about.

Zimmerman has not spoken publicly about what happened Feb. 26. But that night, and in later meetings, he described and re-enacted for police what he says took place.

In his version of events, Zimmerman had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind, the two exchanged words and then Trayvon punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground, and began beating him.

Zimmerman told police he shot the teenager in self-defense.

Civil-rights leaders and more than a million other people have demanded Zimmerman's arrest, calling Trayvon a victim of racial profiling and suggesting Zimmerman is a vigilante.

Trayvon was an unarmed black teenager who had committed no crime, they say, who was gunned down while walking back from a 7-Eleven with nothing more sinister than a package of Skittles and can of Arizona iced tea.

Zimmerman's account

This is what the Sentinel has learned about Zimmerman's account to investigators:

He said he was on his way to the grocery store when he spotted Trayvon walking through his gated community.

Trayvon was visiting his father's fiancée, who lived there. He had been suspended from school in Miami after being found with an empty marijuana baggie. Miami schools have a zero-tolerance policy for drug possession.

Police have been reluctant to provide details about their evidence.

But after the Sentinel story appeared online Monday morning, City Manager Norton Bonaparte Jr. issued a news release, saying there would be an internal-affairs investigation into the source of the leak and, if identified, the person or people involved would be disciplined.

He did not challenge the accuracy of the information.

At a Monday news conference, Trayvon's mother, father and their lawyers called the report that their son was suspended from school because of a marijuana baggie irrelevant and needlessly hurtful.

Trayvon's father, Tracy Martin, said "even in death, they are still disrespecting my son, and I feel that that's a sin."

His mother, Sybrina Fulton, said, "They killed my son, and now they're trying to kill his reputation."

Supporters have held rallies in Sanford, Miami, New York and Tallahassee, calling the case a tragic miscarriage of justice.

Civil-rights activist the Rev. Al Sharpton headlined a rally in Sanford on Thursday that drew an estimated 8,000 people. The Rev. Jesse Jackson on Sunday spoke at an Eatonville church, where he called Trayvon a martyr.

Zimmerman has gone into hiding. A fringe group, the New Black Panther Party, has offered a $10,000 reward for his "capture."

One-minute gap

On Feb. 26, when Zimmerman first spotted Trayvon, he called police and reported a suspicious person, describing Trayvon as black, acting strangely and perhaps on drugs.

Zimmerman got out of his SUV to follow Trayvon on foot. When a dispatch employee asked Zimmerman if he was following the 17-year-old, Zimmerman said yes. The dispatcher told Zimmerman he did not need to do that.

There is about a one-minute gap during which police say they're not sure what happened.

Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words.

Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Trayvon then said, "Well, you do now" or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose, according to the account he gave police.

Zimmerman fell to the ground and Trayvon got on top of him and began slamming his head into the sidewalk, he told police.

Zimmerman began yelling for help.

Several witnesses heard those cries, and there has been a dispute about whether they came from Zimmerman or Trayvon.

Lawyers for Trayvon's family say it was Trayvon, but police say their evidence indicates it was Zimmerman.

One witness, who has since talked to local television news reporters, told police he saw Zimmerman on the ground with Trayvon on top, pounding him — and was unequivocal that it was Zimmerman who was crying for help.

Zimmerman then shot Trayvon once in the chest at very close range, according to authorities.

When police arrived less than two minutes later, Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose, had a swollen lip and had bloody lacerations to the back of his head.

Paramedics gave him first aid but he said he did not need to go to the hospital. He got medical care the next day.

This explains why Zimmerman was released after questioning.

[wayfriend]

I thought I'd come in and see who twisted my words rather than comment on the actual ones I spoke.

What does it matter how often blacks are killing blacks?

Certainly you're not suggesting that it doesn't matter. You can't think of a single reason on your own?

Bingo.

I didn't say it didn't matter, period, now did I? Lies by omission.

I thought the article was quite clear: it matters when race-baiters--who profit from stirring up racial tensions and portraying the people they're purportedly trying to help as perpetual victims--when they try to exaggerate the danger to blacks from whites ... when the greater danger is actually the other way around, statistically.

Wow. It's amazing what conclusion you can come to when you prejudge all the data. "Race baiters"? "exagerate"?

People can raise issues that are lesser dangers than other issues. I daresay that's the entire Think Tank. You're certainly raising the issue of what I am or am not saying when there are far more important issues, like what happened to Trayvon.

Let's just admit it: "there are more important things to discuss" is not a useful point to make about anything. It's a point people make when they want to slam someone for something.

The fact that they spend vastly more time exaggerating the threats of whites shows that this isn't as much about minority advocacy as majority attacking ... in other words, the goals is to attack whites, not help blacks. In other words, racial bigotry.

Well, certainly if we accept that anyone talking about it is "exaggerating", you can make a case. But do you allow that people who aren't exaggerating the issue can talk about the issue? Apparently not - it looks like you'd rather paint them as exagerators whether they are or not.

Certainly the "black murderers" argument (let's remind everyone that blacks are murderers!) doesn't take into account exaggeration. It argues that any and all discussion is wrong. Certainly the "they don't talk about other things" doesn't take into account exaggeration. It argues that any and all discussion is wrong.

Hence: I feel perfectly justified when I say this is slamming anyone who wants to talk about the issue. (Not, as you claim, just the exaggeraters.)

You know what this article is? It's smearing anyone who tries to address racism.

Can you describe the smear? Using a quote? It's not a smear to point out facts and bias.

The article didn't point out facts and bias. It pointed out irrellevant facts and falsely claimed these facts proved bias. Out of a motivation to produce an appearance of bias where none existied. And that's why it's a smear campaign.

Anyone reading it can see it doesn't discuss the actual issue, it just explains why anyone wanting to discuss racism shouldn't be discussing racism. Because, as it claims, there are more important things to discuss. Which is the worlds lamest reason, as I said.

Calling any attempt at pointing out racial hypocrisy and race-baiting as "smearing" is just sweeping these issues under the rug.

Thank goodness I didn't address "any" attempt - only one which was blatantly an adhominem attack on anyone wishing to discuss racism.

Surely I can call those ones smearing, right?

[wayfriend]

This explains why Zimmerman was released after questioning.

Because he has no motivation to lie about it when the only witness is dead?

Where's Mr. Occam's Razor man now?

[Cail]

This explains why Zimmerman was released after questioning.

Because he has no motivation to lie about it when the only witness is

As the article states, eyewitness testimony and the 911 calls corroborate Zimmerman's story.

[wayfriend]

This explains why Zimmerman was released after questioning.

Because he has no motivation to lie about it when the only witness is

As the article states, eyewitness testimony and the 911 calls corroborate Zimmerman's story.

It also disagrees with other witnesses versions of events. So let's not cherry-pick what we consider to be evidence.

Once again, there's this thing where we are admonished to withold judgement whenever we dislike the facts, and then we're supposed to unconditionally accept other facts when they are more to our liking.

Zimmerman would have us believe that one minute Martin is walking away, and he is following him, and then literally the next minute he turns around, and then Martin comes out of the blue and attacks him. Much more believable theories for what happened have been poo-pooed here.

[Cail]

Because he has no motivation to lie about it when the only witness is

As the article states, eyewitness testimony and the 911 calls corroborate Zimmerman's story.

It also disagrees with other witnesses versions of events. So let's not cherry-pick what we consider to be evidence.

Once again, there's this thing where we are admonished to withold judgement whenever we dislike the facts, and then we're supposed to unconditionally accept other facts when they are more to our liking.

Zimmerman would have us believe that one minute Martin is walking away, and he is following him, and then literally the next minute he turns around, and then Martin comes out of the blue and attacks him. Much more believable theories for what happened have been poo-pooed here.

Can you please point out where I've made any sort of judgement? I've posted an article which discusses what's in the police report, and would explain why the police and the prosecutor declined to arrest Martin.

I'm not aware of any eyewitness testimony that contradicts what's in the police report. Would you please post what you're referring to?

[Zarathustra]

I thought the article was quite clear: it matters when race-baiters--who profit from stirring up racial tensions and portraying the people they're purportedly trying to help as perpetual victims--when they try to exaggerate the danger to blacks from whites

Says the guy who brought Gingrich's straw-grasping appeal for relevance into the thread.

I thought that was WF. I haven't mentioned Gingrich.

What's the point of this? If there is a greater chance of dying in a car than a plane, is it then wrong to say the FAA should investigate a plane wreck, especially when there appears to be systemic problems with the company at fault?

If Sharpton and Jackson merely said an investigation should be made, I'd agree with them. However, if they said that the airline industry is profiting off the death of black people, and described this on a war on black people, and as part of this fervor the Black Panthers put a $10,000 bounty on the the airline CEO, and then announced that they intend to mobilize 5000 black men to hunt him down, then I'd say exactly what I'm saying now: this is being blown out of proportion, on wild speculation and conspiracy theories.

And especially if the airline CEO was being targeted because he was white, I'd echo another sentiment I'm saying now: this is anti-white bigotry.

Let's all think about this for a second. In America, someone is innocent until proven guilty, right? There is not a single shred of evidence that Zimmerman shot Martin because of his race. All the police evidence supports his account that he acted in self-defense. So what is the claim (that this is racism) built upon? The fact that Zimmerman was white. Everyone is in a tizzy over the fact that they assume Zimmerman thought Martin was "suspicious" because he was black, but they don't stop to think that they are suspicious of Zimmerman's account merely because he's white! Your side is using race as the basis of your suspicion, and then accusing another man of doing the same thing you're doing, without even knowing if it's true in his case. But it's absolutely true, in your case. If Zimmerman was black, you wouldn't be making this charge. You're racially profiling Zimmerman.

Hey, Wayfriend, are the recent criticisms levied by former NAACPA leader C.L. Bryant also defending racism? He's black, btw. And he agrees with everything I posted in the previous article, which you called "defending racism."

Former NAACP leader C.L. Bryant is accusing Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton of “exploiting” the Trayvon Martin tragedy to “racially divide this country.”

“His family should be outraged at the fact that they’re using this child as the bait to inflame racial passions,” Rev. C.L. Bryant said in a Monday interview with The Daily Caller.

The conservative black pastor who was once the chapter president of the Garland, Texas NAACP called Jackson and Sharpton “race hustlers” and said they are “acting as though they are buzzards circling the carcass of this young boy.”

Jackson, for example, recently said Martin’s death shows how “blacks are under attack” and “targeting, arresting, convicting blacks and ultimately killing us is big business.” (SEE ALSO: Jesse Jackson says Trayvon Martin ‘murdered and martyred’)

George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain, killed Martin, a 17-year-old black man who was unarmed at the time of his death, last month. Zimmerman has claimed to have shot Martin in self-defense and has not been charged with a crime.

But Bryant, who explores the topic of black-on-black crime in his new film “Runaway Slave,” said people like Jackson and Sharpton are being misleading to suggest there is an epidemic of “white men killing black young men.”

“The epidemic is truly black on black crime,” Bryant said. “The greatest danger to the lives of young black men are young black men.”

link

It's interesting to see old civil rights leaders called racist and all the many flaws of their thinking and life works pointed out. It certainly sends a message.

What message is that? If you criticize a black man, you're a racist? Civil rights leaders are beyond any possible criticism? Are they super-human? Holy? Have I committed blasphemy in the eyes of the church of the Left? Be specific, please, and let's not pussyfoot with this innuendo.

Does it make a difference that another black man, a former NAACP leader, agrees with me and the article I posted? Does that send the same "message?"

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Police and paramedics noted the signs of assault on Mr. Zimmermann; I think they were a bleeding nose, a swollen lip, and lacerations on the back of his head. Conclusion: someone attacked Mr. Zimmermann and inflicted those wounds on him.

We can rationally rule out the conclusion that he inflicted the wounds on himself in an attempt to paint the shooting as self-defense. Some people may disagree with this but I would challenge them to give themselves a swollen lip--it is more difficult to do to yourself than you might think, especially if you are trying to do it on purpose.

Therefore, we are left with someone else attacking him. The most likely candidate is the late Mr. Martin.

Wayfriend's point also highlights why a trial wouldn't be a bad thing--it would force all eyewitnesses to come forward and give their sworn testimony under oath. This will rule out any heresay and put all the statements on the record. Now that I think about it, there wouldn't even have to be a trial--eyewitness testimony at a grand jury is also sworn under oath and a grand jury hearing happens a lot faster than a trial.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

This may be of interest to some of you. I had a very racially charged but ultimately positive conversation about this incident with a black man from Miami yesterday that is someone I work with. He gave me a very long laundry list of racism he has had to tolerate in Miami over the years. Apparently Miami is one of the more racially charged cities in the country, and there have been race riots and unrest over the years. The fact that Trayvon was from Miami could be a major part in this story, if he felt he was being profiled and got angry about it, then lashed out at Zimmerman. And it looks more and more like that is what may have happened.

[Prebe]

That's too gray Ron. We need something more black & white to fuel our rage.

[Zarathustra]

... if he felt he was being profiled and got angry about it, then lashed out at Zimmerman. And it looks more and more like that is what may have happened.

Given how easily others are finding Zimmerman's actions "suspicious" based on the fact that Zimmerman was Caucasian (as the liberal media is careful to point out), there's no reason to think that Martin didn't similarly profile Zimmerman in this manner, and conclude that Zimmerman's motivation was racist, merely because Zimmerman was white. And to think that he'd attack Zimmerman based on the same exact conclusion that the Left is making here--indeed, the same conclusion that is motivating black bounties and black man hunts around the country--isn't that much of a stretch. There's as much evidence for that scenario as there is for the fact claim that Zimmerman's suspicion was racially motivated ... namely, the race of the person being criticized. Which isn't much, admittedly, but it's not enough to eliminate one in favor of the other.

Such is the logic of judging someone based on the color of their skin. Accusing another of judging someone based on the color of their skin, when this judgment is based on the color of their skin of that person who is accused, is just as bad as what is being alleged.

I can't believe not a single liberal here has condemned the Black Panther bounty and 5000-man manhunt. It "sends a message," as Ananda might say.

[[Syl]]

I thought the article was quite clear: it matters when race-baiters--who profit from stirring up racial tensions and portraying the people they're purportedly trying to help as perpetual victims--when they try to exaggerate the danger to blacks from whites

Says the guy who brought Gingrich's straw-grasping appeal for relevance into the thread.

I thought that was WF. I haven't mentioned Gingrich.

There is also the whole Presidential angle on this. Why the hell is Obama stirring up emotions by saying that the kid looks like he could be his son? Why would that possibly matter? Would he say that about a convicted rapist? Obviously, he's trying to get us to identify and sympathize with Martin. Why is he asking the country to identify with one particular person in a confrontation before the facts are in? (Is he acting "stupidly?")

Z, I'm all for innocence until proven guilty. As I said earlier, I'm just glad the outcry has made such, if it exists, possible (if not all that likely, considering the botched investigation and egregious lawmaking that has gotten out and out gangbangers off the hook). I just don't think it's all that reasonable to cry 'white persecution' when a grieving and historically oppressed section of our population is upset. Sometimes, you have to let those hard to reach chips go.

[Prebe]

I can't believe not a single liberal here has condemned the Black Panther bounty and 5000-man manhunt. It "sends a message," as Ananda might say.

Consider it condemned by this liberal. Even though it should be obvious that I'd condemn such a thing being a general adversary of vigalante justice and a well know proponent of a justice system where you are innocent untill proven guilty.

Are you suggesting that anyone in this debate find it in order? Because that's certainly what it seems like to me.

[[Syl]]

He's just being cute, Prebe. I suppose he wanted something more strident than my:

I think we can cut one side a little slack (and I don't mean groups like the NBP and the like)

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

If I make a single concession to racial peace, it is the observation that he should have been arrested at the scene. I base this on the near certainty that, roles reversed, Martin is cuffed and stuffed.