Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (3 Viewers)

[avoiding injuries]

Also, can someone explain this "white tennis shoes, wet grass" nonsense to me? Is the argument that he wouldn't walk on wet grass with white tennis shoes unless he was up to no good? Because that one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from anyone who either knows or was once a teenager. Plus the same terrible logic, if accepted as valid, would also apply in reverse- if he was planning on snooping around looking into houses on wet grass and for some reason really cared about protecting his shoes, he wouldn't have worn them in the first place.

Can you explain to me how you think seeing a kid you dont recognize at night wandering between houses in a gated community is not suspicious?Actually dont bother, I know you are lying. You might not be to the level of call the cops or confront them suspicious, but you would absolutely be suspicious. Anybody else that says they dont find it suspicious is lying as well.

Depends on a number of factors. Normally, I would not be suspicious of a person in my neighborhood just because I don't recognize them. As hard as this apparently is for you to believe, there are people in this world who are not paranoid lunatics who assume the worst about every human being they do not know. You call it "naive," I call it "not being a massive gaping #######."

Of course if someone is wearing white tennis shoes on wet grass, that's a totally different story. My rule is that when you see white on wet, shoot first and ask questions later.

I've heard this "didn't recognize him" argument pop up a lot lately in an effort to defend Zimmerman. What's puzzling to me is that the people bringing it up are also the people who gave Zimmerman a pass on not knowing the street names. Three streets vs hundreds of people...really?

I know you think this was a gotcha moment, but the "didnt recognize him" is quite relevant.If I saw my next door neighbor's kid that I have known for a while and have seen chase their dog all through the neighborhood and has never caused me any trouble walking through the yards I wouldnt be suspicious. If I saw a dude I didnt recognize, I would be.

You and tobias can try and spin that all you want, but you are both full of crap.

That's fine....I can say with confidence I don't know the faces of the 2000+ people in my neighborhood. I see people all the time and have no clue if they live in the neighborhood or not. I'm not suspicious of them. There has to be something more than not recognizing them for me to summon my spidey senses. There's really nothing to spin here....seems to be a difference in general attitude towards people...nothing more.

Again you avoid answering. You are twisting and turning like crazy here. It is ridiculous. We arent talking about just seeing people you dont know. I saw 200 people today I don't know from Adam. I wasn't suspicious of all but one of them. Why not? Because they werent doing anything suspicious.Commish's wife: Honey there is some dude wandering around outside between all the houses just staring at them. It is late and it is raining. Doesnt that seem odd to you?

Commish: Nope. Invite him in. Probably a neighbor that we dont know yet and I am sure they are cold and would like some warm tea.

ETA: The guy I thought was suspicious was pushing a pink bike and waving a cane above his head. I know Tobias and Commish think that is normal, but that seemed like crazy behavior to me.

I'm not twisting anything. I'm flat out saying I'm not a suspicious person.

I don't know, man. You seem pretty suspicious to me...

 

[Parrothead]

have they changed the verdict yet?

 

[The Commish]

Also, can someone explain this "white tennis shoes, wet grass" nonsense to me? Is the argument that he wouldn't walk on wet grass with white tennis shoes unless he was up to no good? Because that one of the dumbest things I've ever heard from anyone who either knows or was once a teenager. Plus the same terrible logic, if accepted as valid, would also apply in reverse- if he was planning on snooping around looking into houses on wet grass and for some reason really cared about protecting his shoes, he wouldn't have worn them in the first place.

Can you explain to me how you think seeing a kid you dont recognize at night wandering between houses in a gated community is not suspicious?Actually dont bother, I know you are lying. You might not be to the level of call the cops or confront them suspicious, but you would absolutely be suspicious. Anybody else that says they dont find it suspicious is lying as well.

Depends on a number of factors. Normally, I would not be suspicious of a person in my neighborhood just because I don't recognize them. As hard as this apparently is for you to believe, there are people in this world who are not paranoid lunatics who assume the worst about every human being they do not know. You call it "naive," I call it "not being a massive gaping #######."

Of course if someone is wearing white tennis shoes on wet grass, that's a totally different story. My rule is that when you see white on wet, shoot first and ask questions later.

I've heard this "didn't recognize him" argument pop up a lot lately in an effort to defend Zimmerman. What's puzzling to me is that the people bringing it up are also the people who gave Zimmerman a pass on not knowing the street names. Three streets vs hundreds of people...really?

I know you think this was a gotcha moment, but the "didnt recognize him" is quite relevant.If I saw my next door neighbor's kid that I have known for a while and have seen chase their dog all through the neighborhood and has never caused me any trouble walking through the yards I wouldnt be suspicious. If I saw a dude I didnt recognize, I would be.

You and tobias can try and spin that all you want, but you are both full of crap.

That's fine....I can say with confidence I don't know the faces of the 2000+ people in my neighborhood. I see people all the time and have no clue if they live in the neighborhood or not. I'm not suspicious of them. There has to be something more than not recognizing them for me to summon my spidey senses. There's really nothing to spin here....seems to be a difference in general attitude towards people...nothing more.

Again you avoid answering. You are twisting and turning like crazy here. It is ridiculous. We arent talking about just seeing people you dont know. I saw 200 people today I don't know from Adam. I wasn't suspicious of all but one of them. Why not? Because they werent doing anything suspicious.Commish's wife: Honey there is some dude wandering around outside between all the houses just staring at them. It is late and it is raining. Doesnt that seem odd to you?

Commish: Nope. Invite him in. Probably a neighbor that we dont know yet and I am sure they are cold and would like some warm tea.

ETA: The guy I thought was suspicious was pushing a pink bike and waving a cane above his head. I know Tobias and Commish think that is normal, but that seemed like crazy behavior to me.

I'm not twisting anything. I'm flat out saying I'm not a suspicious person.

I don't know, man. You seem pretty suspicious to me...

I figured if I used "overly cautious" or "paranoid" that might send him over the edge.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I haven't followed this case very closely. It's a case where one guy killed another guy, which happens pretty often in this country with rather little fanfare. Why is this case getting so much national attention? It seems it's because people on both sides of the political spectrum want to turn it into something much bigger than the mundane homicide that it was -- some kind of broad morality tale involving racism, or gun laws, or The Decline of American Civilization, or whatever.

That's always seemed distastefully huffy to me.

It turns out that William Saletan has expressed my feelings pretty well. I like this article:

You Are Not Trayvon Martin
His death wasn’t about race, guns, or your pet issue. It was about misjudgment and overreaction—exactly what we’re doing now to the verdict.
By William Saletan

July 15, 2013

Trayvon Martin is dead, George Zimmerman has been acquitted, and millions of people are outraged. Some politicians are demanding a second prosecution of Zimmerman, this time for hate crimes. Others are blaming the tragedy on “Stand Your Ground” laws, which they insist must be repealed. Many who saw the case as proof of racism in the criminal justice system see the verdict as further confirmation. Everywhere you look, people feel vindicated in their bitter assumptions. They want action.

But that’s how Martin ended up dead. It’s how Zimmerman ended up with a bulletproof vest he might have to wear for the rest of his life. It’s how activists and the media embarrassed themselves with bogus reports. The problem at the core of this case wasn’t race or guns. The problem was assumption, misperception, and overreaction. And that cycle hasn’t ended with the verdict. It has escalated.

I almost joined the frenzy. Yesterday I was going to write that Zimmerman pursued Martin against police instructions and illustrated the perils of racial profiling. But I hadn’t followed the case in detail. So I sat down and watched the closing arguments: nearly seven hours of video in which the prosecution and defense went point by point through the evidence as it had been hashed out at the trial. Based on what I learned from the videos, I did some further reading.

It turned out I had been wrong about many things. The initial portrait of Zimmerman as a racist wasn’t just exaggerated. It was completely unsubstantiated. It’s a case study in how the same kind of bias that causes racism can cause unwarranted allegations of racism. Some of the people Zimmerman had reported as suspicious were black men, so he was a racist. Members of his family seemed racist, so he was a racist. Everybody knew he was a racist, so his recorded words were misheard as racial slurs, proving again that he was a racist.

The 911 dispatcher who spoke to Zimmerman on the fatal night didn’t tell him to stay in his car. Zimmerman said he was following a suspicious person, and the dispatcher told him, "We don't need you to do that." Chief prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda conceded in his closing argument that these words were ambiguous. De la Rionda also acknowledged, based on witness and forensic evidence, that both men “were scraping and rolling and fighting out there.” He pointed out that the wounds, blood evidence, and DNA didn’t match Zimmerman’s story of being thoroughly restrained and pummeled throughout the fight. But the evidence didn’t fit the portrait of Martin as a sweet-tempered child, either. And the notion that Zimmerman hunted down Martin to accost him made no sense. Zimmerman knew the police were on the way. They arrived only a minute or so after the gunshot. The fight happened in a public area surrounded by townhouses at close range. It was hardly the place or time to start shooting.

That doesn’t make Zimmerman a hero. It just makes him a reckless fool instead of a murderer. In a post-verdict press conference, his lawyer, Mark O’Mara, claimed that “the evidence supported that George Zimmerman did nothing wrong,” that “the jury decided that he acted properly in self-defense,” and that Zimmerman “was never guilty of anything except protecting himself in self-defense. I’m glad that the jury saw it that way.” That’s complete BS. The only thing the jury decided was that there was reasonable doubt as to whether Zimmerman had committed second-degree murder or manslaughter.

Zimmerman is guilty, morally if not legally, of precipitating the confrontation that led to Martin’s death. He did many things wrong. Mistake No. 1 was inferring that Martin was a burglar. In his 911 call, Zimmerman cited Martin’s behavior. “It’s raining, and he’s just walking around” looking at houses, Zimmerman said. He warned the dispatcher, “He’s got his hand in his waistband.” He described Martin’s race and clothing only after the dispatcher asked about them. Whatever its basis, the inference was false.

Mistake No. 2 was pursuing Martin on foot. Zimmerman had already done what the neighborhood watch rules advised: He had called the police. They would have arrived, questioned Martin, and ascertained that he was innocent. Instead, Zimmerman, packing a concealed firearm, got out and started walking after Martin. Zimmerman’s initial story, that he was trying to check the name of the street, was so laughable that his attorneys abandoned it. He was afraid Martin would get away. So he followed Martin, hoping to update the cops.

Mistake No. 3 was Zimmerman’s utter failure to imagine how his behavior looked to Martin. You’re a black kid walking home from a convenience store with Skittles and a fruit drink. Some dude in a car is watching and trailing you. God knows what he wants. You run away. He gets out of the car and follows you. What are you supposed to do? In Zimmerman’s initial interrogation, the police expressed surprise that he hadn’t identified himself to Martin as a neighborhood watch volunteer. They suggested that Martin might have been alarmed when Zimmerman reached for an object that Zimmerman, but not Martin, knew was a phone. Zimmerman seemed baffled. He was so convinced of Martin’s criminal intent that he hadn’t considered how Martin, if he were innocent, would perceive his stalker.

Martin, meanwhile, was profiling Zimmerman. On his phone, he told a friend he was being followed by a “creepy-### cracker.” The friend—who later testified that this phrase meant pervert—advised Martin, “You better run.” She reported, as Zimmerman did, that Martin challenged Zimmerman, demanding to know why he was being hassled. If Zimmerman’s phobic misreading of Martin was the first wrong turn that led to their fatal struggle, Martin’s phobic misreading of Zimmerman may have been the second.

In court, evidence and scrutiny have exposed these difficult, complicated truths. But outside the court, ideologues are ignoring them. They’re oversimplifying a tragedy that was caused by oversimplification. Martin has become Emmett Till. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is using the verdict to attack Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which wasn’t invoked in this case. The grievance industrial complex is pushing the Department of Justice to prosecute Zimmerman for bias-motivated killing, based on evidence that didn’t even support a conviction for unpremeditated killing. Zimmerman’s lawyers have teamed up with members of the Congressional Black Caucus, inadvertently, to promote the false message that Zimmerman’s acquittal means our society thinks everything he did was OK.

It wasn’t OK. It was stupid and dangerous. It led to the unnecessary death of an innocent young man. It happened because two people—their minds clouded by stereotypes that went well beyond race—assumed the worst about one another and acted in haste. If you want to prevent the next Trayvon Martin tragedy, learn from their mistakes. Don’t paint the world in black and white. Don’t declare the whole justice system racist, or blame every gun death on guns, or confuse acquittal with vindication. And the next time you see somebody who looks like a punk or a pervert, hold your fire.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Slip sliding away, slip sliding away
You know the nearer your destination, the more you slip sliding away................................

 

[jamny]

Charles Barkley: I agree with the Zimmerman verdict

 

[jon_mx]

I haven't followed this case very closely. It's a case where one guy killed another guy, which happens pretty often in this country with rather little fanfare. Why is this case getting so much national attention? It seems it's because people on both sides of the political spectrum want to turn it into something much bigger than the mundane homicide that it was -- some kind of broad morality tale involving racism, or gun laws, or The Decline of American Civilization, or whatever.

That's always seemed distastefully huffy to me.

It turns out that William Saletan has expressed my feelings pretty well. I like this article:

When the right screws up, it is always just about the right. When the left screws up royally like in this case, it is about both sides. Personally, I came in believing the media spin and that Zimmerman had no justification for shooting. But it quickly became apparent the spin was extremely misleading and in some cases just false. The left lied about this case from day 1. The left screams of racism where there was none. The left railroaded this case into court when it did not belong. The left fueled protests and in LA rocks were thrown at police. I am sure there are pundants on the right who said stupid things, but it was the left who politicized and overplayed this case.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Suspicion

He's a big, big man
He's a big, big man
He's much bigger than me
I can tell by the way she walks

She says oh no, you're so wrong
She says oh no, you're so wrong
Suspicion, it's got the best of me
Suspicion, it's got the best of me

 

[jon_mx]

Charles Barkley: I agree with the Zimmerman verdict

Barkley making more sense than anyone else I heard on TV on this subject.

 

[The Commish]

MT...your article makes good points and quite frankly I'm tired of all the around this insisting that it's left vs right or black vs white. I'd rather look at what a verdict like this means in terms of society and what we teach our children. Problem is, I'm not sure what should be taught from this. "Don't beat up people who are carrying a gun" is childish and pointless. The best I can come up with is it's taught us how screwed up FL law is and I'm afraid that's not going to be very useful to my children.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I haven't followed this case very closely. It's a case where one guy killed another guy, which happens pretty often in this country with rather little fanfare. Why is this case getting so much national attention? It seems it's because people on both sides of the political spectrum want to turn it into something much bigger than the mundane homicide that it was -- some kind of broad morality tale involving racism, or gun laws, or The Decline of American Civilization, or whatever.

That's always seemed distastefully huffy to me.

It turns out that William Saletan has expressed my feelings pretty well. I like this article:

When the right screws up, it is always just about the right. When the left screws up royally like in this case, it is about both sides. Personally, I came in believing the media spin and that Zimmerman had no justification for shooting. But it quickly became apparent the spin was extremely misleading and in some cases just false. The left lied about this case from day 1. The left screams of racism where there was none. The left railroaded this case into court when it did not belong. The left fueled protests and in LA rocks were thrown at police. I am sure there are pundants on the right who said stupid things, but it was the left who politicized and overplayed this case.

It is heartening to see that this case has taught you how stupid it is when people paint others with an overly broad brush and point fingers based on silly stereotypes instead of realizing that every person and situation is different. Way to go.

 

[kentric]

Charles Barkley: I agree with the Zimmerman verdict

Great discussion.

Charles Barkley; "It gives every white person and black person who is racist a platform to vent their ignorance." Good job Charles.

 

[BroadwayG]

MT...your article makes good points and quite frankly I'm tired of all the around this insisting that it's left vs right or black vs white. I'd rather look at what a verdict like this means in terms of society and what we teach our children. Problem is, I'm not sure what should be taught from this. "Don't beat up people who are carrying a gun" is childish and pointless. The best I can come up with is it's taught us how screwed up FL law is and I'm afraid that's not going to be very useful to my children.

 

[The Commish]

MT...your article makes good points and quite frankly I'm tired of all the around this insisting that it's left vs right or black vs white. I'd rather look at what a verdict like this means in terms of society and what we teach our children. Problem is, I'm not sure what should be taught from this. "Don't beat up people who are carrying a gun" is childish and pointless. The best I can come up with is it's taught us how screwed up FL law is and I'm afraid that's not going to be very useful to my children.

Yes...childish and pointless has been established well before this...don't need more examples TIA.

 

[cstu]

Charles Barkley: I agree with the Zimmerman verdict

Great discussion.

Charles Barkley; "It gives every white person and black person who is racist a platform to vent their ignorance." Good job Charles.

 

[RBM]

Charles Barkley: I agree with the Zimmerman verdict

Great discussion.Charles Barkley; "It gives every white person and black person who is racist a platform to vent their ignorance." Good job Charles.

Yup, and it shows how far the black community has to go in overcoming their own racism.

 

[cstu]

I haven't followed this case very closely. It's a case where one guy killed another guy, which happens pretty often in this country with rather little fanfare. Why is this case getting so much national attention? It seems it's because people on both sides of the political spectrum want to turn it into something much bigger than the mundane homicide that it was -- some kind of broad morality tale involving racism, or gun laws, or The Decline of American Civilization, or whatever.

That's always seemed distastefully huffy to me.

It turns out that William Saletan has expressed my feelings pretty well. I like this article:

You Are Not Trayvon Martin

His death wasn’t about race, guns, or your pet issue. It was about misjudgment and overreaction—exactly what we’re doing now to the verdict.

By William Saletan

July 15, 2013

Trayvon Martin is dead, George Zimmerman has been acquitted, and millions of people are outraged. Some politicians are demanding a second prosecution of Zimmerman, this time for hate crimes. Others are blaming the tragedy on “Stand Your Ground” laws, which they insist must be repealed. Many who saw the case as proof of racism in the criminal justice system see the verdict as further confirmation. Everywhere you look, people feel vindicated in their bitter assumptions. They want action.

But that’s how Martin ended up dead. It’s how Zimmerman ended up with a bulletproof vest he might have to wear for the rest of his life. It’s how activists and the media embarrassed themselves with bogus reports. The problem at the core of this case wasn’t race or guns. The problem was assumption, misperception, and overreaction. And that cycle hasn’t ended with the verdict. It has escalated.

I almost joined the frenzy. Yesterday I was going to write that Zimmerman pursued Martin against police instructions and illustrated the perils of racial profiling. But I hadn’t followed the case in detail. So I sat down and watched the closing arguments: nearly seven hours of video in which the prosecution and defense went point by point through the evidence as it had been hashed out at the trial. Based on what I learned from the videos, I did some further reading.

It turned out I had been wrong about many things. The initial portrait of Zimmerman as a racist wasn’t just exaggerated. It was completely unsubstantiated. It’s a case study in how the same kind of bias that causes racism can cause unwarranted allegations of racism. Some of the people Zimmerman had reported as suspicious were black men, so he was a racist. Members of his family seemed racist, so he was a racist. Everybody knew he was a racist, so his recorded words were misheard as racial slurs, proving again that he was a racist.

The 911 dispatcher who spoke to Zimmerman on the fatal night didn’t tell him to stay in his car. Zimmerman said he was following a suspicious person, and the dispatcher told him, "We don't need you to do that." Chief prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda conceded in his closing argument that these words were ambiguous. De la Rionda also acknowledged, based on witness and forensic evidence, that both men “were scraping and rolling and fighting out there.” He pointed out that the wounds, blood evidence, and DNA didn’t match Zimmerman’s story of being thoroughly restrained and pummeled throughout the fight. But the evidence didn’t fit the portrait of Martin as a sweet-tempered child, either. And the notion that Zimmerman hunted down Martin to accost him made no sense. Zimmerman knew the police were on the way. They arrived only a minute or so after the gunshot. The fight happened in a public area surrounded by townhouses at close range. It was hardly the place or time to start shooting.

That doesn’t make Zimmerman a hero. It just makes him a reckless fool instead of a murderer. In a post-verdict press conference, his lawyer, Mark O’Mara, claimed that “the evidence supported that George Zimmerman did nothing wrong,” that “the jury decided that he acted properly in self-defense,” and that Zimmerman “was never guilty of anything except protecting himself in self-defense. I’m glad that the jury saw it that way.” That’s complete BS. The only thing the jury decided was that there was reasonable doubt as to whether Zimmerman had committed second-degree murder or manslaughter.

Zimmerman is guilty, morally if not legally, of precipitating the confrontation that led to Martin’s death. He did many things wrong. Mistake No. 1 was inferring that Martin was a burglar. In his 911 call, Zimmerman cited Martin’s behavior. “It’s raining, and he’s just walking around” looking at houses, Zimmerman said. He warned the dispatcher, “He’s got his hand in his waistband.” He described Martin’s race and clothing only after the dispatcher asked about them. Whatever its basis, the inference was false.

Mistake No. 2 was pursuing Martin on foot. Zimmerman had already done what the neighborhood watch rules advised: He had called the police. They would have arrived, questioned Martin, and ascertained that he was innocent. Instead, Zimmerman, packing a concealed firearm, got out and started walking after Martin. Zimmerman’s initial story, that he was trying to check the name of the street, was so laughable that his attorneys abandoned it. He was afraid Martin would get away. So he followed Martin, hoping to update the cops.

Mistake No. 3 was Zimmerman’s utter failure to imagine how his behavior looked to Martin. You’re a black kid walking home from a convenience store with Skittles and a fruit drink. Some dude in a car is watching and trailing you. God knows what he wants. You run away. He gets out of the car and follows you. What are you supposed to do? In Zimmerman’s initial interrogation, the police expressed surprise that he hadn’t identified himself to Martin as a neighborhood watch volunteer. They suggested that Martin might have been alarmed when Zimmerman reached for an object that Zimmerman, but not Martin, knew was a phone. Zimmerman seemed baffled. He was so convinced of Martin’s criminal intent that he hadn’t considered how Martin, if he were innocent, would perceive his stalker.

Martin, meanwhile, was profiling Zimmerman. On his phone, he told a friend he was being followed by a “creepy-### cracker.” The friend—who later testified that this phrase meant pervert—advised Martin, “You better run.” She reported, as Zimmerman did, that Martin challenged Zimmerman, demanding to know why he was being hassled. If Zimmerman’s phobic misreading of Martin was the first wrong turn that led to their fatal struggle, Martin’s phobic misreading of Zimmerman may have been the second.

In court, evidence and scrutiny have exposed these difficult, complicated truths. But outside the court, ideologues are ignoring them. They’re oversimplifying a tragedy that was caused by oversimplification. Martin has become Emmett Till. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is using the verdict to attack Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which wasn’t invoked in this case. The grievance industrial complex is pushing the Department of Justice to prosecute Zimmerman for bias-motivated killing, based on evidence that didn’t even support a conviction for unpremeditated killing. Zimmerman’s lawyers have teamed up with members of the Congressional Black Caucus, inadvertently, to promote the false message that Zimmerman’s acquittal means our society thinks everything he did was OK.

It wasn’t OK. It was stupid and dangerous. It led to the unnecessary death of an innocent young man. It happened because two people—their minds clouded by stereotypes that went well beyond race—assumed the worst about one another and acted in haste. If you want to prevent the next Trayvon Martin tragedy, learn from their mistakes. Don’t paint the world in black and white. Don’t declare the whole justice system racist, or blame every gun death on guns, or confuse acquittal with vindication. And the next time you see somebody who looks like a punk or a pervert, hold your fire.

 

[Da Guru]

I haven't followed this case very closely. It's a case where one guy killed another guy, which happens pretty often in this country with rather little fanfare. Why is this case getting so much national attention? It seems it's because people on both sides of the political spectrum want to turn it into something much bigger than the mundane homicide that it was -- some kind of broad morality tale involving racism, or gun laws, or The Decline of American Civilization, or whatever.

That's always seemed distastefully huffy to me.

It turns out that William Saletan has expressed my feelings pretty well. I like this article:

You Are Not Trayvon Martin

His death wasn’t about race, guns, or your pet issue. It was about misjudgment and overreaction—exactly what we’re doing now to the verdict.

By William Saletan

July 15, 2013

Trayvon Martin is dead, George Zimmerman has been acquitted, and millions of people are outraged. Some politicians are demanding a second prosecution of Zimmerman, this time for hate crimes. Others are blaming the tragedy on “Stand Your Ground” laws, which they insist must be repealed. Many who saw the case as proof of racism in the criminal justice system see the verdict as further confirmation. Everywhere you look, people feel vindicated in their bitter assumptions. They want action.

But that’s how Martin ended up dead. It’s how Zimmerman ended up with a bulletproof vest he might have to wear for the rest of his life. It’s how activists and the media embarrassed themselves with bogus reports. The problem at the core of this case wasn’t race or guns. The problem was assumption, misperception, and overreaction. And that cycle hasn’t ended with the verdict. It has escalated.

I almost joined the frenzy. Yesterday I was going to write that Zimmerman pursued Martin against police instructions and illustrated the perils of racial profiling. But I hadn’t followed the case in detail. So I sat down and watched the closing arguments: nearly seven hours of video in which the prosecution and defense went point by point through the evidence as it had been hashed out at the trial. Based on what I learned from the videos, I did some further reading.

It turned out I had been wrong about many things. The initial portrait of Zimmerman as a racist wasn’t just exaggerated. It was completely unsubstantiated. It’s a case study in how the same kind of bias that causes racism can cause unwarranted allegations of racism. Some of the people Zimmerman had reported as suspicious were black men, so he was a racist. Members of his family seemed racist, so he was a racist. Everybody knew he was a racist, so his recorded words were misheard as racial slurs, proving again that he was a racist.

The 911 dispatcher who spoke to Zimmerman on the fatal night didn’t tell him to stay in his car. Zimmerman said he was following a suspicious person, and the dispatcher told him, "We don't need you to do that." Chief prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda conceded in his closing argument that these words were ambiguous. De la Rionda also acknowledged, based on witness and forensic evidence, that both men “were scraping and rolling and fighting out there.” He pointed out that the wounds, blood evidence, and DNA didn’t match Zimmerman’s story of being thoroughly restrained and pummeled throughout the fight. But the evidence didn’t fit the portrait of Martin as a sweet-tempered child, either. And the notion that Zimmerman hunted down Martin to accost him made no sense. Zimmerman knew the police were on the way. They arrived only a minute or so after the gunshot. The fight happened in a public area surrounded by townhouses at close range. It was hardly the place or time to start shooting.

That doesn’t make Zimmerman a hero. It just makes him a reckless fool instead of a murderer. In a post-verdict press conference, his lawyer, Mark O’Mara, claimed that “the evidence supported that George Zimmerman did nothing wrong,” that “the jury decided that he acted properly in self-defense,” and that Zimmerman “was never guilty of anything except protecting himself in self-defense. I’m glad that the jury saw it that way.” That’s complete BS. The only thing the jury decided was that there was reasonable doubt as to whether Zimmerman had committed second-degree murder or manslaughter.

Zimmerman is guilty, morally if not legally, of precipitating the confrontation that led to Martin’s death. He did many things wrong. Mistake No. 1 was inferring that Martin was a burglar. In his 911 call, Zimmerman cited Martin’s behavior. “It’s raining, and he’s just walking around” looking at houses, Zimmerman said. He warned the dispatcher, “He’s got his hand in his waistband.” He described Martin’s race and clothing only after the dispatcher asked about them. Whatever its basis, the inference was false.

Mistake No. 2 was pursuing Martin on foot. Zimmerman had already done what the neighborhood watch rules advised: He had called the police. They would have arrived, questioned Martin, and ascertained that he was innocent. Instead, Zimmerman, packing a concealed firearm, got out and started walking after Martin. Zimmerman’s initial story, that he was trying to check the name of the street, was so laughable that his attorneys abandoned it. He was afraid Martin would get away. So he followed Martin, hoping to update the cops.

Mistake No. 3 was Zimmerman’s utter failure to imagine how his behavior looked to Martin. You’re a black kid walking home from a convenience store with Skittles and a fruit drink. Some dude in a car is watching and trailing you. God knows what he wants. You run away. He gets out of the car and follows you. What are you supposed to do? In Zimmerman’s initial interrogation, the police expressed surprise that he hadn’t identified himself to Martin as a neighborhood watch volunteer. They suggested that Martin might have been alarmed when Zimmerman reached for an object that Zimmerman, but not Martin, knew was a phone. Zimmerman seemed baffled. He was so convinced of Martin’s criminal intent that he hadn’t considered how Martin, if he were innocent, would perceive his stalker.

Martin, meanwhile, was profiling Zimmerman. On his phone, he told a friend he was being followed by a “creepy-### cracker.” The friend—who later testified that this phrase meant pervert—advised Martin, “You better run.” She reported, as Zimmerman did, that Martin challenged Zimmerman, demanding to know why he was being hassled. If Zimmerman’s phobic misreading of Martin was the first wrong turn that led to their fatal struggle, Martin’s phobic misreading of Zimmerman may have been the second.

In court, evidence and scrutiny have exposed these difficult, complicated truths. But outside the court, ideologues are ignoring them. They’re oversimplifying a tragedy that was caused by oversimplification. Martin has become Emmett Till. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is using the verdict to attack Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which wasn’t invoked in this case. The grievance industrial complex is pushing the Department of Justice to prosecute Zimmerman for bias-motivated killing, based on evidence that didn’t even support a conviction for unpremeditated killing. Zimmerman’s lawyers have teamed up with members of the Congressional Black Caucus, inadvertently, to promote the false message that Zimmerman’s acquittal means our society thinks everything he did was OK.

It wasn’t OK. It was stupid and dangerous. It led to the unnecessary death of an innocent young man. It happened because two people—their minds clouded by stereotypes that went well beyond race—assumed the worst about one another and acted in haste. If you want to prevent the next Trayvon Martin tragedy, learn from their mistakes. Don’t paint the world in black and white. Don’t declare the whole justice system racist, or blame every gun death on guns, or confuse acquittal with vindication. And the next time you see somebody who looks like a punk or a pervert, hold your fire.

This should be the final post in the thread. After this post and Sir Charles agreeing with the jury....There really is nothing more to add.

 

[Da Guru]

I haven't followed this case very closely. It's a case where one guy killed another guy, which happens pretty often in this country with rather little fanfare. Why is this case getting so much national attention? It seems it's because people on both sides of the political spectrum want to turn it into something much bigger than the mundane homicide that it was -- some kind of broad morality tale involving racism, or gun laws, or The Decline of American Civilization, or whatever.

That's always seemed distastefully huffy to me.

It turns out that William Saletan has expressed my feelings pretty well. I like this article:

You Are Not Trayvon Martin

His death wasn’t about race, guns, or your pet issue. It was about misjudgment and overreaction—exactly what we’re doing now to the verdict.

By William Saletan

July 15, 2013

Trayvon Martin is dead, George Zimmerman has been acquitted, and millions of people are outraged. Some politicians are demanding a second prosecution of Zimmerman, this time for hate crimes. Others are blaming the tragedy on “Stand Your Ground” laws, which they insist must be repealed. Many who saw the case as proof of racism in the criminal justice system see the verdict as further confirmation. Everywhere you look, people feel vindicated in their bitter assumptions. They want action.

But that’s how Martin ended up dead. It’s how Zimmerman ended up with a bulletproof vest he might have to wear for the rest of his life. It’s how activists and the media embarrassed themselves with bogus reports. The problem at the core of this case wasn’t race or guns. The problem was assumption, misperception, and overreaction. And that cycle hasn’t ended with the verdict. It has escalated.

I almost joined the frenzy. Yesterday I was going to write that Zimmerman pursued Martin against police instructions and illustrated the perils of racial profiling. But I hadn’t followed the case in detail. So I sat down and watched the closing arguments: nearly seven hours of video in which the prosecution and defense went point by point through the evidence as it had been hashed out at the trial. Based on what I learned from the videos, I did some further reading.

It turned out I had been wrong about many things. The initial portrait of Zimmerman as a racist wasn’t just exaggerated. It was completely unsubstantiated. It’s a case study in how the same kind of bias that causes racism can cause unwarranted allegations of racism. Some of the people Zimmerman had reported as suspicious were black men, so he was a racist. Members of his family seemed racist, so he was a racist. Everybody knew he was a racist, so his recorded words were misheard as racial slurs, proving again that he was a racist.

The 911 dispatcher who spoke to Zimmerman on the fatal night didn’t tell him to stay in his car. Zimmerman said he was following a suspicious person, and the dispatcher told him, "We don't need you to do that." Chief prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda conceded in his closing argument that these words were ambiguous. De la Rionda also acknowledged, based on witness and forensic evidence, that both men “were scraping and rolling and fighting out there.” He pointed out that the wounds, blood evidence, and DNA didn’t match Zimmerman’s story of being thoroughly restrained and pummeled throughout the fight. But the evidence didn’t fit the portrait of Martin as a sweet-tempered child, either. And the notion that Zimmerman hunted down Martin to accost him made no sense. Zimmerman knew the police were on the way. They arrived only a minute or so after the gunshot. The fight happened in a public area surrounded by townhouses at close range. It was hardly the place or time to start shooting.

That doesn’t make Zimmerman a hero. It just makes him a reckless fool instead of a murderer. In a post-verdict press conference, his lawyer, Mark O’Mara, claimed that “the evidence supported that George Zimmerman did nothing wrong,” that “the jury decided that he acted properly in self-defense,” and that Zimmerman “was never guilty of anything except protecting himself in self-defense. I’m glad that the jury saw it that way.” That’s complete BS. The only thing the jury decided was that there was reasonable doubt as to whether Zimmerman had committed second-degree murder or manslaughter.

Zimmerman is guilty, morally if not legally, of precipitating the confrontation that led to Martin’s death. He did many things wrong. Mistake No. 1 was inferring that Martin was a burglar. In his 911 call, Zimmerman cited Martin’s behavior. “It’s raining, and he’s just walking around” looking at houses, Zimmerman said. He warned the dispatcher, “He’s got his hand in his waistband.” He described Martin’s race and clothing only after the dispatcher asked about them. Whatever its basis, the inference was false.

Mistake No. 2 was pursuing Martin on foot. Zimmerman had already done what the neighborhood watch rules advised: He had called the police. They would have arrived, questioned Martin, and ascertained that he was innocent. Instead, Zimmerman, packing a concealed firearm, got out and started walking after Martin. Zimmerman’s initial story, that he was trying to check the name of the street, was so laughable that his attorneys abandoned it. He was afraid Martin would get away. So he followed Martin, hoping to update the cops.

Mistake No. 3 was Zimmerman’s utter failure to imagine how his behavior looked to Martin. You’re a black kid walking home from a convenience store with Skittles and a fruit drink. Some dude in a car is watching and trailing you. God knows what he wants. You run away. He gets out of the car and follows you. What are you supposed to do? In Zimmerman’s initial interrogation, the police expressed surprise that he hadn’t identified himself to Martin as a neighborhood watch volunteer. They suggested that Martin might have been alarmed when Zimmerman reached for an object that Zimmerman, but not Martin, knew was a phone. Zimmerman seemed baffled. He was so convinced of Martin’s criminal intent that he hadn’t considered how Martin, if he were innocent, would perceive his stalker.

Martin, meanwhile, was profiling Zimmerman. On his phone, he told a friend he was being followed by a “creepy-### cracker.” The friend—who later testified that this phrase meant pervert—advised Martin, “You better run.” She reported, as Zimmerman did, that Martin challenged Zimmerman, demanding to know why he was being hassled. If Zimmerman’s phobic misreading of Martin was the first wrong turn that led to their fatal struggle, Martin’s phobic misreading of Zimmerman may have been the second.

In court, evidence and scrutiny have exposed these difficult, complicated truths. But outside the court, ideologues are ignoring them. They’re oversimplifying a tragedy that was caused by oversimplification. Martin has become Emmett Till. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is using the verdict to attack Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which wasn’t invoked in this case. The grievance industrial complex is pushing the Department of Justice to prosecute Zimmerman for bias-motivated killing, based on evidence that didn’t even support a conviction for unpremeditated killing. Zimmerman’s lawyers have teamed up with members of the Congressional Black Caucus, inadvertently, to promote the false message that Zimmerman’s acquittal means our society thinks everything he did was OK.

It wasn’t OK. It was stupid and dangerous. It led to the unnecessary death of an innocent young man. It happened because two people—their minds clouded by stereotypes that went well beyond race—assumed the worst about one another and acted in haste. If you want to prevent the next Trayvon Martin tragedy, learn from their mistakes. Don’t paint the world in black and white. Don’t declare the whole justice system racist, or blame every gun death on guns, or confuse acquittal with vindication. And the next time you see somebody who looks like a punk or a pervert, hold your fire.

This should be the final post in the thread. After MTs post and Sir Charles agreeing with the jury....There really is nothing more to add.

 

[kentric]

I haven't followed this case very closely. It's a case where one guy killed another guy, which happens pretty often in this country with rather little fanfare. Why is this case getting so much national attention? It seems it's because people on both sides of the political spectrum want to turn it into something much bigger than the mundane homicide that it was -- some kind of broad morality tale involving racism, or gun laws, or The Decline of American Civilization, or whatever.

That's always seemed distastefully huffy to me.

It turns out that William Saletan has expressed my feelings pretty well. I like this article:

You Are Not Trayvon Martin

His death wasn’t about race, guns, or your pet issue. It was about misjudgment and overreaction—exactly what we’re doing now to the verdict.

By William Saletan

July 15, 2013

Trayvon Martin is dead, George Zimmerman has been acquitted, and millions of people are outraged. Some politicians are demanding a second prosecution of Zimmerman, this time for hate crimes. Others are blaming the tragedy on “Stand Your Ground” laws, which they insist must be repealed. Many who saw the case as proof of racism in the criminal justice system see the verdict as further confirmation. Everywhere you look, people feel vindicated in their bitter assumptions. They want action.

But that’s how Martin ended up dead. It’s how Zimmerman ended up with a bulletproof vest he might have to wear for the rest of his life. It’s how activists and the media embarrassed themselves with bogus reports. The problem at the core of this case wasn’t race or guns. The problem was assumption, misperception, and overreaction. And that cycle hasn’t ended with the verdict. It has escalated.

I almost joined the frenzy. Yesterday I was going to write that Zimmerman pursued Martin against police instructions and illustrated the perils of racial profiling. But I hadn’t followed the case in detail. So I sat down and watched the closing arguments: nearly seven hours of video in which the prosecution and defense went point by point through the evidence as it had been hashed out at the trial. Based on what I learned from the videos, I did some further reading.

It turned out I had been wrong about many things. The initial portrait of Zimmerman as a racist wasn’t just exaggerated. It was completely unsubstantiated. It’s a case study in how the same kind of bias that causes racism can cause unwarranted allegations of racism. Some of the people Zimmerman had reported as suspicious were black men, so he was a racist. Members of his family seemed racist, so he was a racist. Everybody knew he was a racist, so his recorded words were misheard as racial slurs, proving again that he was a racist.

The 911 dispatcher who spoke to Zimmerman on the fatal night didn’t tell him to stay in his car. Zimmerman said he was following a suspicious person, and the dispatcher told him, "We don't need you to do that." Chief prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda conceded in his closing argument that these words were ambiguous. De la Rionda also acknowledged, based on witness and forensic evidence, that both men “were scraping and rolling and fighting out there.” He pointed out that the wounds, blood evidence, and DNA didn’t match Zimmerman’s story of being thoroughly restrained and pummeled throughout the fight. But the evidence didn’t fit the portrait of Martin as a sweet-tempered child, either. And the notion that Zimmerman hunted down Martin to accost him made no sense. Zimmerman knew the police were on the way. They arrived only a minute or so after the gunshot. The fight happened in a public area surrounded by townhouses at close range. It was hardly the place or time to start shooting.

That doesn’t make Zimmerman a hero. It just makes him a reckless fool instead of a murderer. In a post-verdict press conference, his lawyer, Mark O’Mara, claimed that “the evidence supported that George Zimmerman did nothing wrong,” that “the jury decided that he acted properly in self-defense,” and that Zimmerman “was never guilty of anything except protecting himself in self-defense. I’m glad that the jury saw it that way.” That’s complete BS. The only thing the jury decided was that there was reasonable doubt as to whether Zimmerman had committed second-degree murder or manslaughter.

Zimmerman is guilty, morally if not legally, of precipitating the confrontation that led to Martin’s death. He did many things wrong. Mistake No. 1 was inferring that Martin was a burglar. In his 911 call, Zimmerman cited Martin’s behavior. “It’s raining, and he’s just walking around” looking at houses, Zimmerman said. He warned the dispatcher, “He’s got his hand in his waistband.” He described Martin’s race and clothing only after the dispatcher asked about them. Whatever its basis, the inference was false.

Mistake No. 2 was pursuing Martin on foot. Zimmerman had already done what the neighborhood watch rules advised: He had called the police. They would have arrived, questioned Martin, and ascertained that he was innocent. Instead, Zimmerman, packing a concealed firearm, got out and started walking after Martin. Zimmerman’s initial story, that he was trying to check the name of the street, was so laughable that his attorneys abandoned it. He was afraid Martin would get away. So he followed Martin, hoping to update the cops.

Mistake No. 3 was Zimmerman’s utter failure to imagine how his behavior looked to Martin. You’re a black kid walking home from a convenience store with Skittles and a fruit drink. Some dude in a car is watching and trailing you. God knows what he wants. You run away. He gets out of the car and follows you. What are you supposed to do? In Zimmerman’s initial interrogation, the police expressed surprise that he hadn’t identified himself to Martin as a neighborhood watch volunteer. They suggested that Martin might have been alarmed when Zimmerman reached for an object that Zimmerman, but not Martin, knew was a phone. Zimmerman seemed baffled. He was so convinced of Martin’s criminal intent that he hadn’t considered how Martin, if he were innocent, would perceive his stalker.

Martin, meanwhile, was profiling Zimmerman. On his phone, he told a friend he was being followed by a “creepy-### cracker.” The friend—who later testified that this phrase meant pervert—advised Martin, “You better run.” She reported, as Zimmerman did, that Martin challenged Zimmerman, demanding to know why he was being hassled. If Zimmerman’s phobic misreading of Martin was the first wrong turn that led to their fatal struggle, Martin’s phobic misreading of Zimmerman may have been the second.

In court, evidence and scrutiny have exposed these difficult, complicated truths. But outside the court, ideologues are ignoring them. They’re oversimplifying a tragedy that was caused by oversimplification. Martin has become Emmett Till. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is using the verdict to attack Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which wasn’t invoked in this case. The grievance industrial complex is pushing the Department of Justice to prosecute Zimmerman for bias-motivated killing, based on evidence that didn’t even support a conviction for unpremeditated killing. Zimmerman’s lawyers have teamed up with members of the Congressional Black Caucus, inadvertently, to promote the false message that Zimmerman’s acquittal means our society thinks everything he did was OK.

It wasn’t OK. It was stupid and dangerous. It led to the unnecessary death of an innocent young man. It happened because two people—their minds clouded by stereotypes that went well beyond race—assumed the worst about one another and acted in haste. If you want to prevent the next Trayvon Martin tragedy, learn from their mistakes. Don’t paint the world in black and white. Don’t declare the whole justice system racist, or blame every gun death on guns, or confuse acquittal with vindication. And the next time you see somebody who looks like a punk or a pervert, hold your fire.

This should be the final post in the thread. After this post and Sir Charles agreeing with the jury....There really is nothing more to add.

Should be interesting when a white actor wears a t-shirt with Zimmerman's photo.

 

[parasaurolophus]

MT...your article makes good points and quite frankly I'm tired of all the around this insisting that it's left vs right or black vs white. I'd rather look at what a verdict like this means in terms of society and what we teach our children. Problem is, I'm not sure what should be taught from this. "Don't beat up people who are carrying a gun" is childish and pointless. The best I can come up with is it's taught us how screwed up FL law is and I'm afraid that's not going to be very useful to my children.

Why does it have to be with a gun?

I think you could teach your kids two things. 1. Don't beat people up because fighting is stupid. 2.Leave it up to the police.

 

[The Commish]

MT...your article makes good points and quite frankly I'm tired of all the around this insisting that it's left vs right or black vs white. I'd rather look at what a verdict like this means in terms of society and what we teach our children. Problem is, I'm not sure what should be taught from this. "Don't beat up people who are carrying a gun" is childish and pointless. The best I can come up with is it's taught us how screwed up FL law is and I'm afraid that's not going to be very useful to my children.

Why does it have to be with a gun?

I think you could teach your kids two things. 1. Don't beat people up because fighting is stupid. 2.Leave it up to the police.

I'll grant you #2, but #1 is pretty disingenuous given how the whole thing started. If I put myself in a kid's shoes where they are being followed by a stranger, what's the lesson? Run? Go hide? Is that a good lesson to be teaching kids when they haven't been doing anything wrong? I'm not convinced the "just run and hide even though you've done nothing wrong" is the best approach. It's easy to ignore everything that happened up until the fight for legal purposes. It's not practical if trying to teach/learn from the entire situation.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

MT...your article makes good points and quite frankly I'm tired of all the around this insisting that it's left vs right or black vs white. I'd rather look at what a verdict like this means in terms of society and what we teach our children. Problem is, I'm not sure what should be taught from this. "Don't beat up people who are carrying a gun" is childish and pointless. The best I can come up with is it's taught us how screwed up FL law is and I'm afraid that's not going to be very useful to my children.

Why does it have to be with a gun?I think you could teach your kids two things. 1. Don't beat people up because fighting is stupid. 2.Leave it up to the police.

I'll grant you #2, but #1 is pretty disingenuous given how the whole thing started. If I put myself in a kid's shoes where they are being followed by a stranger, what's the lesson? Run? Go hide? Is that a good lesson to be teaching kids when they haven't been doing anything wrong? I'm not convinced the "just run and hide even though you've done nothing wrong" is the best approach. It's easy to ignore everything that happened up until the fight for legal purposes. It's not practical if trying to teach/learn from the entire situation.

Didn't you just post that stand your ground laws in FL are screwed up? Now you are saying parents should teach their kids to stand their ground?

 

[Joe McGee]

MT...your article makes good points and quite frankly I'm tired of all the around this insisting that it's left vs right or black vs white. I'd rather look at what a verdict like this means in terms of society and what we teach our children. Problem is, I'm not sure what should be taught from this. "Don't beat up people who are carrying a gun" is childish and pointless. The best I can come up with is it's taught us how screwed up FL law is and I'm afraid that's not going to be very useful to my children.

What should be taught from all of this? Maybe you should add to your signature.

A soft answer turns away wrath,

But a harsh word stirs up anger.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

 

[Rayderr]

MT...your article makes good points and quite frankly I'm tired of all the around this insisting that it's left vs right or black vs white. I'd rather look at what a verdict like this means in terms of society and what we teach our children. Problem is, I'm not sure what should be taught from this. "Don't beat up people who are carrying a gun" is childish and pointless. The best I can come up with is it's taught us how screwed up FL law is and I'm afraid that's not going to be very useful to my children.

Why does it have to be with a gun?

I think you could teach your kids two things. 1. Don't beat people up because fighting is stupid. 2.Leave it up to the police.

I'll grant you #2, but #1 is pretty disingenuous given how the whole thing started. If I put myself in a kid's shoes where they are being followed by a stranger, what's the lesson? Run? Go hide? Is that a good lesson to be teaching kids when they haven't been doing anything wrong? I'm not convinced the "just run and hide even though you've done nothing wrong" is the best approach. It's easy to ignore everything that happened up until the fight for legal purposes. It's not practical if trying to teach/learn from the entire situation.

Would you answer change if your kid were a girl? Would you tell your 17 year old daughter to confront the stranger? If not, why do you think that's an acceptable response from your 17 year old son. The answer should be the same. Call the cops, go someplace safe and wait.

 

[whoknew]

So I don't have it on, but from twitter, it sounds like Obama is fanning the flames here in a statement he is giving:

Obama: "Trayvon Martin could have been me, 35 years ago

Obama: There are very few African American men who have never had the experience of being followed in department stores. Including me.

Obama: "If a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different."

Obama: If Trayvon Martin was of age and had a gun, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk?

--

Anyone watching this that can comment? What is the tone?

 

[jamny]

So I don't have it on, but from twitter, it sounds like Obama is fanning the flames here in a statement he is giving:

Obama: "Trayvon Martin could have been me, 35 years ago

Obama: There are very few African American men who have never had the experience of being followed in department stores. Including me.

Obama: "If a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different."

Obama: If Trayvon Martin was of age and had a gun, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk?

--

Anyone watching this that can comment? What is the tone?

I had to rewind to start from the beginning but so far it's a very good discussion, imo. As far as the bolded, he didn't make that statement speaking for himself but saying there are reasons why people feel that way.

 

[jamny]

Obama: If Trayvon Martin was of age and had a gun, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk?

He just got to this comment and it's clear he didn't agree with the jury decision.

 

[The Commish]

MT...your article makes good points and quite frankly I'm tired of all the around this insisting that it's left vs right or black vs white. I'd rather look at what a verdict like this means in terms of society and what we teach our children. Problem is, I'm not sure what should be taught from this. "Don't beat up people who are carrying a gun" is childish and pointless. The best I can come up with is it's taught us how screwed up FL law is and I'm afraid that's not going to be very useful to my children.

Why does it have to be with a gun?

I think you could teach your kids two things. 1. Don't beat people up because fighting is stupid. 2.Leave it up to the police.

I'll grant you #2, but #1 is pretty disingenuous given how the whole thing started. If I put myself in a kid's shoes where they are being followed by a stranger, what's the lesson? Run? Go hide? Is that a good lesson to be teaching kids when they haven't been doing anything wrong? I'm not convinced the "just run and hide even though you've done nothing wrong" is the best approach. It's easy to ignore everything that happened up until the fight for legal purposes. It's not practical if trying to teach/learn from the entire situation.

Would you answer change if your kid were a girl? Would you tell your 17 year old daughter to confront the stranger? If not, why do you think that's an acceptable response from your 17 year old son. The answer should be the same. Call the cops, go someplace safe and wait.

I'm asking the question. Right now I don't know what my answer is so I don't know if it would change for a girl. I can't really look at either of my kids and tell them they should run and/or hide if they were doing nothing wrong. I'm not sure that's the proper message to send our kids. Telling them that would be asking them to apologize for or relinquish (to some degree) their civil right wouldn't it?

 

[The Commish]

MT...your article makes good points and quite frankly I'm tired of all the around this insisting that it's left vs right or black vs white. I'd rather look at what a verdict like this means in terms of society and what we teach our children. Problem is, I'm not sure what should be taught from this. "Don't beat up people who are carrying a gun" is childish and pointless. The best I can come up with is it's taught us how screwed up FL law is and I'm afraid that's not going to be very useful to my children.

Why does it have to be with a gun?I think you could teach your kids two things. 1. Don't beat people up because fighting is stupid. 2.Leave it up to the police.

I'll grant you #2, but #1 is pretty disingenuous given how the whole thing started. If I put myself in a kid's shoes where they are being followed by a stranger, what's the lesson? Run? Go hide? Is that a good lesson to be teaching kids when they haven't been doing anything wrong? I'm not convinced the "just run and hide even though you've done nothing wrong" is the best approach. It's easy to ignore everything that happened up until the fight for legal purposes. It's not practical if trying to teach/learn from the entire situation.

Didn't you just post that stand your ground laws in FL are screwed up? Now you are saying parents should teach their kids to stand their ground?

This isn't a stand your ground issue.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

MT...your article makes good points and quite frankly I'm tired of all the around this insisting that it's left vs right or black vs white. I'd rather look at what a verdict like this means in terms of society and what we teach our children. Problem is, I'm not sure what should be taught from this. "Don't beat up people who are carrying a gun" is childish and pointless. The best I can come up with is it's taught us how screwed up FL law is and I'm afraid that's not going to be very useful to my children.

Why does it have to be with a gun?I think you could teach your kids two things. 1. Don't beat people up because fighting is stupid. 2.Leave it up to the police.

I'll grant you #2, but #1 is pretty disingenuous given how the whole thing started. If I put myself in a kid's shoes where they are being followed by a stranger, what's the lesson? Run? Go hide? Is that a good lesson to be teaching kids when they haven't been doing anything wrong? I'm not convinced the "just run and hide even though you've done nothing wrong" is the best approach. It's easy to ignore everything that happened up until the fight for legal purposes. It's not practical if trying to teach/learn from the entire situation.

Didn't you just post that stand your ground laws in FL are screwed up? Now you are saying parents should teach their kids to stand their ground?

This isn't a stand your ground issue.

Color me confused, what FL laws are you saying are screwed up?

 

[Mario Kart]

I'm asking the question. Right now I don't know what my answer is so I don't know if it would change for a girl. I can't really look at either of my kids and tell them they should run and/or hide if they were doing nothing wrong. I'm not sure that's the proper message to send our kids. Telling them that would be asking them to apologize for or relinquish (to some degree) their civil right wouldn't it?

It sounds like you are going to tell your kids to do exactly what Martin did. Maybe not throw the first punch but instead to go ask the "follower" why they are following and if certain things happen, to attack or defend against the "follower." Given that scenario, from your words, their civil right is to intentionally or unintentionally harm someone for "following" them.

Makes no sense what you are saying. Teach your kids, even teenagers, Stranger Danger, and call the proper authorities. Fighting is never the answer... or maybe, for some it is.

 

[parasaurolophus]

MT...your article makes good points and quite frankly I'm tired of all the around this insisting that it's left vs right or black vs white. I'd rather look at what a verdict like this means in terms of society and what we teach our children. Problem is, I'm not sure what should be taught from this. "Don't beat up people who are carrying a gun" is childish and pointless. The best I can come up with is it's taught us how screwed up FL law is and I'm afraid that's not going to be very useful to my children.

Why does it have to be with a gun?

I think you could teach your kids two things. 1. Don't beat people up because fighting is stupid. 2.Leave it up to the police.

I'll grant you #2, but #1 is pretty disingenuous given how the whole thing started. If I put myself in a kid's shoes where they are being followed by a stranger, what's the lesson? Run? Go hide? Is that a good lesson to be teaching kids when they haven't been doing anything wrong? I'm not convinced the "just run and hide even though you've done nothing wrong" is the best approach. It's easy to ignore everything that happened up until the fight for legal purposes. It's not practical if trying to teach/learn from the entire situation.

How about just walk the extra bit and get into the house?

Why would you teach your kids to confront strangers that are following them???? Doesnt that contradict every way you have been defending Martin? How do they know for sure they are being followed? Wouldnt that be acting paranoid and being suspicious of people?

 

[jamny]

Although a lot of people will be up in arms over what Obama said today, I thought it was very good overall. Even if I don't agree with some of it. My only question is: why now? A week after the verdict. I know there will be rallies tomorrow but I think it would have been best if he just goes on with other, more important things. No reason to interject at this point, imo.

 

[jamny]

and the worst part is that this might be the impetus to bring Tim back into this thread.

 

[Da Guru]

Although a lot of people will be up in arms over what Obama said today, I thought it was very good overall. Even if I don't agree with some of it. My only question is: why now? A week after the verdict. I know there will be rallies tomorrow but I think it would have been best if he just goes on with other, more important things. No reason to interject at this point, imo.

I did not see Obamas speech. What did he say about the bloodbath going on in Chicago? Since Martins death there have been almost 700 murders, and over 1000 more injuries from shootings. One of those could have been Obama had he stayed.

 

[Witz]

Although a lot of people will be up in arms over what Obama said today, I thought it was very good overall. Even if I don't agree with some of it. My only question is: why now? A week after the verdict. I know there will be rallies tomorrow but I think it would have been best if he just goes on with other, more important things. No reason to interject at this point, imo.

I think it was totally inappropriate for him to comment on it, much less hold a surprise White House briefing just to make these statements. This constituted breaking news on the television? Are you serious?

 

[jamny]

Although a lot of people will be up in arms over what Obama said today, I thought it was very good overall. Even if I don't agree with some of it. My only question is: why now? A week after the verdict. I know there will be rallies tomorrow but I think it would have been best if he just goes on with other, more important things. No reason to interject at this point, imo.

I did not see Obamas speech. What did he say about the bloodbath going on in Chicago? Since Martins death there have been almost 700 murders, and over 1000 more injuries from shootings. One of those could have been Obama had he stayed.

No mention of Chiraq but he did say Sasha and Malia are so much better in regards to race than we all were at that age.

 

[jamny]

Although a lot of people will be up in arms over what Obama said today, I thought it was very good overall. Even if I don't agree with some of it. My only question is: why now? A week after the verdict. I know there will be rallies tomorrow but I think it would have been best if he just goes on with other, more important things. No reason to interject at this point, imo.

I think it was totally inappropriate for him to comment on it, much less hold a surprise White House briefing just to make these statements. This constituted breaking news on the television? Are you serious?

I think he had to see how the polls were shaping up before he commented.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Although a lot of people will be up in arms over what Obama said today, I thought it was very good overall. Even if I don't agree with some of it. My only question is: why now? A week after the verdict. I know there will be rallies tomorrow but I think it would have been best if he just goes on with other, more important things. No reason to interject at this point, imo.

I think it was totally inappropriate for him to comment on it, much less hold a surprise White House briefing just to make these statements. This constituted breaking news on the television? Are you serious?

Same here, and I also find it disgraceful that he went right along with the mob in making it a racial issue. I generally like Obama, but he has a horrible tendency to inject himself in the worst possible way into stories that don't require his presence.

 

[Da Guru]

Although a lot of people will be up in arms over what Obama said today, I thought it was very good overall. Even if I don't agree with some of it. My only question is: why now? A week after the verdict. I know there will be rallies tomorrow but I think it would have been best if he just goes on with other, more important things. No reason to interject at this point, imo.

I did not see Obamas speech. What did he say about the bloodbath going on in Chicago? Since Martins death there have been almost 700 murders, and over 1000 more injuries from shootings. One of those could have been Obama had he stayed.

No mention of Chiraq but he did say Sasha and Malia are so much better in regards to race than we all were at that age.

What was Obamas comment about the Casey Anthony not guilty verdict? Did Obama think Jodi Arias was railroaded?

Presidents should not get involved in individual cases unless it is an act against the country

 

[Courtjester]

is all I could think of when I saw this. What the heck is he thinking?

 

[jonessed]

So I don't have it on, but from twitter, it sounds like Obama is fanning the flames here in a statement he is giving:

Obama: "Trayvon Martin could have been me, 35 years ago

Obama: There are very few African American men who have never had the experience of being followed in department stores. Including me.

Obama: "If a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different."

Obama: If Trayvon Martin was of age and had a gun, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk?

--

Anyone watching this that can comment? What is the tone?

Six jurors just went through all the evidence and decided there was no racial bias. The FBI went through the evidence and determined there was no racial bias. But Obama, he knows better. There was racial bias.Way to fan the flames jackass.

This aside from his constant mention of "stand your ground" laws which had nothing to do with the defense anyway.

 

[squistion]

 

[Witz]

'When you think about why, in the African American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that — that doesn’t go away,' he said.

'I don't want to exaggerate this but those sets of experience inform how the African American community interprets what happened one night in Florida.'

Is that so President Obama? Is that what crafted the mindset of De'Marquise Kareem Elkins when he shot 13 month old Antonio West in the head?

Care to make a statement on that?

 

[Christo]

'When you think about why, in the African American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that — that doesn’t go away,' he said.

'I don't want to exaggerate this but those sets of experience inform how the African American community interprets what happened one night in Florida.'

Is that so President Obama? Is that what crafted the mindset of De'Marquise Kareem Elkins when he shot 13 month old Antonio West in the head?

Care to make a statement on that?

Yes, Barry. We understand the black community has its prejudices. Does that make it right?

 

[otello]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/07/19/president-obama-trayvon-martin-could-have-been-me

 

[jon_mx]

Obama disappointed the riots were not big enough?

 

[otello]

Remarks by the President on Trayvon Martin

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:33 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: I wanted to come out here, first of all, to tell you that Jay is prepared for all your questions and is very much looking forward to the session. The second thing is I want to let you know that over the next couple of weeks, there’s going to obviously be a whole range of issues -- immigration, economics, et cetera -- we'll try to arrange a fuller press conference to address your questions.

The reason I actually wanted to come out today is not to take questions, but to speak to an issue that obviously has gotten a lot of attention over the course of the last week -- the issue of the Trayvon Martin ruling. I gave a preliminary statement right after the ruling on Sunday. But watching the debate over the course of the last week, I thought it might be useful for me to expand on my thoughts a little bit.

First of all, I want to make sure that, once again, I send my thoughts and prayers, as well as Michelle’s, to the family of Trayvon Martin, and to remark on the incredible grace and dignity with which they’ve dealt with the entire situation. I can only imagine what they’re going through, and it’s remarkable how they’ve handled it.

The second thing I want to say is to reiterate what I said on Sunday, which is there’s going to be a lot of arguments about the legal issues in the case -- I'll let all the legal analysts and talking heads address those issues. The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries were properly instructed that in a case such as this reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury has spoken, that's how our system works. But I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling.

You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away.

There are very few African American men in this country who haven't had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me. There are very few African American men who haven't had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me -- at least before I was a senator. There are very few African Americans who haven't had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often.

And I don't want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And it’s inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear. The African American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws -- everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.

Now, this isn't to say that the African American community is naïve about the fact that African American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system; that they’re disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It’s not to make excuses for that fact -- although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context. They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.

And so the fact that sometimes that’s unacknowledged adds to the frustration. And the fact that a lot of African American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given, well, there are these statistics out there that show that African American boys are more violent -- using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain.

I think the African American community is also not naïve in understanding that, statistically, somebody like Trayvon Martin was statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else. So folks understand the challenges that exist for African American boys. But they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no context for it and that context is being denied. And that all contributes I think to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.

Now, the question for me at least, and I think for a lot of folks, is where do we take this? How do we learn some lessons from this and move in a positive direction? I think it’s understandable that there have been demonstrations and vigils and protests, and some of that stuff is just going to have to work its way through, as long as it remains nonviolent. If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin and his family. But beyond protests or vigils, the question is, are there some concrete things that we might be able to do.

I know that Eric Holder is reviewing what happened down there, but I think it’s important for people to have some clear expectations here. Traditionally, these are issues of state and local government, the criminal code. And law enforcement is traditionally done at the state and local levels, not at the federal levels.

That doesn’t mean, though, that as a nation we can’t do some things that I think would be productive. So let me just give a couple of specifics that I’m still bouncing around with my staff, so we’re not rolling out some five-point plan, but some areas where I think all of us could potentially focus.

Number one, precisely because law enforcement is often determined at the state and local level, I think it would be productive for the Justice Department, governors, mayors to work with law enforcement about training at the state and local levels in order to reduce the kind of mistrust in the system that sometimes currently exists.

When I was in Illinois, I passed racial profiling legislation, and it actually did just two simple things. One, it collected data on traffic stops and the race of the person who was stopped. But the other thing was it resourced us training police departments across the state on how to think about potential racial bias and ways to further professionalize what they were doing.

And initially, the police departments across the state were resistant, but actually they came to recognize that if it was done in a fair, straightforward way that it would allow them to do their jobs better and communities would have more confidence in them and, in turn, be more helpful in applying the law. And obviously, law enforcement has got a very tough job.

So that’s one area where I think there are a lot of resources and best practices that could be brought to bear if state and local governments are receptive. And I think a lot of them would be. And let's figure out are there ways for us to push out that kind of training.

Along the same lines, I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if it -- if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations.

I know that there's been commentary about the fact that the "stand your ground" laws in Florida were not used as a defense in the case. On the other hand, if we're sending a message as a society in our communities that someone who is armed potentially has the right to use those firearms even if there's a way for them to exit from a situation, is that really going to be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we'd like to see?

And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these "stand your ground" laws, I'd just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened? And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.

Number three -- and this is a long-term project -- we need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African American boys. And this is something that Michelle and I talk a lot about. There are a lot of kids out there who need help who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement. And is there more that we can do to give them the sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them?

I'm not naïve about the prospects of some grand, new federal program. I'm not sure that that’s what we're talking about here. But I do recognize that as President, I've got some convening power, and there are a lot of good programs that are being done across the country on this front. And for us to be able to gather together business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities and athletes, and figure out how are we doing a better job helping young African American men feel that they're a full part of this society and that they've got pathways and avenues to succeed -- I think that would be a pretty good outcome from what was obviously a tragic situation. And we're going to spend some time working on that and thinking about that.

And then, finally, I think it's going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching. There has been talk about should we convene a conversation on race. I haven't seen that be particularly productive when politicians try to organize conversations. They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have. On the other hand, in families and churches and workplaces, there's the possibility that people are a little bit more honest, and at least you ask yourself your own questions about, am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can? Am I judging people as much as I can, based on not the color of their skin, but the content of their character? That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy.

And let me just leave you with a final thought that, as difficult and challenging as this whole episode has been for a lot of people, I don’t want us to lose sight that things are getting better. Each successive generation seems to be making progress in changing attitudes when it comes to race. It doesn’t mean we’re in a post-racial society. It doesn’t mean that racism is eliminated. But when I talk to Malia and Sasha, and I listen to their friends and I seem them interact, they’re better than we are -- they’re better than we were -- on these issues. And that’s true in every community that I’ve visited all across the country.

And so we have to be vigilant and we have to work on these issues. And those of us in authority should be doing everything we can to encourage the better angels of our nature, as opposed to using these episodes to heighten divisions. But we should also have confidence that kids these days, I think, have more sense than we did back then, and certainly more than our parents did or our grandparents did; and that along this long, difficult journey, we’re becoming a more perfect union -- not a perfect union, but a more perfect union.

Thank you, guys.

END

1:52 P.M. EDT