Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (1 Viewer)

[jon_mx]

No you didn't. A weird straw man argument about Hispanics raping little boys is not answering the question.

I find the leftwing racism against Hispanics quite humorous.

It's when you type throwaway comments like the above that you are at your least compelling. And that is saying something.

You want me to argue points I never argued. I thought it was quite funny that it was some kind of fear that Martin had for his little brother why he did not go home. It is just ridiculous and it is stated as if it were a fact.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Jon, do you acknowledge that there exists, in our current society, systemic large scale instiitutionalized racism against young black males within our judicial system, and that at least part of the cause for this is lasting unjust stereotypes of blacks among those in authority, and among the population in general?

If you are not willing to accept this statement as simple truth, then there's no point in our further discussing the details of this particular case, and that also goes for anyone else here.

I don't think it exists nearly to the level it did 20-30 years ago and I think it has dropped below the line of the African American community using it as an excuse. There is just too much information/communication/transperency in our society to allow this to happen very often anymore, regardless of intent. TVs in the courtroom, cell phone cameras, twitter, police car dashboard cameras, ect. Sorry Tim. You and your friends in the African American community are living in the past.

But Zimms own defense lawyer said after the trial that the racism against blacks in the judiciary system and laws is irrefutable.

He also said that it wasnt a factor with Zimmerman personal decision making in this incident.

And that apart from his client, he would work with anyone wanting to work to fix those obvious inequities.

I disagree. I think that's mostly past. If anything, it's more due to lack of money (ie. poor defense lawyer) than color of skin.

But cops arrest 'em a greater rate then other other races who all have the same proclivity for whatever transgression transpired.

And that has nothing to do with a courtroom or lawyers... which of course is another problem. But even then, they get longer sentences.

Are you saying in the bold that a young white or hispanic male is just as likely to commit a violent crime as a young black male? What color is the sky in your world?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Jon, do you acknowledge that there exists, in our current society, systemic large scale instiitutionalized racism against young black males within our judicial system, and that at least part of the cause for this is lasting unjust stereotypes of blacks among those in authority, and among the population in general?

If you are not willing to accept this statement as simple truth, then there's no point in our further discussing the details of this particular case, and that also goes for anyone else here.

I don't think it exists nearly to the level it did 20-30 years ago and I think it has dropped below the line of the African American community using it as an excuse. There is just too much information/communication/transperency in our society to allow this to happen very often anymore, regardless of intent. TVs in the courtroom, cell phone cameras, twitter, police car dashboard cameras, ect. Sorry Tim. You and your friends in the African American community are living in the past.

But Zimms own defense lawyer said after the trial that the racism against blacks in the judiciary system and laws is irrefutable.

He also said that it wasnt a factor with Zimmerman personal decision making in this incident.

And that apart from his client, he would work with anyone wanting to work to fix those obvious inequities.

I disagree. I think that's mostly past. If anything, it's more due to lack of money (ie. poor defense lawyer) than color of skin.

But cops arrest 'em a greater rate then other other races who all have the same proclivity for whatever transgression transpired.

And that has nothing to do with a courtroom or lawyers... which of course is another problem. But even then, they get longer sentences.

Are you saying in the bold that a young white or hispanic male is just as likely to commit a violent crime as a young black male? What color is the sky in your world?

I'm saying, as an example, whites and blacks both smoke marijuana at the same rate.

Yet blacks get arrested 5 times more often and convicted about 3.5 times more often and serve longer sentences (tougher punishment) when convicted.

And this holds true in many other crimes and legal matters. Like home foreclosures.

Which is even what Zimmermans lawyer was saying he wanted to help fix.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

No you didn't. A weird straw man argument about Hispanics raping little boys is not answering the question.

I find the leftwing racism against Hispanics quite humorous.

It's when you type throwaway comments like the above that you are at your least compelling. And that is saying something.

You want me to argue points I never argued. I thought it was quite funny that it was some kind of fear that Martin had for his little brother why he did not go home. It is just ridiculous and it is stated as if it were a fact.

That one point? Got three laughies from you and you skipped over all the other stuff that was pure facts.

Bullcrap.

 

[Joe McGee]

Violent crime doesn't equal marijuana.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Violent crime doesn't equal marijuana.

I never said violent crime.

Neither did Zimms attorney.

I said that often in crimes/legalities in which they have the same proclivity... they get hosed.

 

[jon_mx]

No you didn't. A weird straw man argument about Hispanics raping little boys is not answering the question.

I find the leftwing racism against Hispanics quite humorous.

It's when you type throwaway comments like the above that you are at your least compelling. And that is saying something.

You want me to argue points I never argued. I thought it was quite funny that it was some kind of fear that Martin had for his little brother why he did not go home. It is just ridiculous and it is stated as if it were a fact.

That one point? Got three laughies from you and you skipped over all the other stuff that was pure facts.

Bullcrap.

I made over 1000 posts in this thread. Please show me where I have made any of those arguments. TIA Mr. Bullcrap.

 

[Widbil83]

Huge news, Jay Z and Beyonce are at the Trayvon rally.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I made over 1000 posts in this thread. Please show me where I have made any of those arguments. TIA Mr. Bullcrap.

So all these points are correct?

1) The fight was on the very walkway to the Martin house.

2) Zimm "said" he hadnt gone onto that walkway until after the fight started.

3) Its about 70 yards to the door. About 15 yards from the walkway Zimm "said" he was on when talking to police.

4) His brother is in the house.

 

[timschochet]

Jon, do you acknowledge that there exists, in our current society, systemic large scale instiitutionalized racism against young black males within our judicial system, and that at least part of the cause for this is lasting unjust stereotypes of blacks among those in authority, and among the population in general?

If you are not willing to accept this statement as simple truth, then there's no point in our further discussing the details of this particular case, and that also goes for anyone else here.

The bolded is where the problem lies Tim. You can't call it unjust while a 20 year old black man is roughly ten times more likely to commit a murder or other violent crime as his white counterpart. While you are absolutely 100% correct that this is unfair to the innocent black youth, it is equally unfair to blame society at large for having more fear and suspicion of black youths in general. It's at best a complex problem with numerous causes requiring open discussion and acknowledgment of all the data by all sides. It is disingenuous at best to call the black murder rate the result of white racism, and it's self-inflicted blindness not to recognize that many blacks in middle class or lower neighborhoods themselves tend towards racist attitudes.

We're not really disagreeing here. Regarding the bolded, I used the words "in part" very specifically, because I acknowledge that it's a complex problem and there are all sorts of reasons for it, and that racism is only one of many reasons.

But the reason I directed this question toward jon is out of frustration because he and a few others here refuse to acknowledge that racism is even a part of this issue. Every time statistics are brought up that shows any kind of disparity, he works overtime to find a reason other than racism (the way he did last night with marijuana charges.) He doubled down on it just a few minutes ago with his blanket statement that "police are not racist." If you're unwilling to acknowledge that racism is at least PART of the problem with black youths, then there's no point in further discussion.

 

[jon_mx]

I made over 1000 posts in this thread. Please show me where I have made any of those arguments. TIA Mr. Bullcrap.

So all these points are correct?

1) The fight was on the very walkway to the Martin house.

2) Zimm "said" he hadnt gone onto that walkway until after the fight started.

3) Its about 70 yards to the door. About 15 yards from the walkway Zimm "said" he was on when talking to police.

4) His brother is in the house.

I have no idea where Martin's house was in relation to the fight. I suppose his little brother was home. But there is nothing to suggest Martin was afraid for his little brother. That is just one example of the ridiculous false assertions that plagues this thread mostly from the pro-Martin bukkake club.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I made over 1000 posts in this thread. Please show me where I have made any of those arguments. TIA Mr. Bullcrap.

So all these points are correct?

1) The fight was on the very walkway to the Martin house.

2) Zimm "said" he hadnt gone onto that walkway until after the fight started.

3) Its about 70 yards to the door. About 15 yards from the walkway Zimm "said" he was on when talking to police.

4) His brother is in the house.

I have no idea where Martin's house was in relation to the fight. I suppose his little brother was home. But there is nothing to suggest Martin was afraid for his little brother. That is just one example of the ridiculous false assertions that plagues this thread mostly from the pro-Martin bukkake club.

You are such a liar.

 

[timschochet]

The original police recommendation. Long before this case became highly publicized, was that GZ be charged with manslaughter. That's what he should have been charged with. There was, IMO, enough evidence to convict him of this charge had the prosecution practiced a strategy like the one Ramsey Hunt proposed in this thread or the one Jeffrey Toobin proposed on CNN.

Then it seems like you of all people should be ticked off at the racially-charged mob that eventually twisted enough arms to get a laughable overcharge.

I am. If you're talking about Al Sharpton, Ben Crump and their crowd, I can't stand them. They screwed this case up early on. However, blame also has to go to the Sanford authorities, who refused to press charges when there was clearly enough evidence to do so.And Sharpton and Crump and the rest are right about the essence of this case: it has everything to do with race.

It seems like an acquittal would indicate there clearly wasn't enough evidence to do so

An acquittal largely based on murder 2, in which the jury demonstrated they didn't understand manslaughter, and which the prosecution screwed up from day 1. Also a jury dominated by a woman who is pro-gun and largely sympathetic to Zimmerman and who apparently convinced everyone else. This woman never should have been on the jury- her mind was made up before the trial started.

Where to start with this one: The jury believed by their verdict that Z was in fear for his life, which takes care of manslaughter as well. It wasn't a matter of not understanding.

I completely agree with you that the prosecution didn't do a great job. But Tim, you need to spend some time in a courtroom like a lot of us do. DA's get handed some dogs once in a while and this case was one of them. There really wasn't a lot they could do with this one. Out of the gate, this wasn't a case where the could prove something happened, they had to make a jury guess what happened and that is a big problem for a DA. They tried to oversell the charge and hope for a fallback victory and that was probably the best case scenario for them.

The DA, like the defense, had challenges to remove jurors and both sides believed they picked a jury that benefitted their respective sides.

I also completely agree with you that there is racism in this country, but when it comes to the court side, it is more of an issue of poverty than anything else. Case in point I see often, white kid charged with Poss. of Drugs, comes in with a privately retained attorney, already has treatment set up, has the ability to pay court costs up front, probably getting some kind of deferred sentence.

Same kid comes in whether he be black/white/Hispanic with the same charge, applies for the Public Defender, has to wait for an overburdened public treatment facility to come open, is asking for a waiver of costs, probably getting a probation offer.

That's facts--not racism.

Finally, I would be interested to hear your take on why the President has avoided using the Hispanic word in any of his speeches. Yesterday, he clearly alluded to the idea that this case might have been different if the TM was white, but seems to be completely oblivious to the fact Z is Hispanic. I personally think he just doesn't want to cost his party votes by telling the truth.

Very thoughtful post and I appreciate it. Obviously we still disagree about the essence of this case- I firmly believe that there was a reasonable manslaughter case there, and that a conviction was possible, even likely, with better strategy. However, I admit I am not experienced in court as you are- my conviction comes from listening and being convinced by some very thoughtful people who have the experience that I lack, and who take a different view of this case than you do.

Regarding your question- I have no idea. I find your guess to be somewhat cynical (though that doesn't make it any less true necessarily- politicians are by nature cynical beasts.) I would suggest that one important factor to consider is that I don't believe most hispanic Americans have identified themselves with ZImmerman in the way that many African-Americans have identified themselves with Martin- he (Zimmerman) is not clearly "one of them". Part of this has to do, of course, with the way he looks and speaks. Part of this has to do with the nature of his actions that night. But another part has to do with the fact that he is half-Cuban, and for a variety of reasons Cuban-Americans tend to distance themselves from other Latin Americans in this country.

 

[jon_mx]

Jon, do you acknowledge that there exists, in our current society, systemic large scale instiitutionalized racism against young black males within our judicial system, and that at least part of the cause for this is lasting unjust stereotypes of blacks among those in authority, and among the population in general?

If you are not willing to accept this statement as simple truth, then there's no point in our further discussing the details of this particular case, and that also goes for anyone else here.

The bolded is where the problem lies Tim. You can't call it unjust while a 20 year old black man is roughly ten times more likely to commit a murder or other violent crime as his white counterpart. While you are absolutely 100% correct that this is unfair to the innocent black youth, it is equally unfair to blame society at large for having more fear and suspicion of black youths in general. It's at best a complex problem with numerous causes requiring open discussion and acknowledgment of all the data by all sides. It is disingenuous at best to call the black murder rate the result of white racism, and it's self-inflicted blindness not to recognize that many blacks in middle class or lower neighborhoods themselves tend towards racist attitudes.

We're not really disagreeing here. Regarding the bolded, I used the words "in part" very specifically, because I acknowledge that it's a complex problem and there are all sorts of reasons for it, and that racism is only one of many reasons.

But the reason I directed this question toward jon is out of frustration because he and a few others here refuse to acknowledge that racism is even a part of this issue. Every time statistics are brought up that shows any kind of disparity, he works overtime to find a reason other than racism (the way he did last night with marijuana charges.) He doubled down on it just a few minutes ago with his blanket statement that "police are not racist." If you're unwilling to acknowledge that racism is at least PART of the problem with black youths, then there's no point in further discussion.

It is not working overtime to point out that black yutes largely reside in crime-ridden neighborhoods which have a strong police presence by necessity. Cherry-picking a few stats does not prove racism. You must examine all the facts and the circumstances around them, which you completely ignore and immediately jump to racism. I just don't see black cops being racists against black youths.

 

[timschochet]

Jon, do you acknowledge that there exists, in our current society, systemic large scale instiitutionalized racism against young black males within our judicial system, and that at least part of the cause for this is lasting unjust stereotypes of blacks among those in authority, and among the population in general?

If you are not willing to accept this statement as simple truth, then there's no point in our further discussing the details of this particular case, and that also goes for anyone else here.

The bolded is where the problem lies Tim. You can't call it unjust while a 20 year old black man is roughly ten times more likely to commit a murder or other violent crime as his white counterpart. While you are absolutely 100% correct that this is unfair to the innocent black youth, it is equally unfair to blame society at large for having more fear and suspicion of black youths in general. It's at best a complex problem with numerous causes requiring open discussion and acknowledgment of all the data by all sides. It is disingenuous at best to call the black murder rate the result of white racism, and it's self-inflicted blindness not to recognize that many blacks in middle class or lower neighborhoods themselves tend towards racist attitudes.

We're not really disagreeing here. Regarding the bolded, I used the words "in part" very specifically, because I acknowledge that it's a complex problem and there are all sorts of reasons for it, and that racism is only one of many reasons.

But the reason I directed this question toward jon is out of frustration because he and a few others here refuse to acknowledge that racism is even a part of this issue. Every time statistics are brought up that shows any kind of disparity, he works overtime to find a reason other than racism (the way he did last night with marijuana charges.) He doubled down on it just a few minutes ago with his blanket statement that "police are not racist." If you're unwilling to acknowledge that racism is at least PART of the problem with black youths, then there's no point in further discussion.

It is not working overtime to point out that black yutes largely reside in crime-ridden neighborhoods which have a strong police presence by necessity. Cherry-picking a few stats does not prove racism. You must examine all the facts and the circumstances around them, which you completely ignore and immediately jump to racism. I just don't see black cops being racists against black youths.

I refer again to the bolded.

 

[renesauz]

Jon, do you acknowledge that there exists, in our current society, systemic large scale instiitutionalized racism against young black males within our judicial system, and that at least part of the cause for this is lasting unjust stereotypes of blacks among those in authority, and among the population in general?

If you are not willing to accept this statement as simple truth, then there's no point in our further discussing the details of this particular case, and that also goes for anyone else here.

The bolded is where the problem lies Tim. You can't call it unjust while a 20 year old black man is roughly ten times more likely to commit a murder or other violent crime as his white counterpart. While you are absolutely 100% correct that this is unfair to the innocent black youth, it is equally unfair to blame society at large for having more fear and suspicion of black youths in general. It's at best a complex problem with numerous causes requiring open discussion and acknowledgment of all the data by all sides. It is disingenuous at best to call the black murder rate the result of white racism, and it's self-inflicted blindness not to recognize that many blacks in middle class or lower neighborhoods themselves tend towards racist attitudes.

We're not really disagreeing here. Regarding the bolded, I used the words "in part" very specifically, because I acknowledge that it's a complex problem and there are all sorts of reasons for it, and that racism is only one of many reasons.

But the reason I directed this question toward jon is out of frustration because he and a few others here refuse to acknowledge that racism is even a part of this issue. Every time statistics are brought up that shows any kind of disparity, he works overtime to find a reason other than racism (the way he did last night with marijuana charges.) He doubled down on it just a few minutes ago with his blanket statement that "police are not racist." If you're unwilling to acknowledge that racism is at least PART of the problem with black youths, then there's no point in further discussion.

I can acknowledge that it used to be a significant part only 2 or 3 decades ago, and that it would be counterproductive not to acknowledge that the memory of that plays a significant role today. Like many others in here, I do believe that it isn't remotely as widespread and "institutionalized" as you and a few others suggest, but am more than willing to concede that remnants of it likely remain in places. My (recent) comments in here are merely agreeing that the data is somewhat misleading and that numerous factors other than racism play a significant role in the apparent disparity, SES being the most important factor.

 

[Billy Bats]

Violent crime doesn't equal marijuana.

I never said violent crime.

Neither did Zimms attorney.

I said that often in crimes/legalities in which they have the same proclivity... they get hosed.

Do you have first hand experience or stats of this being true? Or just going on a hunch?

 

[jon_mx]

Jon, do you acknowledge that there exists, in our current society, systemic large scale instiitutionalized racism against young black males within our judicial system, and that at least part of the cause for this is lasting unjust stereotypes of blacks among those in authority, and among the population in general?

If you are not willing to accept this statement as simple truth, then there's no point in our further discussing the details of this particular case, and that also goes for anyone else here.

The bolded is where the problem lies Tim. You can't call it unjust while a 20 year old black man is roughly ten times more likely to commit a murder or other violent crime as his white counterpart. While you are absolutely 100% correct that this is unfair to the innocent black youth, it is equally unfair to blame society at large for having more fear and suspicion of black youths in general. It's at best a complex problem with numerous causes requiring open discussion and acknowledgment of all the data by all sides. It is disingenuous at best to call the black murder rate the result of white racism, and it's self-inflicted blindness not to recognize that many blacks in middle class or lower neighborhoods themselves tend towards racist attitudes.

We're not really disagreeing here. Regarding the bolded, I used the words "in part" very specifically, because I acknowledge that it's a complex problem and there are all sorts of reasons for it, and that racism is only one of many reasons.

But the reason I directed this question toward jon is out of frustration because he and a few others here refuse to acknowledge that racism is even a part of this issue. Every time statistics are brought up that shows any kind of disparity, he works overtime to find a reason other than racism (the way he did last night with marijuana charges.) He doubled down on it just a few minutes ago with his blanket statement that "police are not racist." If you're unwilling to acknowledge that racism is at least PART of the problem with black youths, then there's no point in further discussion.

It is not working overtime to point out that black yutes largely reside in crime-ridden neighborhoods which have a strong police presence by necessity. Cherry-picking a few stats does not prove racism. You must examine all the facts and the circumstances around them, which you completely ignore and immediately jump to racism. I just don't see black cops being racists against black youths.

I refer again to the bolded.

Racism today is not institutionalized. It is mostly isolated to individuals. And it is a problem, but it is only a major problem because it is blown up into being something much worse than it really is.

 

[Christo]

The best part about the speech, imo, is that he then acknowledged the fact that there is a violence problem among African-Americans.

This has been repeated by more than one person. I'm guessing it's annoying to black people that every time they want to discuss institutionalized racism, they also have to acknowledge that black on black violence is a problem. It's like whenever I want to discuss Palestinian terrorism, somebody always wants me to admit the Israelis do wrong things too. Once I admit that, does it change anything? Institutionalized racism is a real problem, and black on black violence is also a real problem, and both issues need to be addressed.

Stand Your Ground/Self-Defense law has nothing to do with institutional racism. I've even read that SYG helps more minorities than it hurts. But because it didn't in this case, the black community is up in arms about it. Perpetuating myopia/tunnel vision does not help the situation.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/12/1215595/-Stand-Your-Ground-Black-Woman-Fires-Shot-Gets-20-Years-White-Man-Kills-And-Goes-Free-WTF#

Ok Christo, I'm not a lawyer but this lady fired a warning shot and got 20 years in prison. GZ killed someone and he walks. Explain this to me.

Read what I wrote.

 

[Christo]

The best part about the speech, imo, is that he then acknowledged the fact that there is a violence problem among African-Americans.

This has been repeated by more than one person. I'm guessing it's annoying to black people that every time they want to discuss institutionalized racism, they also have to acknowledge that black on black violence is a problem. It's like whenever I want to discuss Palestinian terrorism, somebody always wants me to admit the Israelis do wrong things too. Once I admit that, does it change anything? Institutionalized racism is a real problem, and black on black violence is also a real problem, and both issues need to be addressed.

Stand Your Ground/Self-Defense law has nothing to do with institutional racism. I've even read that SYG helps more minorities than it hurts. But because it didn't in this case, the black community is up in arms about it. Perpetuating myopia/tunnel vision does not help the situation.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/12/1215595/-Stand-Your-Ground-Black-Woman-Fires-Shot-Gets-20-Years-White-Man-Kills-And-Goes-Free-WTF#

Ok Christo, I'm not a lawyer but this lady fired a warning shot and got 20 years in prison. GZ killed someone and he walks. Explain this to me.

She got twenty years because she actually LEFT and went to go get a gun and then came back and shot at him while there was a child in the room/area. She decided to forego the plea deal and take here chances and lost. Federal Guidelines REQUIRE at least 20 years in prison.

Not even similar to the zimmerman case at all.

You won't get the real story at the DailyKos. You'll get talking points, misinformation and information deliberately left out to prove their point.

Uhm....nobody got hurt. Trayvon is dead. Anyway, Florida is one ####ed up state.

 

[Christo]

The best part about the speech, imo, is that he then acknowledged the fact that there is a violence problem among African-Americans.

This has been repeated by more than one person. I'm guessing it's annoying to black people that every time they want to discuss institutionalized racism, they also have to acknowledge that black on black violence is a problem. It's like whenever I want to discuss Palestinian terrorism, somebody always wants me to admit the Israelis do wrong things too. Once I admit that, does it change anything? Institutionalized racism is a real problem, and black on black violence is also a real problem, and both issues need to be addressed.

Stand Your Ground/Self-Defense law has nothing to do with institutional racism. I've even read that SYG helps more minorities than it hurts. But because it didn't in this case, the black community is up in arms about it. Perpetuating myopia/tunnel vision does not help the situation.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/12/1215595/-Stand-Your-Ground-Black-Woman-Fires-Shot-Gets-20-Years-White-Man-Kills-And-Goes-Free-WTF#

Ok Christo, I'm not a lawyer but this lady fired a warning shot and got 20 years in prison. GZ killed someone and he walks. Explain this to me.

She got twenty years because she actually LEFT and went to go get a gun and then came back and shot at him while there was a child in the room/area. She decided to forego the plea deal and take here chances and lost. Federal Guidelines REQUIRE at least 20 years in prison.

Not even similar to the zimmerman case at all.

You won't get the real story at the DailyKos. You'll get talking points, misinformation and information deliberately left out to prove their point.

Did you even read the ####### link you quoted? I mean really, this is ####### comical.

"The problem with her defense was she chose to come back in the house."

You know, as opposed to hunting someone down in a wide-open neighborhood. She chose to come back into HER ####### house. Unreal. You are a moron.

 

[renesauz]

Tim,

The biggest problem I have with you in threads like this is that your default position is that someone or something is racist or prejudiced when the more reasonable way to start any discussion or inquiry into something is to look for other causes/reasons first.

 

[Christo]

The best part about the speech, imo, is that he then acknowledged the fact that there is a violence problem among African-Americans.

This has been repeated by more than one person. I'm guessing it's annoying to black people that every time they want to discuss institutionalized racism, they also have to acknowledge that black on black violence is a problem. It's like whenever I want to discuss Palestinian terrorism, somebody always wants me to admit the Israelis do wrong things too. Once I admit that, does it change anything? Institutionalized racism is a real problem, and black on black violence is also a real problem, and both issues need to be addressed.

Stand Your Ground/Self-Defense law has nothing to do with institutional racism. I've even read that SYG helps more minorities than it hurts. But because it didn't in this case, the black community is up in arms about it. Perpetuating myopia/tunnel vision does not help the situation.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/12/1215595/-Stand-Your-Ground-Black-Woman-Fires-Shot-Gets-20-Years-White-Man-Kills-And-Goes-Free-WTF#

Ok Christo, I'm not a lawyer but this lady fired a warning shot and got 20 years in prison. GZ killed someone and he walks. Explain this to me.

She got twenty years because she actually LEFT and went to go get a gun and then came back and shot at him while there was a child in the room/area. She decided to forego the plea deal and take here chances and lost. Federal Guidelines REQUIRE at least 20 years in prison.

Not even similar to the zimmerman case at all.

You won't get the real story at the DailyKos. You'll get talking points, misinformation and information deliberately left out to prove their point.

Did you even read the ####### link you quoted? I mean really, this is ####### comical.

"The problem with her defense was she chose to come back in the house."

You know, as opposed to hunting someone down in a wide-open neighborhood. She chose to come back into HER ####### house. Unreal. You are a moron.

I think you're the moron, Alex. It wasn't HER house. You clearly don't understand that she was able to remove herself from the situation, but she decided to go back INTO this situation - in a house she wasn't even living in- and fire a gun in the presence of children. I've highlighted the relevant portions for you.

Alexander claims she felt her life was at risk, but she left the house and went into the garage, retrieved a handgun from her car and returned to the kitchen where her husband (Rico Gray) and his two children were located. Stand Your Ground does not require that you attempt to flee, but she already had. At this point, it no longer applied. She then fired the "mere warning shot", which in many accounts was aimed at the ceiling, but the court documents indicate "barely missed Gray's head". Here is the relevant part of the court document:

Well that's a whole different story, isn't it? It should also be noted that Alexander wasn't even living in the house at the time, as she and Gray had separated. Sean Davis over at Media Trackers has a much more detailed account of the case. I've been seeing the case start to gain more attention recently, so it's important to get the facts right before the media tries to turn it into another drummed up racial discrimination story. Definitely give it a read.[Gray] moved to the living room where his children were. Subsequently, [Alexander] emerged from the master bedroom and went into the garage where her car was parked. [Alexander] testified she was trying to leave the residence but could not get the garage door to open. (The Court notes that despite [Alexander's] claim she was in fear for her life at that point and trying to get away from [Gray], she did not leave the house through the back or front doors which were unobstructed. Additionally, the garage door had worked previously and there was no evidence to support her claim.) [Alexander] then retrieved her firearm from the glove box of the vehicle. [Alexander] returned to the kitchen with the firearm in her hand and pointed it in the direction of all three victims. [Gray] put his hands in the air. [Alexander] shot at [Gray], barely missing his head. The bullet traveled through the kitchen wall and into the ceiling in the living room. The victims fled the residence and immediately called 911. [Alexander] stayed in the marital home and at no point called 911.

The real outrage here is Florida's 10-20-Life mandatory minimum law, which essentially gives prosecutors (like the detestable Angela Corey) power to act as both prosecutor and judge. As soon as Alexander discharged her weapon, it immediately became a 20 year minimum sentence since it was used in an aggravated assault. The judge's hands were tied. The law does not include a first time offender exemption...

I don't know why you're getting angry with me, since all I was doing was reporting the info to a question on how the two cases are different.

I'm not angry with you. Basically, I think you're a ####### idiot.

He is right and you are wrong. How does that make him the idiot?

 

[timschochet]

Tim,

The biggest problem I have with you in threads like this is that your default position is that someone or something is racist or prejudiced when the more reasonable way to start any discussion or inquiry into something is to look for other causes/reasons first.

I know it probably seems that way. I don't think it's accurate.

But one way or another, does it really matter? I really wish I was more deserving of the attention that I've received in this thread, but the truth is I'm really not. I haven't come up with any new ideas or lines of thought here. I've repeated, and tried my best to explain, the ideas of other people whom I find convincing on this subject. But there are other posters who do the same thing, some with far more eloquence than I can. If I had never posted in this thread it wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference. If this thread never existed, it wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference.

What IS important, and what does make a difference, is that millions of people in this country, including the vast majority of millions of African-Americans, believe that this case was about race, believe the verdict was unjust, and are upset and angry. This is a fact that has to be acknowledged. The details of this case are only part of the reason for this anger; the other parts are the history of racism in this country, and the perception of racism which still exists. We have discussed the details of the case over and over again in this thread and I see no purpose in discussing them any more: i for one am not going to do that. I am, however, perfectly willing to discuss the larger issue of why this case means so much to so many people, why they still believe racism exists, and exactly what we're going to do about it. These, IMO, are very worthwhile topics to pursue.

 

[Christo]

The original police recommendation. Long before this case became highly publicized, was that GZ be charged with manslaughter. That's what he should have been charged with. There was, IMO, enough evidence to convict him of this charge had the prosecution practiced a strategy like the one Ramsey Hunt proposed in this thread or the one Jeffrey Toobin proposed on CNN.

Then it seems like you of all people should be ticked off at the racially-charged mob that eventually twisted enough arms to get a laughable overcharge.

I am. If you're talking about Al Sharpton, Ben Crump and their crowd, I can't stand them. They screwed this case up early on. However, blame also has to go to the Sanford authorities, who refused to press charges when there was clearly enough evidence to do so.And Sharpton and Crump and the rest are right about the essence of this case: it has everything to do with race.

It seems like an acquittal would indicate there clearly wasn't enough evidence to do so

An acquittal largely based on murder 2, in which the jury demonstrated they didn't understand manslaughter, and which the prosecution screwed up from day 1. Also a jury dominated by a woman who is pro-gun and largely sympathetic to Zimmerman and who apparently convinced everyone else. This woman never should have been on the jury- her mind was made up before the trial started.

Link?

 

[Christo]

I'm not angry with you. Basically, I think you're a ####### idiot.

For what? For showing you the actual facts of the case? You're being deliberately obtuse here, Alex. Did you even read anything? Or is this just a knee-jerk reaction?

You are narrowly focused on poorly written laws - as are most people in here - rather than a reasonable relationship in outcomes. I'm not going to pretend that Zimmerman should have been convicted....IMO these cases were decided fairly consistently with the law as written. All that I'm question - as are many others in here and in the broader public - is whether or not there is any logic to the laws as written.

THAT is the debate which should be taking place, and frankly it is being broadly ignored.

It's being ignored because there is nothing wrong with the SYG law.

 

[timschochet]

The original police recommendation. Long before this case became highly publicized, was that GZ be charged with manslaughter. That's what he should have been charged with. There was, IMO, enough evidence to convict him of this charge had the prosecution practiced a strategy like the one Ramsey Hunt proposed in this thread or the one Jeffrey Toobin proposed on CNN.

Then it seems like you of all people should be ticked off at the racially-charged mob that eventually twisted enough arms to get a laughable overcharge.

I am. If you're talking about Al Sharpton, Ben Crump and their crowd, I can't stand them. They screwed this case up early on. However, blame also has to go to the Sanford authorities, who refused to press charges when there was clearly enough evidence to do so.And Sharpton and Crump and the rest are right about the essence of this case: it has everything to do with race.

It seems like an acquittal would indicate there clearly wasn't enough evidence to do so

An acquittal largely based on murder 2, in which the jury demonstrated they didn't understand manslaughter, and which the prosecution screwed up from day 1. Also a jury dominated by a woman who is pro-gun and largely sympathetic to Zimmerman and who apparently convinced everyone else. This woman never should have been on the jury- her mind was made up before the trial started.

Link?

That assertion on my part is based on the opinion of two legal experts who stated it on TV: one on CNN (Jeffrey Toobin) and one on MSNBC (a black lady attorney; I don't remember her name.) Both believed that the after-trial interviews with the jurors demonstrated a lack of understanding of manslaughter. I found their comments compelling.

 

[identikit]

The original police recommendation. Long before this case became highly publicized, was that GZ be charged with manslaughter. That's what he should have been charged with. There was, IMO, enough evidence to convict him of this charge had the prosecution practiced a strategy like the one Ramsey Hunt proposed in this thread or the one Jeffrey Toobin proposed on CNN.

Then it seems like you of all people should be ticked off at the racially-charged mob that eventually twisted enough arms to get a laughable overcharge.

I am. If you're talking about Al Sharpton, Ben Crump and their crowd, I can't stand them. They screwed this case up early on. However, blame also has to go to the Sanford authorities, who refused to press charges when there was clearly enough evidence to do so.And Sharpton and Crump and the rest are right about the essence of this case: it has everything to do with race.

It seems like an acquittal would indicate there clearly wasn't enough evidence to do so

An acquittal largely based on murder 2, in which the jury demonstrated they didn't understand manslaughter, and which the prosecution screwed up from day 1. Also a jury dominated by a woman who is pro-gun and largely sympathetic to Zimmerman and who apparently convinced everyone else. This woman never should have been on the jury- her mind was made up before the trial started.

Link?

That assertion on my part is based on the opinion of two legal experts who stated it on TV: one on CNN (Jeffrey Toobin) and one on MSNBC (a black lady attorney; I don't remember her name.) Both believed that the after-trial interviews with the jurors demonstrated a lack of understanding of manslaughter. I found their comments compelling.

How selective of you.

 

[Christo]

Jon, do you acknowledge that there exists, in our current society, systemic large scale instiitutionalized racism against young black males within our judicial system, and that at least part of the cause for this is lasting unjust stereotypes of blacks among those in authority, and among the population in general?

If you are not willing to accept this statement as simple truth, then there's no point in our further discussing the details of this particular case, and that also goes for anyone else here.

I would agree with your statement except for the bolded. It is a well earned reputation.

 

[timschochet]

The original police recommendation. Long before this case became highly publicized, was that GZ be charged with manslaughter. That's what he should have been charged with. There was, IMO, enough evidence to convict him of this charge had the prosecution practiced a strategy like the one Ramsey Hunt proposed in this thread or the one Jeffrey Toobin proposed on CNN.

Then it seems like you of all people should be ticked off at the racially-charged mob that eventually twisted enough arms to get a laughable overcharge.

I am. If you're talking about Al Sharpton, Ben Crump and their crowd, I can't stand them. They screwed this case up early on. However, blame also has to go to the Sanford authorities, who refused to press charges when there was clearly enough evidence to do so.And Sharpton and Crump and the rest are right about the essence of this case: it has everything to do with race.

It seems like an acquittal would indicate there clearly wasn't enough evidence to do so

An acquittal largely based on murder 2, in which the jury demonstrated they didn't understand manslaughter, and which the prosecution screwed up from day 1. Also a jury dominated by a woman who is pro-gun and largely sympathetic to Zimmerman and who apparently convinced everyone else. This woman never should have been on the jury- her mind was made up before the trial started.

Link?

That assertion on my part is based on the opinion of two legal experts who stated it on TV: one on CNN (Jeffrey Toobin) and one on MSNBC (a black lady attorney; I don't remember her name.) Both believed that the after-trial interviews with the jurors demonstrated a lack of understanding of manslaughter. I found their comments compelling.

How selective of you.

On the contrary. If I was being more selective, I would have remembered her name.

 

[timschochet]

Jon, do you acknowledge that there exists, in our current society, systemic large scale instiitutionalized racism against young black males within our judicial system, and that at least part of the cause for this is lasting unjust stereotypes of blacks among those in authority, and among the population in general?

If you are not willing to accept this statement as simple truth, then there's no point in our further discussing the details of this particular case, and that also goes for anyone else here.

I would agree with your statement except for the bolded. It is a well earned reputation.

So in other words, blacks are subjected to racism because of just and accurate stereotypes?

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I'm not angry with you. Basically, I think you're a ####### idiot.

For what? For showing you the actual facts of the case? You're being deliberately obtuse here, Alex. Did you even read anything? Or is this just a knee-jerk reaction?

You are narrowly focused on poorly written laws - as are most people in here - rather than a reasonable relationship in outcomes. I'm not going to pretend that Zimmerman should have been convicted....IMO these cases were decided fairly consistently with the law as written. All that I'm question - as are many others in here and in the broader public - is whether or not there is any logic to the laws as written.

THAT is the debate which should be taking place, and frankly it is being broadly ignored.

It's being ignored because there is nothing wrong with the SYG law.

You need to talk to more prosecutors.

 

[Christo]

The original police recommendation. Long before this case became highly publicized, was that GZ be charged with manslaughter. That's what he should have been charged with. There was, IMO, enough evidence to convict him of this charge had the prosecution practiced a strategy like the one Ramsey Hunt proposed in this thread or the one Jeffrey Toobin proposed on CNN.

Then it seems like you of all people should be ticked off at the racially-charged mob that eventually twisted enough arms to get a laughable overcharge.

I am. If you're talking about Al Sharpton, Ben Crump and their crowd, I can't stand them. They screwed this case up early on. However, blame also has to go to the Sanford authorities, who refused to press charges when there was clearly enough evidence to do so.And Sharpton and Crump and the rest are right about the essence of this case: it has everything to do with race.

It seems like an acquittal would indicate there clearly wasn't enough evidence to do so

An acquittal largely based on murder 2, in which the jury demonstrated they didn't understand manslaughter, and which the prosecution screwed up from day 1. Also a jury dominated by a woman who is pro-gun and largely sympathetic to Zimmerman and who apparently convinced everyone else. This woman never should have been on the jury- her mind was made up before the trial started.

Link?

That assertion on my part is based on the opinion of two legal experts who stated it on TV: one on CNN (Jeffrey Toobin) and one on MSNBC (a black lady attorney; I don't remember her name.) Both believed that the after-trial interviews with the jurors demonstrated a lack of understanding of manslaughter. I found their comments compelling.

Self-defense is as appropriate for manslaughter as it is for murder 2. The jury applied it on both counts. I really don't see how anyone could make a convincing argument that the jury understood murder 2, understood self-dense but didn't understand manslaughter.

 

[Christo]

Jon, do you acknowledge that there exists, in our current society, systemic large scale instiitutionalized racism against young black males within our judicial system, and that at least part of the cause for this is lasting unjust stereotypes of blacks among those in authority, and among the population in general?

If you are not willing to accept this statement as simple truth, then there's no point in our further discussing the details of this particular case, and that also goes for anyone else here.

I would agree with your statement except for the bolded. It is a well earned reputation.

So in other words, blacks are subjected to racism because of just and accurate stereotypes?

In my words, it is a well earned reputation.

 

[renesauz]

Tim,

The biggest problem I have with you in threads like this is that your default position is that someone or something is racist or prejudiced when the more reasonable way to start any discussion or inquiry into something is to look for other causes/reasons first.

I know it probably seems that way. I don't think it's accurate.

But one way or another, does it really matter? I really wish I was more deserving of the attention that I've received in this thread, but the truth is I'm really not. I haven't come up with any new ideas or lines of thought here. I've repeated, and tried my best to explain, the ideas of other people whom I find convincing on this subject. But there are other posters who do the same thing, some with far more eloquence than I can. If I had never posted in this thread it wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference. If this thread never existed, it wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference.

What IS important, and what does make a difference, is that millions of people in this country, including the vast majority of millions of African-Americans, believe that this case was about race, believe the verdict was unjust, and are upset and angry. This is a fact that has to be acknowledged. The details of this case are only part of the reason for this anger; the other parts are the history of racism in this country, and the perception of racism which still exists. We have discussed the details of the case over and over again in this thread and I see no purpose in discussing them any more: i for one am not going to do that. I am, however, perfectly willing to discuss the larger issue of why this case means so much to so many people, why they still believe racism exists, and exactly what we're going to do about it. These, IMO, are very worthwhile topics to pursue.

I agree with you here, but disagree in that it has been acknowledged. The problem is that millions of Americans were grossly misled by a media with an agenda from day one, and unlike most of us in this thread, never bothered to try to find out the truth, instead relying almost exclusively on what CNN or their local news had to say. The media in this case has been GROSSLY and unforgivably negligent in their coverage. For people whose only source of info has been the mass media, there is no other conclusion possible, and this is something educated folks like those in this thread should be alarmed about. To me....this is a MUCH MUCH greater issue then verdict in this case.

 

[renesauz]

Jon, do you acknowledge that there exists, in our current society, systemic large scale instiitutionalized racism against young black males within our judicial system, and that at least part of the cause for this is lasting unjust stereotypes of blacks among those in authority, and among the population in general?

If you are not willing to accept this statement as simple truth, then there's no point in our further discussing the details of this particular case, and that also goes for anyone else here.

I would agree with your statement except for the bolded. It is a well earned reputation.

So in other words, blacks are subjected to racism because of just and accurate stereotypes?

No. I think his point is that a negative stereotype that has significant basis in factual data does not equate to racism. You seem to operate from a point where any negative stereotype about any race other than white is equivalent to racism.

 

[Mario Kart]

An acquittal largely based on murder 2, in which the jury demonstrated they didn't understand manslaughter, and which the prosecution screwed up from day 1. Also a jury dominated by a woman who is pro-gun and largely sympathetic to Zimmerman and who apparently convinced everyone else. This woman never should have been on the jury- her mind was made up before the trial started.

Wow

 

[The Commish]

Jon, do you acknowledge that there exists, in our current society, systemic large scale instiitutionalized racism against young black males within our judicial system, and that at least part of the cause for this is lasting unjust stereotypes of blacks among those in authority, and among the population in general?

If you are not willing to accept this statement as simple truth, then there's no point in our further discussing the details of this particular case, and that also goes for anyone else here.

I think there's quite a bit of truth to this. But this particular case isn't an illustration of it.

I guess it all depends on whether we believe the jurors or not when they say they didn't believe race had anything to do with it. Problem with doing this though is something I have seen my entire life working with inner city students and kids at CPS. That is, you get a group together and they say the problem doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. I'm not saying the jury did this, but I can see why people are skeptical of them. I've seen a couple interviews (one with Martin's parents and one with the juror). Had I not seen it in action myself, I'd probably dismiss Martin's mother's comments. She said something to the effect that "if we don't acknowledge it, we don't have to deal with it". She was talking about race. So the question then becomes did the jury really believe race wasn't part of it or did they just simply dismiss it so they didn't have to deal with it as part of the situation? We won't ever know the answer to this question, but as time goes on, I think one of the biggest mistakes the prosecution made was not having a black person on the jury.

 

[avoiding injuries]

If people are so up in arms about this whole thing being racial, why is nobody mentioning the Hispanic component? Not to mention that the only evidence of racism came from TM, and to a lesser degree, Didi.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The source of the racism concern is, of course, the racial profiling that led to this confrontation.

What are you referring to here?

Bump. The stuff I've read about the case -- including, for example, this -- makes it sound like there's no good reason to think that Zimmerman was doing any racial profiling.

 

[jon_mx]

The original police recommendation. Long before this case became highly publicized, was that GZ be charged with manslaughter. That's what he should have been charged with. There was, IMO, enough evidence to convict him of this charge had the prosecution practiced a strategy like the one Ramsey Hunt proposed in this thread or the one Jeffrey Toobin proposed on CNN.

Then it seems like you of all people should be ticked off at the racially-charged mob that eventually twisted enough arms to get a laughable overcharge.

I am. If you're talking about Al Sharpton, Ben Crump and their crowd, I can't stand them. They screwed this case up early on. However, blame also has to go to the Sanford authorities, who refused to press charges when there was clearly enough evidence to do so.And Sharpton and Crump and the rest are right about the essence of this case: it has everything to do with race.

It seems like an acquittal would indicate there clearly wasn't enough evidence to do so

An acquittal largely based on murder 2, in which the jury demonstrated they didn't understand manslaughter, and which the prosecution screwed up from day 1. Also a jury dominated by a woman who is pro-gun and largely sympathetic to Zimmerman and who apparently convinced everyone else. This woman never should have been on the jury- her mind was made up before the trial started.

Link?

That assertion on my part is based on the opinion of two legal experts who stated it on TV: one on CNN (Jeffrey Toobin) and one on MSNBC (a black lady attorney; I don't remember her name.) Both believed that the after-trial interviews with the jurors demonstrated a lack of understanding of manslaughter. I found their comments compelling.

Hmmmmm. Are these a couple of the masterminds TV-genius expert lawyers who insisted that Zimmerman would have to testify to win?

 

[Billy Bats]

The source of the racism concern is, of course, the racial profiling that led to this confrontation.

What are you referring to here?

Bump. The stuff I've read about the case -- including, for example, this -- makes it sound like there's no good reason to think that Zimmerman was doing any racial profiling.

Good read, thanks for posting it. You should maybe forward that to the White House.

I said it before and I think people are confusing racial profiling with criminal profiling. And according to everything that went on in that neighborhood, GZ was justified in his concerns that night.

 

[squistion]

Bill Maher ‏@billmaher

Hey everybody, a little space for GZim in this difficult time. After all, there's nothing more unnerving than being watched and followed.

 

[drummer]

Bill Maher ‏@billmaher

Hey everybody, a little space for GZim in this difficult time. After all, there's nothing more unnerving than being watched and followed.

He should know. He lurks the Playboy Mansion.

 

[Christo]

Bill Maher ‏@billmaher

Hey everybody, a little space for GZim in this difficult time. After all, there's nothing more unnerving than being watched and followed.

He should know. He lurks the Playboy Mansion.

Wouldn't you if you had the opportunity?

 

[drummer]

Bill Maher ‏@billmaher

Hey everybody, a little space for GZim in this difficult time. After all, there's nothing more unnerving than being watched and followed.

He should know. He lurks the Playboy Mansion.

Wouldn't you if you had the opportunity?

If you're creeping the Playboy Mansion you ain't doing it right.

 

[Christo]

Bill Maher ‏@billmaher

Hey everybody, a little space for GZim in this difficult time. After all, there's nothing more unnerving than being watched and followed.

He should know. He lurks the Playboy Mansion.

Wouldn't you if you had the opportunity?

If you're creeping the Playboy Mansion you ain't doing it right.

Oh

 

[Riversco]

Damn, there was a whole lot of ### urchins made in this thread.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Bill Maher ‏@billmaher

Hey everybody, a little space for GZim in this difficult time. After all, there's nothing more unnerving than being watched and followed.

He should know. He lurks the Playboy Mansion.

Wouldn't you if you had the opportunity?

If you're creeping the Playboy Mansion you ain't doing it right.

Bill maher truly is a creepy ### cracka

 

[jon_mx]

“For those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these Stand Your Ground laws, I just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk,” Obama said.

If he is on his back getting his face punch in.....yeah, with or with out SYG. Good thing Obama is not trying to politicize this.