Rand, I was with you on this one at first. But upon re-reading it I do see how it is probably racist.
I missed it on first read, but after using the “proto-humans” line he expresses hope that “Euro Americans” should buy guns. I thought he was just referring to Martin as subhuman on first read. But after BrainGlutton pointed the second line there out I re-read it.
Hard to argue it isn’t racist. Take out the “Euro Americans” line and it can easily be interpreted not to be. That line is easy to miss if you’re just skimming through the post.
So defending yourself is a crime? How did Zimmerman get off then?
Of course maybe Zimmerman didn’t seem to be the sort of person who would kill someone. He did kill someone, he’s just not the sort of person who would.
Because if you want to really, really truly understand it, it can’t be done in a forum like this. I strongly recommend you watch The House that I Live In. Does an outstanding job of explaining exactly how the system is racist. And classist. And fucking evil. 94% on Rotten Tomatoes.
Trailer Get an education that will, one hopes, piss you off and break your heart all at once.
No. Martin has no opportunity to answer this charge. It’s not fair to say he committed a crime without at least some insight into why he did what he did.
No, attacking someone is. The amount of people who don’t know the difference between the two would be funny if it wasn’t so terrifying.
Martin attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman defended himself.
In case that’s not a clear enough example, the woman in the article you cited attacked Lester Chambers. The people who used force on her were defending him.
No matter how much provocation was involved. No matter how much Martin was upset or scared by Zimmerman following him, no matter how upset or angry that woman was by his dedication, they had no right to use force.
I don’t think you want to hang your hat on this one. He was referring to black people. Maybe not all black people but black people nonetheless.
You think MLK would think that Z was justified in killing this boy who was doing nothing before Z started stalking him? As far as we know, Treyvon might be the one who was acting in self defense against an armed Z, the state simply couldn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z wasn’t acting in self defense. Not guilty isn’t the same thing as innocent and it certainly isn’t the same thing as “the defendant’s version of the facts have been found to be true”
Not if it was self defense. Treyvon’s problem was that he was too young to carry a gun. BTW, if he was such a thug, why the fuck wasn’t he carrying a gun? They’re readily available at gun shows apparently.
It’s all fucked up. But I think the two incidents you pointed out were young man who wanted to act out and picked random strangers and used Martin to excuse their bad behavior. They were punks probably looking to fuck somebody up anyway.
But a woman, apparently middle-aged, climbing up on stage to attack a 73-year-old man specifically because he was singing a song of peace dedicated to Martin? That’s different, And deeply disturbing and incredibly sad: no matter how angry you are for whatever reason (and what was her reason exactly?) Why would you choose to attack someone who’s singing of peace? That’s extra fucked up.
From what I have read, she was walking toward the stage before he started singing talking about Martin, and I didn’t see anything in the reporting that showed that her attack had anything to do with Martin or the “song of peace”. “You m—f----, you started this.” is hardly indicative of anything to do with Martin.
He apparently compensated by carrying a picture of a gun, at least according to a (former) employee of the Florida State Attorney’s office:
“Kruidbos testified last month in a pre-trial hearing that he found photos on Martin’s phone that included pictures of a pile of jewelry on a bed, underage nude females, marijuana plants and a hand holding a semi-automatic pistol.”
(sings song of peace) “Kumbaya, we are all Trayvon Martin”
