Pitting the Zimmerman trial circus

[Gary_Kumquat]

@Rand_Rover

Please explain how the quoted statement can only be read to call all black people “feral proto-humans.” Thanking you for your clear and cogent analysis in advance.

@LonesomePolecat

this is a glorious moment. A Florida jury has affirmed our right to use deadly force to defend ourselves from feral proto-humans, and, having twice been the victim of black street violence, I fervently hope there will be yet another wave of Euro-Americans flooding the gun stores to buy the weaponry and munitions needed to deal with the Trayvon Martins and Rodney Kings of our decaying and disintegrating nation.

**The problem is black lawlessness and violence.
**

Defend ourselves from feral proto-humans. Us Euro-Americans buying the guns needed to deal with Trayvon Martin and Rodney Kings, and black lawlessness in general.

Don’t even fucking attempt such a weasel defence for the racist prick. That would be demeaning even for you.

[Larry_Borgia]

@Gary_Kumquat

Defend ourselves from feral proto-humans. Us Euro-Americans buying the guns needed to deal with Trayvon Martin and Rodney Kings, and black lawlessness in general.

Don’t even fucking attempt such a weasel defence for the racist prick. That would be demeaning even for you.

The thing speaks for itself. Why it needs any analysis other than “Holy shit, dude” is beyond me.

[Steophan]

@Gary_Kumquat

And your evidence for that is?

Did you not follow the trial? It was all there. Do you really not believe those injuries to Zimmerman came from Martin?

[Steophan]

@Stoid

Number:smack: Number:smack:

Number of plural,amount of singular.

Fewer of plural, less of singular.

Glad your priorities are sorted.

[Gary_Kumquat]

@Steophan

Did you not follow the trial? It was all there. Do you really not believe those injuries to Zimmerman came from Martin?

You are arguing that that receiving an injury is proof that you were attacked?

[IgnoranceIsMyExcuse]

@Gary_Kumquat

You are arguing that that receiving an injury is proof that you were attacked?

It’s not conclusive proof, but it’s some proof, yes?

[Steophan]

@Gary_Kumquat

You are arguing that that receiving an injury is proof that you were attacked?

I’m arguing that, when there’s no evidence of provocation on Zimmerman’s part, and evidence that Martin came back to confront Zimmerman for no good reason, that those injuries are damn good evidence that Martin attacked him.

[Gary_Kumquat]

@IgnoranceIsMyExcuse

It’s not conclusive proof, but it’s some proof, yes?

No, it’s not. Did he inflict those on Zimmerman in a vicious unprovoked assault. Did he frantically attempt to disarm a man who stalked him, then revealed a gun. Arguing that Zimmerman was injured, therefore he must have been attacked, is such ridiculously flawed logic it should not need rebuttal.

So let me ask again. What is the evidence that Zimmerman was attacked?

[Gary_Kumquat]

@Steophan

I’m arguing that, when there’s no evidence of provocation on Zimmerman’s part, and evidence that Martin came back to confront Zimmerman for no good reason, that those injuries are damn good evidence that Martin attacked him.

So you have no evidence then. At all.

Thanks for confirming that.

[Steophan]

@Gary_Kumquat

So let me ask again. What is the evidence that Zimmerman was attacked?

The injuries are evidence he was attacked. Not proof, evidence. Combined with all the other factors, there’s good reason to believe it was Martin who started the confrontation, and excellent reason to believe that, even if the original punch was legitimate self defence, the continued assault wasn’t.

Basically, unless you have reason to believe Zimmerman threatened his life (which you haven’t), then you can’t justify Martin’s actions.

[Steophan]

@Gary_Kumquat

So you have no evidence then. At all.

Thanks for confirming that.

Yes, I have. Did you not read the post you quoted, or do you not understand the meaning of the word “evidence”?

[BrainGlutton]

Jessica Valenti writes in The Nation:

**Fear and Consequences: George Zimmerman and the Protection of White Womanhood

Jessica Valenti on July 16, 2013 - 2:19 PM ET**

My first week of college, I had a heated debate about abortion with two new friends—both were white, and one, Nancy, was extremely pro-life. I was feeling pretty proud of myself for having such an “adult” conversation—we disagreed, but everyone was being respectful. Then my other pro-choice friend asked Nancy what she would do with a pregnancy if she was raped. I will never forget what Nancy said: “I think it would be cute to have a little black baby.” When we expressed outrage at her racism, Nancy shrugged. It never occurred to her a rapist would be anyone other than a black man. (DOJ statistics show that 80 to 90 percent of women who are raped are attacked by someone of their own race, unless they are Native women.) When this young woman imagined a criminal in her mind, he wasn’t a faceless bogeyman.

I hadn’t thought of this exchange in years, not until I was reading the responses to George Zimmerman’s acquittal—particularly those about the role of white womanhood. When I first heard that the jurors were women, I naïvely hoped they would see this teenage boy shot dead in the street and think of their children. But they weren’t just any women; most were white women. Women who, like me, have been taught to fear men of color. And who—as a feminist named Valerie pointed out on Twitter—probably would see Zimmerman as their son sooner than they would Trayvon Martin.

<snip>

Perhaps most tellingly, though, “B37” told Cooper that Zimmerman’s “heart was in the right place, but just got displaced by the vandalism in the neighborhoods and wanting to catch these people so badly that he went above and beyond what he really should have done.” (The phrase “above and beyond” is interesting, given it’s generally understood as a positive.) To her, Zimmerman was a protector. Sure, maybe he went a bit overboard but “Trayvon got mad and attacked him,” and Zimmerman “had a right to defend himself.”

This juror’s comments cannot be divorced from our culture’s long-standing criminalizing of young black men, and white women’s related fears. As Mychal Denzel Smith pointed out here at The Nation and on MSNBC’s Up With Steve Kornacki, defense attorneys stoked this fear deliberately and broadly.

To my disgust, O’Mara literally invoked the same justification for killing Trayvon as was used to justify lynchings. He called to the witness stand Olivia Bertalan, one of Zimmerman’s former neighbors, who told the story of her home being burglarized by two young African-American boys while she and her children feared for their lives. It was terrifying indeed, and it had absolutely no connection to the case at hand. But O’Mara presented the jury with the “perfect victim,” which Trayvon could never be: a white woman living in fear of black criminals. Zimmerman had offered to help her the night her home was robbed. Implicit in the defense’s closing argument: he was also protecting her the night he killed Trayvon Martin.

They carefully made Martin—the victim—into that not-so-faceless bogeyman. Now, I don’t know what was in the jurors’ hearts—but the story the defense told and that juror B37 parroted is not a new one. It’s a story that ends with fear trumping empathy and humanity. (A fear that even now is being grossly defended as justified.)

[Debaser]

@Bricker

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.

Really? You deny that Martin attacked Zimmerman? All the evidence points to this being the case. Or are you just being overly literal and saying that Martin can’t be convicted of it because he’s dead? Or something.

Martin attacked Zimmerman. This is not in dispute. Sympathizers to Martin love glossing over this fact, but it is a fact.

[Debaser]

@Damuri_Ajashi

You think MLK would think that Z was justified in killing this boy who was doing nothing before Z started stalking him?

No. I don’t think this, which is why I haven’t posted anything remotely like this. Please respond to people’s actual posts, not stuff you’ve made up out of whole cloth.

[Bricker]

@Debaser

Really? You deny that Martin attacked Zimmerman? All the evidence points to this being the case. Or are you just being overly literal and saying that Martin can’t be convicted of it because he’s dead? Or something.

Martin attacked Zimmerman. This is not in dispute. Sympathizers to Martin love glossing over this fact, but it is a fact.

I agree that Martin struck Zimmerman, of course.

Did Martin commit a crime by striking Zimmerman? That’s the claim I was responding to:

@Bricker

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.

Did he? (Be interesting to see how you answer this – will you immediately fall into the same suppositional habits that have plagued Zimmerman’s detractors?)

[kayaker]

@Terr

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.

So. Maybe they’re neighbors and he’s been blocking her mailbox by parking his car in front of her house?

[Terr]

@kayaker

So. Maybe they’re neighbors and he’s been blocking her mailbox by parking his car in front of her house?

No idea. What do you think is the “this” that she was referring to the 73-year-old singer “starting”?

[Steophan]

@Terr

No idea. What do you think is the “this” that she was referring to the 73-year-old singer “starting”?

She’s referring to the “fight” - really, beating - and claiming he started it by mentioning Martin.

If you want to condemn Martin’s attack on Zimmerman, you should condemn this woman’s attack on the singer, unless you’re a hypocrite.

[Gary_Kumquat]

@Steophan

Basically, unless you have reason to believe Zimmerman threatened his life (which you haven’t), then you can’t justify Martin’s actions.

Just to recap:

If Zimmerman feels threatened by Martin, then use of lethal force is justified. However if Martin feels threatened by Zimmerman - you know, the guy who was following him around on his way home, without identifying himself or giving any sort of explanation - then engaging with Zimmerman is an unjustifiable act of violence?

You might want to go for a more consistent position.

Let’s be honest here. You’ve not even attempted to deny the argument that you might feel threatened if you noticed someone following you. Or that if you were being followed, you might not want to go immediately home, thus showing where you live. Or that you might just turn around and confront the person following you. You know all of that is plausible. You’ve not attempted to explain why Zimmerman didn’t identify himself. You’ve repeatedly avoided all of these issues because you cannot deny them.

Instead you’ve fixated on the argument that Zimmerman clearly was defending himself because he received injuries. You’ve pushed this position because you know that if you acknowledge for one second that a person might injure another whilst trying to defend themselves, the only thing supporting Zimmerman is that he’s the only witness.

So you’ll excuse me if I feel pretty unchallenged in my opinion that Zimmerman engaged in a rash series of acts that resulted in an entirely avoidable fatality.

[BrainGlutton]

@Debaser

Martin attacked Zimmerman. This is not in dispute.

But it is not in all circumstances a crime.