(Sorry for yet another thread - but I’m not sure this has been addressed.)
This is not a question I’m trying to be snarky or cynical in asking - I’m genuinely curious:
How did this case come to be racially charged? What is the evidence that Zimmerman’s actions were racially motivated? To what extent was this present in his actions or statements, and/or injected into the case by others after the shooting?
Reasonable people can argue that the jury made the right decision, but I also think every reasonable person would also have to admit that if Trayvon Martin had been white that Zimmerman wouldn’t have followed him and wouldn’t have suspected of being a criminal.
Do a thought experiment. And then asks yourself some questions.
Do you think Zimmerman would have pegged Trayvon as suspicious and “up to no good” if he’d been anyone other than a black male? If the kid had been a white girl dressed in black hoodie and khaki pants, would he have trailed her first in his truck and then on foot?
If Trayvon had been anyone other than a black male, would people have blindly swallowed Zimmerman story of being sucker punched, beaten, and smothered, all without provocation? If Trayvon had been a white girl, would people be inclined to see the injuries on Zimmerman’s head as evidence that the girl had stood her ground? Or would they insist Zimmerman was the victim a feral proto-human attack? If Trayvon had been white, would people assume he was a rational actor and strongly consider that, if he did hit Zimmerman, he did so for good cause? Or would they assume he attacked Zimmerman out of the blue, for no reason at all?
And if Zimmerman was a black man who killed a white teenager, do you think the NRA and SYG advocates would have rallied behind him? Do you think Hannity would have invited him on his show? Do you think a black man attributing his actions to “God’s plan” would have been patted on the back by white conservatives? Or do you think he would have been vilified much like Trayvon was vilified?
People who think this case is about race are confident that just about every aspect of what happened would be different if the races were reversed. Do you honestly disagree?
I’d invite you to research John White.
We damn sure supported him, too.
Same evidence, same injuries, same witnesses. But the young adult is white and I would have no change in opinion.
Edit: my opinion is self defense and this should never have been a trial.
I think most of the people on this board will assert that they would not see this case differently if races were reversed. But I agree with you that, the majority of the country would see it differently. A black man stalking a ‘suspicious’ looking white boy, confronting him and ultimately shooting him? Yeah. It would be VERY different. I can imagine that all the people who call Treyvon a thug in what happened, would use the same word to describe the black man if he had been in Zimmerman’s position.
Short answer; because Trayvon was Black and Martin looked “White”.
Long (and politically incorrect) answer; because there’s a pervasive thought within the Black community that the criminal justice system is “out to get them”, and that because there were ills committed against Blacks in the past, that now every non-Black person who kills a Black person must necessarily be guilty of racism and punished to atone for past ills that they, themselves, probably had no involvement in. You can see this in some of the over-the-top reactions on twitter, Facebook and the news (“Murder is now legal in Florida!”, “It’s not safe to be Black in Florida!”, “Black parents must now fear for their child’s safety!”, “Emmit Till…!”, “Fuck dem crackas!”, etc.)
Anyway, I hate these “what if…?” games, but I’ll play. If Martin would have killed Zimmerman, do you think this would have garnered national attention? If both Trayvon and Zimmerman were Black, do you think this case would have garnered any national attention at all? The answer to those two questions is no. There would have been a 20 second blurb about it and that’s that. There is faulty cause and effect here. This case became a national circus not because of the NRA or whatever, but because of groups like the NAACP who descended upon Florida like a pack of locusts demanding justice for the “Black guy unfairly killed by the ‘White’ guy”, with the media in tow. I need not point out to you again just how much of a racial divide there was in this case, with one group almost universally backing one side, evidence be damned.
Yes, but the reality is it’s pretty hard to try a case when you only have one side’s account since that side killed the other person involved. I just don’t get how, regardless or race, you think it’s okay to follow someone int he dark with a deadly weapon despite being asked by 911 operators not to do so. The majority of the time, those actions are going to result in bad things happening.
Given that you can’t even share your despicable and distorted views with people you know in real life, shouldn’t you consider that the reaction you’d be sure to get is not because you aren’t PC, but rather because you wrong? Do you ever even stop to think that there is a reason why that shame you feel is there?
Well, I think you are very confused.
-it wasn’t a 911 operator
-he never told GZ not to follow
-GZ has a concealed weapons permit and can carry his weapon regardless of lighting conditions
-GZ can follow anyone he wants, any time he wants.
Do I think GZ was not practicing his best judgment? Absolutely. He got out of the safety of his vehicle with a wild animal not knowing of it was a lion or a bunny. Does that make it ok to be attacked? No, he did nothing illegal at all. IMHO he was being a good neighbor. Blaming the fact that he was attacked on the fact that he followed someone is crazy, that is not an appropriate response.
Again:
Older black man. Kills white teenager in self defense. Unfortunately did some jail time, but was pardoned.
He was right to do it. Said it then, saying it now.
And, irony of ironies: Al Sharpton supported him.
This is not at all like the George Zimmerman situation. The most obvious difference is that the guy was quickly charged and swiftly convicted.
But nice try, though.
You’re confusing not feeling like arguing with people in real life with feeling shame. The two are not one in the same. I’d much rather keep the peace (and not having to listen to this crap about “being a self-hating Black man” or “selling out” that I will invariably hear) than to cause a needless argument over a case which is over, the verdict of which I agree with.
So your evidence that race was not a factor in the Zimmerman case is to bring up a similar case where the races were reversed and a black guy shot a white teenager. And Zimmerman was found not guilty and the black guy was convicted. And to you, this is evidence that race is not an issue.
I am not confused. Cite:
That is unless you are trying to differentiate between a “dispatcher” and an “operator”.
Actually cannot follow anyone any time he wants. There are numerous laws regarding stalking and similar crimes. That is not the case here, but your contention is wrong. Either way, I did not allege he didn’t have a right to carry a gun. My point was that his actions in and of themselves will lead to tragic consequences a large percentage of the time. The idea that what he did was a-okay is just mind-boggling to me.
Wild animal?
Maybe, depends who you believe, and who struck first. The idea that this Zimmerman, who by most fair accounts has exceedingly poor judgement not only in this instance (prior to the altercation), but also during his other arrests for things like “resisting officer with violence”, and “battery of law enforcement officer”, just by chance happened upon a teenager with even worse judgement and temperament than him seem pretty unlikely to me.
I didn’t realize you could be in an argument without wanting to be :dubious:. If you don’t want to argue with people, the price isn’t silence, or compromising your integrity, it’s just deciding not to make a disagreement contentious. But you know that already. Regardless, you don’t need to admit to me it’s shame and embarrassment driving your actions. I think most people who read your post see that. Besides, it’s a cross only you have to bear anyway.
Sorry, but I disagree. If Trayvon had been white, I think it’s very possible Zimmerman would have acted the same way. Many of Zimmerman’s prior 911 calls were about non-black “suspicious people.”
I agree that if Treyvon had been Treyvona, the reaction would have been vastly different. But that is a result of society’s gender role expectations, rather than racism.
It was Non-Emergency operator or dispatcher. His name is Sean Noffke and he testified during the trial. I’ll quote him.
“We are directly liable if we give a direct order” He then said he would never “tell a person to follow or not to follow”.
You are confused if you believe it was a 911 call and the operator told GZ not to follow.
Wait, shouldn’t have been a trial? Am I falling victim to Poe’s Law, here? Of course there should have been a trial, that’s blindingly obvious. How else are the authorities supposed to decide whether it was self-defense or not?
And he can also, by doing so, instill a reasonable fear of dire bodily harm in someone by doing so, which can lead to a confrontation and death, for which his actions are responsible. Any reasonable person who’s just walking through the neighborhood who finds himself followed by a guy in a car, who then comes out of the car after him carrying a gun and who doesn’t immediately explain why, would reasonably believe they were being attacked, and respond accordingly. A concealed carry permit is not dispensation to be an idiot.
Despite the acquittal, I still see this nonsense.
Who cares if it’s “ok?”
Why would you say, “..you think it’s okay to follow someone int he dark…?”
The criminal trial was about whether the law was broken, not about what people think was “okay.”
My view was that Zimmerman’s actions were pretty far from “okay.” But they were not actions that proved second-degree murder.
Stop conflating these standards.