The standard is that if a good amount of evidence points to you being a racist, you probably are. Obviously, in all but the most egregious cases involving admitted avowed racists, it going to be a judgment call. But given we have direct and circumstantial evidence that this is the case, I am not sure why you are protesting so much.
As for why they prosecution didn’t call this person, it’s probably for the same reason they basically let Zimmerman’s friends testify about what a great guy he was, and were blindsided by a cop saying Zimmerman was basically honest despite evidence he was not. In my admittedly cynical opinion, they didn’t want to try the case, and did the bare minimum. In their defense, someone who cannot point to specific incidents of Zimmerman making racist statements is probably not a good witness even if they are truthful.
Yes, given that WE ARE NOT IN A COURTROOM. Why is so hard for you to understand? Are you this insufferable in real life too? Do you think every statement someone tells you about someone else should by under oath and subject to cross-examination?
Sure, I would apply a similar standard. But given Martin was not following Zimmerman, I think his biases are less of an issue. Important, but not a necessary condition for the altercation to happen as it likely was for Zimmerman.
I have yet to see any credible evidence that makes me think Zimmerman was racist to any degree of significance - on this board or otherwise. It just feels many have already decided he was for whatever reason and now are clawing at cites to justify their position.
Don’t overlook contrary evidence, though, such as Zimmerman’s reported effort to demand that the Sanford police arrest the son of one of their lieutenants, who allegedly beat a black man.
I’m new to this thread but I’m going to take your comment for what it’s worth.
There were no civil right violations in this case. Race was NOT part of Zimmerman’s motivation in any of the events that lead to this tragedy, at least, none of that was proven in the trial. If in fact the police had arrived a few moments earlier, and seen Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him, Martin would have undoubtedly been cited, if not arrested for criminal battery. And you can bet the same DA would have prosecuted Martin claiming that the injuries Zimmerman suffered constituted great bodily harm.
The DOJ has looked at this case for over a year. They have not, and I’ll bet will not, bother pursuing any Civil right violation charges against Zimmerman. The matter is done, it is, and will forever remain simply this - Zimmerman’s is not guilty of criminal homicide. The homicide was justifiable under Florida law. Give the jury some credit here, they labored over this for 16 hours. It was no snap decision.
Even the Florida State Attorney said this was not a racially motivated event, and yet that non-existent racial motivation is the grounds the malcontents are using to justify their request for DOJ intervention.
How about the contradictory testimony from people who said Zimmerman was not racist - that he spoke up in defense of minorities, tutored African-American kids, and so forth? Is there some reason you disregard that?
See, that’s my point – I know we’re not in a courtroom. But we’re in a debate. And a debate also requires that you, as the proponent of a proposition, bear the burden of asserting evidence for that position.
Sure it does. You are missing the point. We can likely infer that Zimmerman knew the race of the people he deemed suspicious even if the operator did not ask about it. The question, aside from your previous statement being factually incorrect, is whether race informed Zimmerman’s decision to call the police and whether that was a important criterion for whom he considered suspicious. If we can assume that the demographic makeup of the people who were not identified by race on his calls is similar to those who were identified upon questioning, and it does not match the racial makeup of the area in question, you can be reasonably sure that race was a factor in the mind of Zimmerman regarding who was suspicious.
The police are using race as a descriptor in an effort to identify the person later on if need be. Zimmerman seems to be using it as a criterion for whether one’s behavior is suspicious. Very big difference.
Perhaps because they only intended to follow up on those calls. I don’t know for sure, but that would be a reasonable guess.
I have yet to see any accountability on your part for making erroneous assumptions about things I have said in this thread. When can I expect that apology?
What evidence can anyone possible offer? We have direct evidence from a person who knows him and his family who says he was a racist, direct evidence from a coworker who claims he was harassed on account of his race. Exactly what evidence would you like?
Just out of curiosity, do you think he brother and dad are demonstrably racists?
That’s not contrary evidence. Being a racist in today’s society very rarely means you hate ALL x people. It usually means you harbor biases that affect your behavior. Being nice to one gay guy doesn’t erase calling a bunch of others faggots on a regular basis. This is why the, “…but I have Black friends” argument is trite and unpersuasive. Aside from clan members and neo-nazis, few have such an unequivocal approach to race.
I don’t disregard that. I maintain it’s largely irrelevant unless it’s somehow gonna prove he didn’t harass an middle-eastern guy, and that the unidentified witness didn’t hear him say racist things.
It’s like if two people said you were a thief, because they saw you steal something, then you try to rebut that claim by having people testify all the times you didn’t steal something. Today, being a racist doesn’t mean you HATE all X people and could never rise above your prejudices in a given circumstance. It just means you often give into them in certain contexts and situations.
But it doesn’t require evidence to be subject to cross examination, or to be given under oath. The fact that you think that is part of a debate only proves my point. That’s to say nothing of your initial misstatements regarding things I said, trying to make it seem like I was making a legal argument when I wasn’t. Regardless, this isn’t your first rodeo, and the prosecutor act is old and known at this point. Trying to deny it insults everyone who is privy to your habitual desire to do things like this.
The sum of the evidence you produced that Zimmerman actually had a bias against some black people is a set of accusations from a single, anonymous source.
Is there any sort of evidence you would accept as being contrary to those accusations?
He had a history of racism and had engaged in profiling before. As far as who was on top of who, while its possible martin could have ended up on top at one point, there is also hard evidence that zimmerman himself was on top, because HE TOLD THEM HE WAS.
If you sit down and really watch the tape of him explaining the the police at the scene, along with the 911 call, his statements at the station and subsequent statements he made, they conflict and are implausible.
That is incorrect. Racism is a prejudice against a race of people. It does not mean that you can not dislike (some) members of that class without being a racist.
As I posted in another thread, this country is racist to it’s core. When I see Martin’s newer pic’s, I see a typical 17 year old kid, even kind of reminds me of myself 25 years ago. To everybody else, he’s an animal, a savage. Of course he’ll never get to see 41, and the guy that caused it gets to walk away and go on with his life.
In NY, my state, he would have at least been convicted for menacing. Class B misdemeanor, but it’s something.
So I guess in Florida, I can follow random people around and if they take issue with that and decide to “stand their ground”, I can kill them. Is that OK? By the way, I’m black.
No. I didn’t demand cross-examination or an oath – I mentioned them as examples of the kinds of things that give indicia of reliability to statements. The point was not that you must have sworn statements – the point was you should have SOMETHING apart from bare allegations. Or in the alternative, if you accept bare allegations at face value, you should accept them from all sources, not just those that support your preferred narrative.
Two sources giving direct testimony about a perspective most are not willing or likely to admit publicly is pretty damming. It’s also likely to be a incomplete account of all the racial bias he has shown in his life. It’s like having two whistle blowers outlining an event. It’s pretty likely what they say is accurate.
Plus, we are have the indirect testimony of his demonstrably racist unofficial spokespeople (eg. dad and brother), the fact that he routinely calls the cops on “suspicious” Black people doing mundane things, and the fact that he ended up in a fatal altercation with a Black kid he was following for no apparent reason, and despite being told/asked/whatever not to. Not sure how much more evidence of racial bias and animus you are going to get from someone not in a klan robe.
As far as evidence he is not a racist. How about any evidence that the people making those accusations are wrong or misguided. Or some evidence of growth in his perspectives and opinions. To the day Martin was shot, he seemed to be racially profiling people. Again, the delineation regarding whether or not one is a racist is more so about the times who acts on those prejudices, not the times the don’t. Hell, Fred Phelps was a civil rights activist. Are you really gonna claim we really espoused those ideals given his behavior later in life?
No, he wouldn’t have. That law requires physical menace, and the intention to place someone in fear. Neither can be proven in this case.
As opposed to what? Setting aside the various questions of who confronted who in this case, you’d rather that if you followed a random person and they decided to punch you for it, you should have no choice but to lay there and get beaten to death for the sin of following someone?
First, I still haven’t gotten my apology/acknowledgement of your error.
Second, please point out which sources I haven’t accepted at face value? I fully accept that his friends don’t think he is a racist. I also contend that doesn’t tell up much about whether he is.
Third, cross-examination or an oath as things that an give indicia of reliability to statements, is only expected in a court of law, and reliable in a legal context- not in an informal debate upon which such things are usually not expected nor possible to obtain. An oath only means something if there is a penalty for violating it. Said penalty can only come from the court. To act as if that is a general standard of reliability outside a courtroom is foolish. People lie “under oath” all the time when perjury isn’t a possibly. An oath doesn’t mean shit without an punishment to back it up. Your contention that such things are meaningful or expected to bolster a claim is patently ridiculous. If it were, nobody could cite things given the people on the cite we likely not cross examined or out under oath.
Human Action, it means nothing to you that the Florida State Attorney in her post acquittal statement said that her staff, and others, had investigated the racism issue thoroughly and found that it did not exist?
I think you’re reading the law I linked to wrong. Following a random person for no reason and with no authority IS physical menace. I think my cite makes that quite clear.
As I said in the other thread, up here you don’t follow random people in the first place. To do so is considered a threat, and they would be well within their rights to punch me. and if they start beating me up and I shoot and kill them, yes. I’ll be in trouble for that. Maybe not murder, but I won’t walk away free like Zimmerman did.
You can watch, but you call the cops, the proper authority to actually follow the person.
I’ll remind you that Zimmerman was watching and following, and Martin was not doing any thing. That’s a fact.
Pretty much. But obviously, context matters here. I think most people would have a reasonable fear for their safety if they were being followed closely by unidentified non-LEO, who could physically harm them, at night, in an isolated area, who declined numerous opportunities to identify himself or defuse the situation. The fact that you followed someone under those circumstances is grounds for getting punched in the face if it comes to that. Should you be beaten to death? No, but there is not evidence that was a real likelihood in this case.
I am just surprised anyone would question that. Do you think that if a large man who follows a women to her apartment building at close range, he is not at fault if he ends up getting sprayed with pepper spray?
How would you react is some big dude is following you, and when you ask why, he says he has a right to follow you. If this guy got too close before you could seek help, you wouldn’t think about hitting him? What if you happen to lock eyes with a guy down an isolated street at night, and he begins running towards you. Do you not thing about defending yourself physically? What if you see he has a weapon on his body? Obviously a lot of that depends on your disposition, but I don’t think anyone would question you if you did, or accept this man’s, “it’s illegal to run down the street now” justification.
This is a pretty basic, well-known, human response. See this video. Should that kid be charged with assault? Of course not. If you put someone in that position, a good percentage of them with fight rather than flee. The price of making reasonable people fearful for their life is that you might get punched in the face or assaulted.