Sign up FAST! Login

Justice for Trayvon Martin! Sunday, 4pm, Powell and Market in SF

Stashed in: That's racist!

To save this post, select a stash from drop-down menu or type in a new one:

jay smooth ‏@jsmooth995  18h

The fundamental danger of an acquittal is not more riots, it is more George ZImmermans.

Kieran Healy ‏@kjhealy  9h

The arc of history is long, but it bends towards oh who the fuck am I kidding.

i think the danger is that people will continue to kill for less, in the same way they pay for less

Waylan, that's exactly the danger.

What is stopping someone for shooting/hurting/stabbing someone for fear they were going to steal their iphone?  I'm not being facetious (am I?).  Some people are as protective about their material possessions as their children - things that symbolize identity.

I fear the day that people hurt each other "for perilous fear" that someone was trying to steal their iPhone/purse (not trying to be facetious). People are as psychologically bound and protective of their material possessions as they are their children (if they have any)...

I know the law was designed to protect anyone in the ideal case of needing to protect yourself from harm, but Zimmerman/Martin showed the gray area of reality that law is forever inept to deal with (not saying it never works, but that it is constantly in need of adjustment according to society).

But it does remind me of that situation where the cops detained a man who was just recording video and then shot his dog. >> Was that cop "in perilous fear"? Was shooting the dog the appropriate action for the situation? They detained the owner > the dog, acting on instinct like an animal, was protecting its owner > the cop, acting on instinct like an animal(?), protected himself. If not, why the eff did he use such force? It is akin to saying: "I'd rather shoot/kill than be bitten. I'd rather exercise my power to kill than be caused even a fraction of the same pain." It means he made a rational choice to use a gun rather than any other action. And that displays a clear mis-evaluation of situation and life, which to me, precludes one from having the power.

>> That's what I mean about paying less to take more - that we are increasingly unwilling to give, and yet expect all the power to take. The balance of what people have earned is very skewed.

...Ultimately, I do think bringing up "racism" SEVERELY clouds any issue beyond the facts.

George Zimmerman verdict: Trayvon Martin confronted neighborhood watch volunteer, defense attorney says

"Who started the confrontation was a key point of controversy in the trial. Defense attorneys said that Martin "viciously attacked" Zimmerman, who shot in self-defense. Prosecutors claimed Zimmerman profiled the teen as a criminal in the community, confronted him and shot him "because he wanted to.""

Based on this, it sounds like both sides exaggerated and even oversimplified.  I'm actually disappointed by the Prosecution.

This whole situation points to a very grey area of the law.

It is likely that even though Zimmerman was not found guilty in a criminal court, he will have to pay a lot of financial damages in the civil court to the family of the boy he killed.

On what grounds?  Wrongful death?  Would a civil case against him be double jeopardy?  Dude said he was immune from civil action: "O'Mara cited a portion of Florida's "Stand your Ground" law that says a person is immune from suit if they act reasonably and in self -defense, saying Zimmerman would be immune from another potential legal action - a civil suit from the Martin family."

Well, I thought it would be a wrongful death suit, but I didn't realize "Stand your Ground" makes a person immune from that, too.

That's really messed up.

Yeah, because it's not a wrongful death - it was a consequence of a "self-defense action."  Even though he is responsible for the death, under SYG it is not a crime and therefore not a wrongdoing --- huh?

It has to be determined that the moment of the event was clouded with mishandling, that there should've been other actions used.  "Wrongful" means it shouldn't have occurred, and to me, I'm not using that as a general reference (no death really should occur), but as a reference to how other options were available.  

What about involuntary manslaughter?  

The fact that we are still left with so many questions, that the only thing people have to say is "what shouldn't have happened" (GZ shouldn't have gotten out of the car, TM shouldn't have turned around to follow GZ), that all we can do now is learn from the case and progress the law towards integrating new social situations... tells me it's still not resolved.

Was GZ's physical state assessed following the incident?  Was he really getting beaten on and did he show physical signs of an altercation?

PS, i really hate this editor reverting everything into one line

Ultimate irony, George Zimmmerman's own words:  "These assholes, they always get away."

A mindset that justified his aggression is now turned against him.  I wonder if his supporters get that.

They don't. And therefore this won't be the last time something like this happens.

Just for the record, I don't think the whole system is racist. 

It's not. This case was unusual. There were no witnesses and therefore not enough evidence to convict.

You May Also Like: